# 2.slo is faster than...



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

Ok guys, I know some of you love the 2.slo... I know I love it. Some of you hate it cause it is slow, but hey.. its not the slowest car on earth. What have you guys raced and won (Your slightly modified "ie: chip, exhaust, cams" 2.slo vs. Stock what?) from 0-60 to interstate speeds? Personally I have only challenged a few people.
Raced and won:
Chev Cavalier's all years
Mustang's *non-GT*
Civic's (had "Si" emblem but had rear drums so guessing DX)
Mazda Millinea
Pontiac Grand Am V6 (nice off the line but after that blah)
I'm guessing my 0-60 is somewhere around 8 seconds.
My mods: Swiss Cheese, Premium Gas, TT w/Borla Exhaust, 5w-30 syn oil.
***sorry if this doesn't make sence, reallyyy sleepy.


----------



## blackmkIII (May 18, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*

stock civic si's, non turbo eclipse's, 1 grand am, non vtec integras, and so on. that is with a chip, intake, and exhaust on my old mk3. the aba's have more tq than most of the competitors.


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (blackmkIII)*

Whoa whoa... an Si? As in like a 99-2000 model? They 0-60 in like 7 seconds..
This guy that is up where I work has a V6 mustang with like 300 pounds worth of audio crap in the trunk and he's always talkin trash about my car and sayin how much faster his V6 mustang is than any car in the parking garage. I laughed when he said that cause I was standing about 20 feet from a Porsche 911 Turbo. I like takin my car through the parking garage and revvin it a little when I get near where he works cause its loud as ****.. Love it when it backfires cause it echo's forever..
Man, i'm not makin sence to myself im too tired


----------



## Pagano (Sep 24, 2001)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*

...all sorts of things since I got the turbo...


----------



## DonL (Feb 28, 1999)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Pagano)*

This isn't going to become one of those "kill story" threads, is it..?


----------



## diablo7877 (Feb 11, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (blackmkIII)*

Was that Civic Si a new or old one? The new ones put 160 hp/132 tq with a redline of 6800... I think that would wreck me. (Exhaust, Intake) *Shrugs* Oh well, chip might push it over and allow you to win. Heck, a good chunk of the race is the driver too...
I've beaten thus far:
'85 Honda Accord (lol)
Early 90's Nissan V6 Maxima (Was beat to hell, and an auto)
'00 Ford Escort
Bunch of civics with fart cans that think they're hot
I've lost to:
'02 V6 Saturn (forget the name but it's pushing like 220 hp)
'04 Lexus IS300
Sleeper Civics
Probably a lot more
Yea, that was fun. I've realized that I don't do anything but sit on my ass at work and read the 'tex.


----------



## mhskateboarder (Oct 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (diablo7877)*


_Quote, originally posted by *diablo7877* »_ I've realized that I don't do anything but sit on my ass at work and read the 'tex.









yeah, me too. that's why i'm looking for a new job


----------



## cozjetta (Jul 13, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Pagano)*

What size turbo did you buy and who did you buy it from.


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Pagano)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pagano* »_...all sorts of things since I got the turbo...









I said slightly modded... 
Could a slightly modded 2.slo beat a v6 camaro?

How would my car do vs. a V6 5-spd mustang on the interstate 70-110?
The point of this thread is to see how my car compares to other cars so I can see the improvement when I add mod's.


----------



## blackmkIII (May 18, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*

about the cars that ive beat......... quite a few of those were a drivers race..... oh yeah when it came to the si i might have won by two feet, but i still won. those things pull hard up top.
about he mustang....i think he'd probably slowly pull on you through the whole run.

_Modified by blackmkIII at 10:02 PM 7-19-2004_


_Modified by blackmkIII at 10:04 PM 7-19-2004_


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (blackmkIII)*

ya ... i love the VW torque .. well only car ive gotten to race was a souped up Lancer Ralliart edition ... 160 hp idk what they run torque wise


----------



## vasillalov (Nov 5, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*

Ha this is an interesting one!
Cavaliers, I hope that you did not race against a Z24. That would have been a major disappointment. My previous ride was an 89 Z24, 2.8 V6. Monster! My GF got so used to driving it that she bought one of fer own, a 92 Z24 but with the 3.1 V6.
I drive her car on a semi-daily basis. One thing is for sure, I hit 105 mph on third at 5400 rpms which is the red line!








See, I love my 2.0 and I am saving for a Neuspeed Supercharger. Then I will have some fun on the road!

EDIT:
BTW there is no replacement for displacement. It really makes me laugh at 1.8t guys how they pull on camaro's and stuff. Well they pull against the cheap stuff. I want to see them pull on an 1992 Camaro IROC-Z. This thing weights only 2800 lbs but has 425 hp stock! That would teach any 4 banger a good lesson!


_Modified by vasillalov at 7:59 PM 7-19-2004_


----------



## Neckromacr (Aug 1, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (vasillalov)*

I almost had that tortise the other day.








But seriously I don't go looking to see who I can beat, I drive and modify my car for my own enjoyment. And face it Tourque makes it fun.
I also know she's not terribly fast, but the engine has had mild problems and gets some decent milage. What more could you want out of a daily driver?
I'm honest with myself, but some people get the wrong idea when they see my plates.


----------



## yellowgtiguy (Jun 16, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Neckromacr)*

i think the best race was a mk4 wolfsburg jetta 20v. i was drivin the strip and he cought up to me and we turned around at the light and got side by side. we both hit it from a 1st gear role, i pulled a little in second and then 3rd was dead even. but you got to give it up for the 2.0 second gear, it could beat almost anything. beat most of the riced civics but where i live its alot of sleeper civics. 
beats neons and civics. as for vw's its even with the jetta and a mk3 vr6 and i guess it was stock.











_Modified by yellowgtiguy at 9:15 PM 7-19-2004_


----------



## shftat6 (Oct 9, 2000)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (yellowgtiguy)*

Anybody else smell that.............


----------



## RADsoc014 (Jan 14, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (shftat6)*

with my MKIV, i've beaten the mid 90's triburon. cavaliers (non z-24), haven't lost to an opposing mkiv 2.0 yet, beat a few mk3 golfs and jettas, beat by most of them casue of the weight difference. any LX honduh or non turbo eclipse i've beaten. it all veryies, with a v6 camero he pulled 1 car length out of the hole and then from there we were dead even till 100 when i stopped. thats about all i remember from the past 6-7 months


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (RADsoc014)*

for you who say there is no replacement for displacement.... that might of been the case until god invented the turbo!


----------



## ramylson (Dec 11, 2001)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*

I remember seeing a quote on here some where:
There's no replacement for displacement.. well, except technology!


----------



## Phrost (Mar 8, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (ramylson)*

Honduh's vtec pisses me off... I still can't beat them


----------



## keisersoze (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Phrost)*

I got wasted by a nissan 350z the other day. Maybe I should keep to the speed limit so I dont embarrass myself.
How much are chips and what will they do for me?


----------



## dichron (Nov 4, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (keisersoze)*

i can usually beat any stock v6 SUV in my golf...


----------



## nickkk (Jul 5, 2004)

I have beat 96-99 neons.... a couple POS half dead but slightly modded civics.. 
now being the thrill adventurer i am i raced a 67 GTO...Lost......







but thats the kinda race its good to lose
iv lost to a Cavalier Z24
lost to a 79 trans am
this is all with my stock 2003 Golf with a custom built exhaust from the cad back


----------



## J-dubb (Jul 19, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*

I do love the 2.0 and have won a few races.








Against a focus which he said was chipped with a aeroflo muffler.
Against a Civic which looked like it had work done, but you never know.
And against an Eclipse stock.
My mods: Just Nuespeed cold air intake 
short-throw shifter
and 2.5" from cat back with a muffler(don't remember the
name, but I'll get it)


----------



## yellowgtiguy (Jun 16, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (shftat6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *shftat6* »_Anybody else smell that.............

mods.
intake, ported tb, 268 cam, adj cam gear, port and polish head, hd valve springs, bosal header, high flow cat, tt borla exhaust, udp pully, gerrit chip, 16v clutck kit, lightened flywheel... i think thats it. 
is it spose to smell like sh!t


----------



## jtreyesg2 (Aug 11, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (yellowgtiguy)*

The answer!!!!


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (jtreyesg2)*

How do you guys think I would fare against a mustang v6 5-spd?
Mustang Specs:
Base Engine Size: 3.8 liters 
Base Engine Type: V6 
Horsepower: 150 hp 
Max Horsepower: 4000 rpm 
Torque: 215 ft-lbs. 
Max Torque: 2750 rpm 
Drive Type: RWD 
Considering that the driver, well.. Isn't skinny and has mayb 200lbs of stereo crap in the trunk. 
The reason I say is because its a guy up at work and he keeps talkin crap about my car, one of the other guys owned him in a Lincoln Mark VIII. Some of the guys are placing bet's. The guy with the Lincoln is wanting to put down $200 in favor of me. I dont want to disappoint and or embarass myself or my coworkers so for now im post-poning. 
Anyone raced one? 0-60? 70-100?


----------



## Pagano (Sep 24, 2001)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (ramylson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ramylson* »_There's no replacement for displacement.. well, except technology!


----------



## cjoseph82 (Jun 28, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*

dude, let NO ONE trash talk your car, especially if you got a decent chance of cleaning house. It's not like this fool has any balls. Who the hell goes and gets a 5-spd Mustang in a V6??? F*ck that! He should talk! If he had the GT, then I'd say let him talk and back down. Just key it up later.... What mods do either of you have? Gimme more detail about both of your rides. Crap, I'll throw down $200 too in your favor, bro!


----------



## diablo7877 (Feb 11, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (cjoseph82)*

Yea, V6 mustangs = SLOW. Heck, even the GT's are slow for the size of the engine... It's pushing 225 hp out of a huge V8... Not very efficient at all. Course, it does have a LOT of torque but y'know. I would say you have a decent chance of taking him... I took a V6 Maxima before, granted it was a beat old one but still.


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (cjoseph82)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cjoseph82* »_dude, let NO ONE trash talk your car, especially if you got a decent chance of cleaning house. It's not like this fool has any balls. Who the hell goes and gets a 5-spd Mustang in a V6??? F*ck that! He should talk! If he had the GT, then I'd say let him talk and back down. Just key it up later.... What mods do either of you have? Gimme more detail about both of your rides. Crap, I'll throw down $200 too in your favor, bro!

His ride?
Mods:
"Performance tiirreessses yo."
Shift knob
A large 3 foot long x 1 wide tube containing two twelve inch speakers
Personalized license plate
Driver weighing probably 220lbs.
Mine:
Swiss Cheese Box
TT 2.25 w/ Borla Cat Back
Falken Ziex on stock 14" rims
TT Chip (soon)
TT 260 Cam (soon)

He got spanked by a Lincoln Mark VIII.
My car seems fast for a 2.0, I messed with a vr6 gti on the interstate to work and he didn't pull away from me (I was in his draft if that matters).
The only race ive lost is to a Mustang Cobra, and I still wasn't impressed. I figured he would walk me but he really didn't pull away from me like I figured he would. He didn't accelerate like I thought a Cobra should, although when I was at.. too freaking fast, he was still accelerating. I'm planning on taking my car to a track and seeing what it can do. Other than seeing nice cars on an empty interstate, i have no way of comparing my car to see what I might run. 
I am extreamly pleased with my 2.0 8-valve. I'm not big into racing (seen a few accidents) but i have to give credit to VW for this nice engine. Certainly beats my old Honda civic


----------



## diablo7877 (Feb 11, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *temp xathor* »_but i have to give credit to VW for this nice engine. Certainly beats my old Honda civic









Ha ha, yea I'm an old Civic driver too... Jetta's/Golf's are WAY faster than any stock civic... Atleast IMHO. (Course I had the REALLY crappy non vtec civic LX, but still!)


----------



## 04civicvp (Jul 22, 2004)

V6 Mustang should be no problem. Even a V6 Camaro won't be much of a problem after you put the chip in. I used to beat up on them all the time when I had my Jetta.
And here is something ironic.....I now drive a Civic with the non-vtec 1.7 liter. It has the same hp as a stock 2.0 8 valve, but 12 less ft-lbs of torque. I would love to run a stock 2 liter with my Civic right now to see how it does.


----------



## diablo7877 (Feb 11, 2004)

*Re: (04civicvp)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04civicvp* »_I would love to run a stock 2 liter with my Civic right now to see how it does.

You wouldn't do too well... No offense intended, but my sister has a 2k2 civic (my old one) with that same engine... (It's really a 1.64 liter, so technically it should be a 1.6 shouldn't it?) And we were screwin' around one time, and she gunned it, and I EASILY took her. Of course there was the difference between Auto and Manual (she has an auto) so y'know... I dunno, it wouldn't be a horrible race but it wouldn't be great either.


----------



## 04civicvp (Jul 22, 2004)

*Re: (diablo7877)*

Is your Jetta stock? I unfortunately have an auto in my Civic, but that was not by my choice. I have already found out that from a roll I need to downshift the tranny before taking off because there is too much shift lag. From a dead stop though, I think it would be a good race.


----------



## docspeed1 (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (vasillalov)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vasillalov* »_
EDIT:
BTW there is no replacement for displacement. It really makes me laugh at 1.8t guys how they pull on camaro's and stuff. Well they pull against the cheap stuff. I want to see them pull on an 1992 Camaro IROC-Z. This thing weights only 2800 lbs but has 425 hp stock! That would teach any 4 banger a good lesson!

_Modified by vasillalov at 7:59 PM 7-19-2004_


Please tell me you're joking about your '92 IROC specs


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (docspeed1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *docspeed1* »_

Please tell me you're joking about your '92 IROC specs
















Yeah, they only have like 300 something HP... 
old v8's wont be as fast as they were new...


----------



## crazydubman (Nov 2, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*

well i can't speak about races too much but i pulled hard on a neuspeed SCed mk4 Golf. hung with all my vr6 friends most slightly modded. was neck and neck with my friends 20th (180hp 6 speed) till the top of third from a dead stop. and the quarter mile times thus far have been ok








the car weighed 2535 with me.
on a .000 tree
1st run 
reaction .204 
I1 2.176 
I2 6.309 
I3 9.775
MPH I3 70.530
I4 12.760
E.T. 15.295
MPH 89.384
2nd run
reaction 1.311 other car deep staged didn't know the tree would go
I1 2.171
I2 6.308
I3 9.768
MPH I3 70.919
I4 12.750
E.T. 15.284
MPH 89.639
so i think it can get out of its own way but i have a few more mods than other 2.0's do and soo to have a bunch more


----------



## seventyfive (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (crazydubman)*

i beat a schoool bus this morning...short one with tint windows and a crane cam sticker on the bumper


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (seventyfive)*

Reading this thread is depressing. More than half of the people running their mouths on here have 1. never been to the track to see how poorly their cars actually run. 2. never actually raced the cars they are saying.
I'm sorry but it is IMPOSSIBLE that a 2litre VW without significant (i.e. forced induction) work can even see the tail lights of a Cobra if that driver is actually trying. A mildly worked 2.0 may be able to give a V6 mustang a close run, however it will need help (a retarded driver, lots of extra weight) to beat them with any sort of ease.
Perhaps if most of you actually went to the track you'd realise that when real people really race, the 2.0 has very little to stand on. Trust me, the first time you produce a stack of 17-second time slips you will curse every strait road on the planet... then you will cry.


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (punisher89)*


_Quote, originally posted by *punisher89* »_Reading this thread is depressing. More than half of the people running their mouths on here have 1. never been to the track to see how poorly their cars actually run. 2. never actually raced the cars they are saying.
I'm sorry but it is IMPOSSIBLE that a 2litre VW without significant (i.e. forced induction) work can even see the tail lights of a Cobra if that driver is actually trying. A mildly worked 2.0 may be able to give a V6 mustang a close run, however it will need help (a retarded driver, lots of extra weight) to beat them with any sort of ease.
Perhaps if most of you actually went to the track you'd realise that when real people really race, the 2.0 has very little to stand on. Trust me, the first time you produce a stack of 17-second time slips you will curse every strait road on the planet... then you will cry.

Whoa whoa whoa, i never said i beat a cobra. I just said it wasn't as fast as I thought it would be. It was an older one if that makes a difference. I'm not talking about the new one with the funny front skirt and the huge ass wing. Dont be all upset cause your car is slow. I'm just saying it is actually faster than a lot of normal cars on the road, if you think about it. My car is no more special to the other people on the road, I doubt they even notice me. but when a civic driving is like 2 inches off your tail on the interstate weaving in and out of cars its nice to show them up. I wouldn't care if i got beat by a geo metro, I love my car... its my car, I wouldn't care if it were twice as slow. I enjoy driving it, its smooth and a confortable car that has nice styling and is 100x better than my previous car (97 Civic DX coupe)


----------



## jtdunc (Dec 7, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (cjoseph82)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cjoseph82* »_dude, let NO ONE trash talk your car, especially if you got a decent chance of cleaning house. It's not like this fool has any balls. Who the hell goes and gets a 5-spd Mustang in a V6??? F*ck that! He should talk! If he had the GT, then I'd say let him talk and back down. Just key it up later.... What mods do either of you have? Gimme more detail about both of your rides. Crap, I'll throw down $200 too in your favor, bro!

I've smoked a lot of V6 Mustangs, some modified ricers, and even some older guys in Porsches from stop light to stop light.
Having horsepower does not mean you know hwo to use it.
If you know how to drive and shift your car, you can beat a lot of cars inside 20 -30 yards or blow them off on the highway short distance.
Just don't play with a McLaren or a Porsche Turbo with a young guy with balls.
If you know your car, you can smoke most.


----------



## megafreakindeth (Jul 23, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (docspeed1)*

unfortunatly for those of you who beat v6 mustangs, your not alone, they suck really really really bad. and a stock 2.0 golf is still ten times better than any non turbo civic. that aside my golf is my beater and it gets beat quite often.
and an iroc-z doesnt weigh 2800 my 4 banger mustang weighs that much and isnt nearly the size of that thing


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (megafreakindeth)*

Alright, sometime tomorrow i'm gonna time out my 0-60 and 0-100 times and post em up for ya guys.
What I need:
My video camera
Tri-pod
Bungee Cords
Duct Tape
Digital Atomic Clock


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*

Oh, and as well, could I time out my .2 and .3 miles times and average it to get a rough quarter mile??


----------



## diablo7877 (Feb 11, 2004)

*Re: (04civicvp)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04civicvp* »_Is your Jetta stock? I unfortunately have an auto in my Civic, but that was not by my choice. I have already found out that from a roll I need to downshift the tranny before taking off because there is too much shift lag. From a dead stop though, I think it would be a good race.

At the time it was stock... Not anymore..


----------



## JeffMk4 (Nov 6, 2003)

*Re: (diablo7877)*

Im pretty proud of my 2.0
i went from a stock 17.8 in the 1/4 
to a modified 16.8 1/4
not to bad for only having intake, cat back exhaust w/high flow cat, 
dog bone motor mount, and plugs and wires
i've won a few races, the best one would have to be against a v6 auto eclipse


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *temp xathor* »_
Whoa whoa whoa, i never said i beat a cobra. 
 
Funny, I never said that either. I said you wouldn't even see its tail lights.


_Quote, originally posted by *temp xathor* »_ Dont be all upset cause your car is slow. I'm just saying it is actually faster than a lot of normal cars on the road, if you think about it. 

My car is probably just as fast as yours (unlike you I actually know how fast my car is, I'm not just guessing) My best quarter mile was a [email protected] mph. And yes, your car is probably faster than a lot of 'normal' cars on the road when they are driving 'normal' and you are driving as fast as you can. Which was the point of my post in case you missed it. Most of the people on this thread are going out and running the crap out of their cars against people who don't even recognize the fact they they exist. THen claiming 'I beat them'. Take it to the track, get a real timeslip, see how other people run, then open your mouth.


----------



## mattkosem (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (diablo7877)*


_Quote, originally posted by *diablo7877* »_I've lost to:
'02 V6 Saturn (forget the name but it's pushing like 220 hp)


The only v6 saturns made prior to 2003 were 183HP and either L300's or Vue's. The VUE has a 250hp power plant now.
--Matt


----------



## ALBeRts J3ttA IV (Apr 22, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (punisher89)*

just wanted to say that this was an interesting topic..... a lot of things tho sound full of it....
but hell, i love my 2.0 too... the only "mods" it has is a drop in K&N filter and i can tell the exhaust has been messed with... (i got it used)...
i race my car for absolute fun, and i know that may be dumb and wut not, but i dont exagurate (LMAO how the hell do you spell it???







) with speeding on the street/highway.....
the funnest runs ive had was with my friends beat up 93 GT auto.. i wooped the hell out of him, i was LMAO to the next light....
ive gone against a 98-00 maxima from a 30-40 roll... lol... i redlined my 3 to a little over 80... he hung with me but thats only cuz i was playing with him, im sure i would of pulled on him if i floored it the WHOLE way...
lol, i recently went against a 1.8T GTI and that was really fun, of course he left me like i was standing still, but it was kool http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
i made a pizza delivery man in a newish corola look like an idiot for even trying.. that was great....and funny

one time drove along a SPIDER eclipse, V6... we got to a red light, but he was there before me, and as SOON as i stoped, the light was green so i didnt expect a race, but he floored it!







.... i hanged with him the whole way until about 60-ish.... ******* made a right when we hit traffic....i could of taken him...







... ok ok.. but MAYYYBE!!!!!
yes there are other but im sure i bored all of you by now....
BTW, i got a 88 cavalier Z24 conv. ......







. that v6 halls.. lol... i wana run it against my 2.0 for the hell of it... LOL..
i like to have fun on the road while still having some common sense.....
feel free to talk crap, i dont care...








p.s. sorry for the long post


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (ALBeRts J3ttA IV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ALBeRts J3ttA IV* »_just wanted to say that this was an interesting topic..... a lot of things tho sound full of it....
but hell, i love my 2.0 too... the only "mods" it has is a drop in K&N filter and i can tell the exhaust has been messed with... (i got it used)...
i race my car for absolute fun, and i know that may be dumb and wut not, but i dont exagurate (LMAO how the hell do you spell it???







) with speeding on the street/highway.....
the funnest runs ive had was with my friends beat up 93 GT auto.. i wooped the hell out of him, i was LMAO to the next light....
ive gone against a 98-00 maxima from a 30-40 roll... lol... i redlined my 3 to a little over 80... he hung with me but thats only cuz i was playing with him, im sure i would of pulled on him if i floored it the WHOLE way...
lol, i recently went against a 1.8T GTI and that was really fun, of course he left me like i was standing still, but it was kool http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
i made a pizza delivery man in a newish corola look like an idiot for even trying.. that was great....and funny

one time drove along a SPIDER eclipse, V6... we got to a red light, but he was there before me, and as SOON as i stoped, the light was green so i didnt expect a race, but he floored it!







.... i hanged with him the whole way until about 60-ish.... ******* made a right when we hit traffic....i could of taken him...







... ok ok.. but MAYYYBE!!!!!
yes there are other but im sure i bored all of you by now....
BTW, i got a 88 cavalier Z24 conv. ......







. that v6 halls.. lol... i wana run it against my 2.0 for the hell of it... LOL..
i like to have fun on the road while still having some common sense.....
feel free to talk crap, i dont care...








p.s. sorry for the long post









exactly the kind of post i was looking for. I dont run the piss out of my car against people who arn't racing. I plan it out with my friends as a fun activity when there are no cars or bystanders. I'd rather race on a twisty road, but that is much more dangerous than racing my buddy 0-60. The only actual "street race"'s that i have done that weren't planned out were people coming to stoplights.. then at the last second flooring their car.


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*

Cavalier Z24's aren't that fast......150HP stock. We had an '89.....I hated that thing....


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (ALBeRts J3ttA IV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ALBeRts J3ttA IV* »_
ive gone against a 98-00 maxima from a 30-40 roll... lol... i redlined my 3 to a little over 80... he hung with me but thats only cuz i was playing with him, im sure i would of pulled on him if i floored it the WHOLE way...



Umm... no. No you didn't. An Altima, maybe. A Maxima? No.


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (punisher89)*

UH YA PUNISHER! ive done the same thing against a friend of mine's maxima .. why do you have to tell everyone who they did and didnt race.. maybe the person who beat the maxima can drive and the guy driving the maxima cant... maybe it was on a cury road so it wasn't just a race of pure power . ever think of that? this thread should be for kicks and i think that's what the original post ment. god lighten up man! just a post


----------



## ALBeRts J3ttA IV (Apr 22, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*

lol, wow i thot a lot of people would talk crap but only one guy did.... so far.. lol, kool.... 
punisher: yea, i DID go against the maxima... you can think otherwise, but I was there, in my car.... ahead of him








temp is right, most of our races arent even planned... they just happen, we dont go looking for them.... 
impulse, yeah, i think he had an auto... it was a straight a way BTW, on victory, in front of pierce college... im sure someone know wut im talking about... very long stretch http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_this thread should be for kicks and i think that's what the original post ment. god lighten up man! just a post


----------



## ALBeRts J3ttA IV (Apr 22, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *temp xathor* »_Alright, sometime tomorrow i'm gonna time out my 0-60 and 0-100 times and post em up for ya guys

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif i believe today is tomorrow.... hope you post them up soon


----------



## yellowgtiguy (Jun 16, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (docspeed1)*

well if it makes anyone feel better my friend went a 11.92 @ 117 on friday at capital raceway. rabbit with 1.8t on pump gas


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (yellowgtiguy)*

Alright, just numbers. A 98-00 Maxima had at least 200hp (i think 222 was the exact number) ran the quarter in like 15 flat and could easily top 140. Now I'm supposed to believe that with a 115hp (120 with your "mods") in your portly mk4 you are supposed to come close to him on a roll?? Have y'all ever driven a maxima, like really driven it. That car is a top end machine. Maybe, Maybe if it was a carload of fat chicks pulling a refrigerated trailer of Klondike Bars. But seriously. 


_Quote, originally posted by *yellowgtiguy* »_well if it makes anyone feel better my friend went a 11.92 @ 117 on friday at capital raceway. rabbit with 1.8t on pump gas









On another note.... Damn, thats sexy.


----------



## yellowgtiguy (Jun 16, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (punisher89)*

i went for a ride in the rabbit the other day,,,,it wasnt even fast....it was more like dangerious. with street tires and 20 lbs of boost he can roast 3rd gear from a 60 mph role. but ist pretty cool to race a vette and burn up the wheels as you pass them by.


----------



## vdubyaman (May 10, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (punisher89)*

alright, alright, alright.. now he's been busting our balls so far, but the fat chicks towing the klondike bars was pretty damn funny, you gotta give him a little credit


----------



## BlkJettaGT (Jul 22, 2003)

Maximas are very fast. I have an 02 Maxima and it puts my 2.0 to shame. Most VR6's wont touch my maxima. I beat a 3000GT and a Ford Taurus SHO in the maxima. I dunno - maybe it was a driver race but car v car....the 2.0 would NEVER even come CLOSE to the maxima without some serious mods.


----------



## yellowgtiguy (Jun 16, 2002)

*Re: (BlkJettaGT)*

sorry new times on the rabbit it went a 11.6 today, it was a little cooler today i guess it made a difference.


----------



## BlkJettaGT (Jul 22, 2003)

How about an engine pic of that rabbit???


----------



## ALBeRts J3ttA IV (Apr 22, 2004)

*Re: (BlkJettaGT)*

i see.... i didnt know how powerful they were...
no doubt it WAS a maxima tho.. oh and we BOTH did have 3 people in our cars... but i guess it equals out







.... 
no doubt it was fun.. maybe he was juss meesin with me too... 
...still fun http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mad23handles (May 19, 2004)

eh no offense (I love my 2.0), but an 98-00 Maxima (even a 96 for all I care) would burn a 2.0, even with moderate modifications. I raced my friend's 96 Maxima with intake and a new exhaust system and he smoked me real good (it was an automatic too). Yes, I can race, and yes it was planned. Maximas have it in the engine, where 2.0s simply don't. You'd need to really modify your 2.0 to come close to a stock maxima


----------



## diablo7877 (Feb 11, 2004)

*Re: (mad23handles)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mattkosem* »_
The only v6 saturns made prior to 2003 were 183HP and either L300's or Vue's. The VUE has a 250hp power plant now.
--Matt

I take that back... I think it's a '04 V6 Saturn... I was completely guessing the HP number, but I know it's over 200.

_Quote, originally posted by *mad23handles* »_eh no offense (I love my 2.0), but an 98-00 Maxima (even a 96 for all I care) would burn a 2.0, even with moderate modifications. I raced my friend's 96 Maxima with intake and a new exhaust system and he smoked me real good (it was an automatic too). Yes, I can race, and yes it was planned. Maximas have it in the engine, where 2.0s simply don't. You'd need to really modify your 2.0 to come close to a stock maxima

For the record... Year of Maxima makes a HUGE difference... The one I raced (and beat) was a 90-94 GXE with the 160hp/190tq engine... (Jetta makes 115hp/122tq) You also have to realize the Maxima is a HEAVY car. It weighs 3129 lbs, whereas our Jetta's weigh 2647 lbs. Standard drag theory is 100 lbs = 10 hp. Welp, the difference from weight adds aproximately 50 hp to the Jetta... Plus, my Jetta isn't stock. Oh, and also... His car was auto and he beats the hell out of it, so I'm sure his power has decreased quite a bit since he got it.
Want proof? SURE:
Maxima: http://auto.consumerguide.com/.../2078
Jetta: http://auto.consumerguide.com/.../2112
However, as far as the A4 keeping up with the newer maxima? Doubtful...







A4's are heavier with no extra power over the A3's, and the newer maxima's have TONS more power with VERY little extra weight over the older maximas.
'00-'01 Maximas have a SOHC V6 with 222-227 (depending on year) hp/217tq
Or 02-03's have DOHC V6 w/ 255hp/246tq (DAMN!)
Yea, newer maximas = fast.











_Modified by diablo7877 at 2:33 AM 7-26-2004_


----------



## yellowgtiguy (Jun 16, 2002)

*Re: (diablo7877)*

the motor was totally fabbed by the owner in his bacement.








drag set up


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

*Re: (yellowgtiguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yellowgtiguy* »_










Very nice. Is the diptick bent outwards to clear the plenum or is it in the stock position? Just asking as I am working on an intake that will come very close to the dipstick...similar to the above pic








One more thing...is the stock throttle cable being utilized or was a longer one needed










_Modified by bajan01 at 10:31 PM 7-25-2004_


----------



## ALBeRts J3ttA IV (Apr 22, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (ALBeRts J3ttA IV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ALBeRts J3ttA IV* »_
ive gone against a 98-00 maxima 


sorry, i thought the 98 thru 00 were the same, but the one i raced was the 98 model... so i understand why you guys didnt believe me.... anyone got the specs on that one?


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (ALBeRts J3ttA IV)*

The rule of thumb is usually around 5HP or a tenth of a second in the 1/4 for every 100lbs lost....not 10HP


----------



## 04civicvp (Jul 22, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (ALBeRts J3ttA IV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ALBeRts J3ttA IV* »_
... but the one i raced was the 98 model... so i understand why you guys didnt believe me.... anyone got the specs on that one?









curb weight: 3001 lbs
HP: 190
TQ: 205
"We timed a GXE with the automatic transmission at 7.9 seconds to 60 mph. " - Consumer Guide


_Modified by 04civicvp at 3:01 AM 7-26-2004_


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (04civicvp)*

well a friend of mine ( one i beat) was either a 96'-97 maxima. his car is really heavy , stock suspension , big system, and an intake and exhaust shop special exhaust. 
my jetta is extremely lightened now. i have the MK4 pig. mods i have 
suspension , cam , cam gear , big bore intake , ignition upgrades , and most of the power comes a racing ecu i have. then to help the motor pull i have pulleys and VWR engine mounts. 
we raced from a 40-40 roll ( take off at 40) for the people who might not know. it was really close and i got him on the top end because that's where my car shines . but i figured i would throw that in . im goin to the dyno has soon as my car gets out of the body shop. and i have the time


----------



## diablo7877 (Feb 11, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (VW97Jetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VW97Jetta* »_The rule of thumb is usually around 5HP or a tenth of a second in the 1/4 for every 100lbs lost....not 10HP

Really? I heard it was 10 hp... *Shrugs* Oh well, I can't really explain why I won then... He was definitely trying as hard as he could. It was funny cause he was talking tons of trash before we raced, then he was all quiet... Heh. Maybe the gear ratios of the manual tranny won out against his auto. God knows, but hell, I don't care... I WON! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (diablo7877)*

shoot the maxima i beat ... well we beat a 350z tonight in it ... no lie wish i had it on video tape . we first beat a 1.8t that was bein stupid and the 350 was behind him and then he slowly moved his way up and we got onto the"track where you can get on it and he had us for a few seconds but like it's been stated the maxima had him as soon as he got up in the high r's ... i know it has nothing to do with the 2.0 but jus stating ... sometimes it's about the driver


----------



## TXBDan (Dec 29, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*

i'm gonna have to agree w/ punisher89.. a lot of you guys are smokin crack


----------



## yellowgtiguy (Jun 16, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (TXBDan)*

peanut butter and crack sandwich ummmmm uuummmm


----------



## Vert2PointO (Apr 6, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (punisher89)*


_Quote, originally posted by *punisher89* »_Reading this thread is depressing. More than half of the people running their mouths on here have 1. never been to the track to see how poorly their cars actually run. 2. never actually raced the cars they are saying.
I'm sorry but it is IMPOSSIBLE that a 2litre VW without significant (i.e. forced induction) work can even see the tail lights of a Cobra if that driver is actually trying. A mildly worked 2.0 may be able to give a V6 mustang a close run, however it will need help (a retarded driver, lots of extra weight) to beat them with any sort of ease.
Perhaps if most of you actually went to the track you'd realise that when real people really race, the 2.0 has very little to stand on. Trust me, the first time you produce a stack of 17-second time slips you will curse every strait road on the planet... then you will cry.

i don't really care. i pretty much know for a fact that i'll never 'beat' anything with a six cylinder motor (unless it really IS a p.o.s.), even most multi-valve 4's. but i expect, and know in everyday 'real' life i can keep them in sights. who the f*ck cares if i have to push my car hard? i don't. it's fun to try anyway, and if you happen to experience the 'reality' of vail or loveland pass(es) in colorado, the 2.0 will certainly smoke other compacts which are generally faster in straight, flat lines. and especially anything w/ an automatic (and in this case; even some v6's) vw's are not about straight lines anyway, and never have been. my dad used to tell me, when my parents owned and still drove the beetle, that every car on the road would pass him on the hills, straights, whatever...but once the road made any turns or twists he could pass them at a certain greater rate of speed than they had taken him on the straight. it's always been that way for me too, in the jett. (and i remember in h.s. people being freaked by how fast the little beetle could carve it up, heh) other cars can fly by me but i keep it in mind; "just wait 'till the canyon buddy...."








so, talk about 'time slips' and 'straight line' and 'really racing' and i don't think _you_ really get volkswagen, either...as states the signature.
i fully agree with the cobra/2.0 statement. but i wonder if the person who originally posted the 'story' really knew what was going on. i once 'toyed' with, and was conversely toyed with, by an m5 on the interstate. i was _trying_ to get him to nail it, just to see how fast those d*mn things are in 'real' life. we got up to around 110mph and he didn't pull away from me, he was a little too responsible (i think there was a lady in the car as well) but certainly wasn't going to let me by him.







i knew he could still smoke those big fat rear tires of his even at that speed, and i really wish he would have done so <sigh>. would have been cool to see. in that case, i really did 'keep up' with an m5, even though a 2.0 would absolutely-never-ever 'keep up' with an m5.


----------



## Pagano (Sep 24, 2001)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Vert2PointO)*

This post went into the ****ter real quick


----------



## DA_LUV_4_DA_DUB (Mar 12, 2004)

was cruising down da road and went up against subaru impreza(im not sure but i can tell it wasnt the wrx), we went and i was laughing soo hard b/c he redlined all the way to third and i just shifted to second by the time he was in third and i was pulling on him and he turned off the road when i hit second gear b/c i started to pull even harder on him, then i backed off it was funny


----------



## mk3jetta17 (May 31, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (punisher89)*

altimas can be beaten..i know first hand but not a maxima...no friggin way.


----------



## mk3jetta17 (May 31, 2004)

I got a 97 jetta gls 2.0.....this is my street racing career...I recently beat a late 90s altima but not by much...i can barely inch out a accord lx..both of those are automatics tho..i lost to a zx2 by like 1 to 2 car lenghts..my friends 2.0 golf mk 4 kills me in 2nd gear..cuz we got different trannys...i can beat ls cavies...i lost by 2 car lenghts to a v6 cavie...lost by 3 car lenghts to a z24 new cavileer..lost about the same to an automatic prelude..i wasnt really impressed with the power from some silverados with a 350..cant say i would for sure beat them but they are not real quick at all...i cant really think of anything else right now..


----------



## mk3jetta17 (May 31, 2004)

*Re: (mk3jetta17)*

o i forgot one ...automatic corolas are very very very slo..i win by like 5 car lenghts..its pretty sad...and a manual all wheel drive rav4 i can beat by like a car length..i think the kid sucks at driving tho..that should be about it..


----------



## BlkJettaGT (Jul 22, 2003)

my friend has an automatic carolla and he thinks he can beat me. Think my 2.0 could take his carolla? (his is auto - i have 5 sp)


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: (BlkJettaGT)*

Zx2 eh? My friend had a zx2 and a left her behind. Then she wrecked it the next day so.. yeah.
Corolla's and Camery's are soo slow. I work for Avis rent a car, and I get out of some of those cars and I get into my car.. it feels like a ferarri. We have some fast cars, Grand Prix's, Bonnevilles, Grand Am's, Impala LS's... my car feel's faster than them all. I dont know. I've read that some engines are knockout's and some are dud's, specifically here on the vortex. I read about VR6's, that some are quick and some are slower. Maybe my engine is one of the better ones? Maybe i'm a better driver?
I started this post because I wanted to get a baseline figure of what stock for stock could do... and then see how mods helped in real life scenerio's, dyno's mean nothing to me... 
I used my buddies Mazda Millinea as a reference. We raced stock for stock, and were even with a few feet in my advantage. I practiced a little driving stick, shifting faster... upgraded my intake and exhaust and tried again. I was a car length ahead each time. I added a TT chip to my car, and well.. He was a way's behind me.
The reason I like doing that, is because I can see with my own eyes the improvements that I have done to my car, and their benefits. 
I would like to find a car now, that I run even modified vs. stock, so as i keep doing mods.. I can see the improvements.
Unfortunatly, as I feared, this topic has gone down the drain with useless comments, bull**** figures, and people trashing each other.
I was hoping that other people would pitch in, and you could see that your investment's in parts for your engines were not a waste, that maybe you couldn't feel the difference but see it.
Not everyone has access to a dyno, or a drag strip.
You cant measure something without a baseline, all I wanted to know is what I could beat... what would be even in a race... and what I couldn't beat.


----------



## mattkosem (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: (diablo7877)*


_Quote, originally posted by *diablo7877* »_
I take that back... I think it's a '04 V6 Saturn... I was completely guessing the HP number, but I know it's over 200.


Must be a VUE then...
--Matt


----------



## turbojeta3 (Feb 23, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (TXBDan)*

that might be, that is why this is the internet. Alot of guys can and will lie but for what? There is no reason to. 
I could give you my kill list that includes modded 1.8T's, R32's, WRX's, TypeR's, Turbo Talons, Civic Turbo's, big dogs. But whats the point? So you someone can sit behind there computer and call BS on me. Alot of guys on here and put up or shut up and alot of them put up. Id watch who you call BS to. 
Some of you guys need to stop going after the small fries. Yes civics are nice, sure its fun to laugh at cav's but damn step the game up.








On a lighter side Max's can be beat











_Modified by turbojeta3 at 5:04 AM 7-28-2004_


----------



## ALBeRts J3ttA IV (Apr 22, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (turbojeta3)*

lol, all this started cuz i said i beat a maxima.... wow....
nonetheless, im not backing down, i DID beat'em... anyone else on here think im NOT full of it?... cuz im not...















i love my 2.0


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (ALBeRts J3ttA IV)*

I love my 2.0, gonna love it more when I turbo it... but for now I enjoy my fuel economy most of all and the fact that I can do 90-100 (what everyone else does, seriously) on the interstate effortlessly and still have a little power to pass people and zip into gaps without having to downshift.


----------



## Rocketbird (Nov 18, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*

ok, my turn.
the 2.0 really does do well in 2nd but 3rd is crap. i love 2nd gear. i went up against my friends 1.8t stock and i believe i was stock at the time. i had a fat chick in the car and he had two little kids. prob bout the same wieght between us. we were neck and neck till 3rd, but then he killed me
i was at a light next to a camry or corolla, don't remember, wasn't planning on racing, then the kid guns it so i thought i'd show him up, i smoked him from behind, altough i don't know whether he continued to race or what.
also once i was messin with another guy in his jetta and i think it was a vr6 but that could be completely wrong. in any case we were neck and neck the entire time, but then a car was in my lane so i had to stop. well i think that's it for now


----------



## 87vdubgti16v (Jun 16, 2004)

Rocket what did you have a fat chick in the car for your not supposed to admit to stuff like that! Well i do not have a 2.0 slo i do however have a 1.8 16valve and LOVE it. Well anyhow just thought id tell you I beat a 2.0 with intake and exhaust in the girlfriends STOCK 2000 jeep cherokee 4.0 straight six.. And my 16valve whoops on that jeep every day of the wk!


----------



## Rocketbird (Nov 18, 2003)

*Re: (87vdubgti16v)*

haha she's my friend. I wouldn't admit that i dated a fat chick though!


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: (Rocketbird)*


_Quote, originally posted by *87vdubgti16v* »_Well i do not have a 2.0 slo i do however have a 1.8 16valve and LOVE it. ... And my 16valve whoops on that jeep every day of the wk!

I miss my 16valve so much. If they released a 16valve mk3 here in the states then this thread would be very, very short.

_Quote, originally posted by *Rocketbird* »_haha she's my friend. I wouldn't admit that i dated a fat chick though!









There are degrees of fat-ness. I'm not a small dude and some of the girls I have dated may be classified as fat (i'd seriously break a skinny chick) but they are all fat in the right places. Besides like they said on the man show fat chicks are good at head because they have to be.


----------



## Rocketbird (Nov 18, 2003)

*Re: (punisher89)*


_Quote, originally posted by *punisher89* »_
There are degrees of fat-ness. I'm not a small dude and some of the girls I have dated may be classified as fat (i'd seriously break a skinny chick) but they are all fat in the right places. Besides like they said on the man show fat chicks are good at head because they have to be.









hahahahahaha i must have missed that one. but that's so true. BTW i didn't mean to imply i'm dating a fat chick cuz i'm not! i'm dating a skinny one


----------



## rstenros (Oct 27, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (04civicvp)*

for the guy racing the mustang v6, you should easily take him especially with the cams and chip coming soon! I'd put a lot of money on it and make sure someone else is holding his money!!!


----------



## Me109 (Mar 28, 2000)

*Re: (BlkJettaGT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BlkJettaGT* »_my friend has an automatic carolla and he thinks he can beat me. Think my 2.0 could take his carolla? (his is auto - i have 5 sp)

I used to have a 97 2.0 Jetta 5 spd, and I rented a 2002 Corolla auto. The Corolla felt faster.


----------



## WolfGTI (Jun 16, 1999)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (vasillalov)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vasillalov* »_
EDIT:
BTW there is no replacement for displacement. It really makes me laugh at 1.8t guys how they pull on camaro's and stuff. Well they pull against the cheap stuff. I want to see them pull on an 1992 Camaro IROC-Z. This thing weights only 2800 lbs but has 425 hp stock! That would teach any 4 banger a good lesson!
_Modified by vasillalov at 7:59 PM 7-19-2004_

The IROC Z was stopped in 1990, it had 245hp from a 350cu in V8, not sure what it weighed - the performance figures were 
Top Speed = 147.7 mph (350 TPI)
0-60 time = 5.8 seconds (350 TPI)
1/4 time = 14.4 seconds @ 97.8 mph (350 TPI) 
The chipped 1.8T guys will give that car a run for it's money - please do not be ignorant when posting facts and figures.


----------



## MaxedOutCredit (Jan 24, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (docspeed1)*

No replacement for displacement obviously don't grasp the science behind forced induction.


----------



## Rocketbird (Nov 18, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (MaxedOutCredit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MaxedOutCredit* »_No replacement for displacement obviously don't grasp the science behind forced induction.

they do grasp it turbo chargers cannot replicate the torque of a larger displacement engine. take the 1.8t vs. the vr6. vr6 makes more torque and more horsepower because of it's larger displacement. in most cases also, only with turbos, you will not get the instant torque that a larger displacement engine will give you


----------



## Me109 (Mar 28, 2000)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (WolfGTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WolfGTI* »_
The IROC Z was stopped in 1990, it had 245hp from a 350cu in V8, not sure what it weighed - the performance figures were 
Top Speed = 147.7 mph (350 TPI)
0-60 time = 5.8 seconds (350 TPI)
1/4 time = 14.4 seconds @ 97.8 mph (350 TPI) 
The chipped 1.8T guys will give that car a run for it's money - please do not be ignorant when posting facts and figures.

It would take a seriously hot 1.8T to beat an IROC Z with the TPI, those things were torque monsters. I think in terms of torque, they are torqueyer than the later LT1 F-bodies.


----------



## Phrost (Mar 8, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Me109)*

Racing really, really depends on the driver. I've raced a 5-speed DOHC Saturn 4 times in a row, with two different drivers. The first guy was a really good driver and only lost by maybe a car length each time. The person I raced after didn't know their own car too well and lost very, very badly...(3-4 lengths maybe) I think the 2.0s are indeed slow, but are pretty quick for their class


----------



## MK3Junge (Nov 27, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (punisher89)*


_Quote, originally posted by *punisher89* »_ Maybe, Maybe if it was a carload of fat chicks pulling a refrigerated trailer of Klondike Bars. But seriously. 









this one's too funny


----------



## MaxedOutCredit (Jan 24, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Rocketbird)*

Theres alot more to hp vs torque than displacement. Bore to stroke, number of valves per cylender port design, cam profile ect... Bottlom line is atmospheric pressure is 14.7psi. Running 14.7 psi above atmospheric pressure on an intercooled turbo is the same as doubbling your displacement(give about 1psi tolarance for thermal innefficencies). But you have a better HP to weight ratio because weight of the engine dosen't change. It's a rule of nature, thats how it is, you can argue all you want.


----------



## mattkosem (Apr 29, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Phrost)*

What generation DOHC Saturn where you racing, and are you sure it was a 5-speed? My first gen with a twin-cam engine was dead even with 1.8T VW's....
124hp gets you a long way at 2200lb(94 SL1 with a 97 DOHC engine swapped in and nothing else other than a shortram)
--Matt


----------



## blkhothatch (Oct 9, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (mattkosem)*

I beat a turd gen camaro with mine, that's the only kill I could get. It had a 2.8L V-6, I forget how much hp. Slow but very entertaining race.


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (MaxedOutCredit)*

Cars I've beaten:
2 stock Mk3 Jettas (one automatic)
Couple Civics with 5" tips, huge wings, and nothing else
Mini Cooper (not the S)
Infiniti FX (I think the FX 35, which is 280 hp and 280 ft/lbs. No way a 2.0 could beat the 315 hp/329 ft/lb FX 45) Even though those numbers are a lot more power than a 2.0, the thing weighs 4000+ lbs and the dude had a passenger and I didn't. Even so, his nose was even with my back wheels and I smacked the rev limiter in 3rd creeping past him. Fun as hell though, I hate the Infiniti FX, so pretentious and so fscking ugly. 
Cars that have owned me:
C5 Corvette
Volvo 850R Turbo
Audi A8
'87 Porsche 911
and although I hate to admit it - Acura RSX


_Quote, originally posted by *MaxedOutCredit* »_No replacement for displacement obviously don't grasp the science behind forced induction.

Yeah? Imagine twin turbos and digital fuel injection on a 402 cube big block Chevy. There isn't a set of tires on the planet that would keep the car headed in the right direction. My stock 375 horse 402 will totally fry both 275/40ZR17's and I am running a TH400 auto, not even a 4 speed. The 454's were even badder - 500 ft/lbs of torque stock!


----------



## -knuckles- (Apr 4, 2004)

not really into racing the jetta a whole lot but from time to time it does happen







. when the car was completely stock i raced this dudes ford ranger 5-speed with the standard boy racer mods, intake, exhaust, chip, clear tail lights







. beat that, he couldn't believe i beat him for some reason so we went again and i beat him even worse the second time. also have won against a new stock celica gt (not gt-s). beat a nissan nx2000 that thought he was the shiz, what with his neons and racing seats i guess. i take non-turbo eclipses and non-vtec hondas easily. hmm what else, i dunno, i can take most all the boy racers around here with the exceptions of the rich kids running around with srt-4's evo's and sti's. other than that i enjoy a good light to light with a minivan every once and a while


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (hav)*

alright this is just something i need to say . i get really sick and tired of guys saying " why do ricers soup up there cars and race muscle cars when you could buy the stock muscle car and race the souped up *****." well to anyone idiot that hasn't figured that out yet. when you can buy a 5g civic or a 10g jetta ( 2.0 , older body) compared to a 20+ g mustang . that's a good bit of work you can do. i mean think about it this way .. with my jetta that i payed 8500 for .. and a new Cobra mustang that is yours for 35 g's thats like what around 25 thousand dollars of spending money or money that you could spend modifing the crap out of the car ... and ill put my money on the jetta if that was the case!


----------



## Hagphish (Jul 8, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (-knuckles-)*

you know, that rich kid **** pisses me off. ****in kid at my high school (3 years ago) had a brand new WRX. and whats with all these "kids" with new mustangs? god damn!
I sort of take offense to your statement though. I'm 21 and own an SRT-4 but am far from rich. I work damned hard for my cars.


----------



## temp xathor (Jul 4, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_alright this is just something i need to say . i get really sick and tired of guys saying " why do ricers soup up there cars and race muscle cars when you could buy the stock muscle car and race the souped up *****." well to anyone idiot that hasn't figured that out yet. when you can buy a 5g civic or a 10g jetta ( 2.0 , older body) compared to a 20+ g mustang . that's a good bit of work you can do. i mean think about it this way .. with my jetta that i payed 8500 for .. and a new Cobra mustang that is yours for 35 g's thats like what around 25 thousand dollars of spending money or money that you could spend modifing the crap out of the car ... and ill put my money on the jetta if that was the case!


Yeah, but if you buy a 35g cobra... you can sell it later, and get some of what you payed for back. With the jetta I DOUBT you'll get any money back for what you payed for.


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (temp xathor)*

well sometimes the TRUE car guy doesnt care how much he puts into his car ... sometimes he doesnt really plan on selling it to begin. and if he does sell it alot of the time the money spent is worth the memories he had in the car . well that's how i am and know alot of people are . i mean dont get me wrong i'd love an '04 cobra but then id rather build my jetta up and be able to say oh ya jus spanked a cobra. id have more pride in saying it. but that is just me


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*

Just throwing my 2 cents in here. 
The '03-'04 Cobra is a shining example of money spent for performance gained. About $38k out the door for very low 12s, and for less than what most of us pay for a monthly payment you can run mid 11s (thats if you can find a track that will let you run 11s without a cage). I don't care what you do to a 2 litre you can't get any faster for any cheaper.


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (punisher89)*

actually i would be willing to bet against you punisher.. remember that red golf with the 16v head swap and turbo. with slicks and that car turned up to full boost id put thousands on that compared to the cobra. and the COMPLETE car not just the motor, the guy had 20 grand into it and was puttin down around 450 at the wheels. the guy never got the car fully tuned to its max and EIP wanted to car back so EIP bought it off of him.so id be curious to see what it could do. 
but yes i can agree with you but wont just because i believe in imports . not american muscle. because it's kinda crazy seeing 600 hp cars driven around and getting 45 miles to the gallon . kinda crazy.... try doing that with muscle.


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*

oh ya ... i know an 8v 2.0 that puts down 300 whp and is capable of 500 .next time i talk with him ill see if he'd be interested in going up against a cobra. i know a few guys with them that like runnin' em'. and if we do get a race up ill make sure to tape it at the track and show times and everything.


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_oh ya ... i know an 8v 2.0 that puts down 300 whp and is capable of 500. 

Capable of 500? By taking it out and putting in a turbo VR6 with nitrous? What's the crankshaft made out of, plutonium? You know what a stock crank would look like if you put 500 hp through it? Imagine putting a coat hanger into jet engine...


----------



## BlueGTIguy (Mar 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (VW97Jetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VW97Jetta* »_The rule of thumb is usually around 5HP or a tenth of a second in the 1/4 for every 100lbs lost....not 10HP

Yeah, that's about right... You have to consider the original power-to-weight ratio before you start converting "lbs lost" into "hp gained" http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif .


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_actually i would be willing to bet against you punisher.. remember that red golf with the 16v head swap and turbo. with slicks and that car turned up to full boost id put thousands on that compared to the cobra. 

So your friends 8 valve that is capeable of 500 horsepower, does it run on 93 octane? does he drive it to work every day? B/c the Cobras I see on the road sure do. Yes, technology is a replacement for displacement, but technology is harder to master than pure brute size. Oh, and remember if the technology hadn't been applied to the big dogs first it wouldn't be around for the puppies. This all goes back to the front wheel drive vs rear wheel drive argument... which isn't really much of an argument. Basically he'd lose in a strait line heads up. 

_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_but yes i can agree with you but wont just because i believe in imports . not american muscle. 

Yeah, and I used to believe in the Easter Bunny.

_Quote, originally posted by *hav* »_
Capable of 500? By taking it out and putting in a turbo VR6 with nitrous? What's the crankshaft made out of, plutonium? You know what a stock crank would look like if you put 500 hp through it? Imagine putting a coat hanger into jet engine...

Thank you. Its good to hear from someone that seems to have had an interest in cars sometime BEFORE the 90s (or in some cases around here, before Fast & Furious).


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (BlueGTIguy)*

called a forged crank when reinforced cylinder walls .. it's a bullet proof bottom end.


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*

Sorry, I have to call BS on you. I have a 402 big block Chevy in my car, rated at 350 hp stock. It's a 2-bolt main block, which means that each of the main bearings (the things that keep the crank from falling into the oil pan) have 2 bolts holding them to the block, which is the same configuration an 8V uses. 
Anyone who knows anything about Chevy engines will tell you that if you are making 300+ HP with a small block or 400+ HP with a big block you want a 4-bolt main block, which is what was used from the factory in high performance cars and most trucks. 
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, VW never used an ABA or other 4 cyl block with 4-bolt mains in a production vehicle. It doesn't matter what your crank is made out of if the main bearings can't keep it in the engine. I also realize that the VW has 5 main bearings while the Chevys only have 3 which does a lot for high RPM stability we're talking about brute power here, aren't we? 
This is a 4-bolt block - look how huge the crank journals are compared to the guy's forearm:








Sorry for the tirade, I just get bent out of shape when people make ridiculous horsepower claims where it's blatantly obvious the engine itself would self destruct way before any such power levels were reached. Claiming a 2.0L can handle 500 HP is like me claiming my 402 can handle 1600 HP. It can't, and a BB Chevy is way beefier than any VW motor I've seen the bottom end on.


----------



## ylwGTI (Jan 18, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (hav)*

Just to end the debate about how much power can 2.0 make check this link for official top ten, 8 valve motors.
http://forum.vwsport.com/viewtopic.php?t=570
One of them is in the 9's


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (ylwGTI)*

dude stop getting your panties all bunched up the dude maken 300 whp is on 'vortex ... his name is Chmura .. something like that . hey i dont bs i say it straight up if you dont believe me i jus say your jealous ... oh ya it is also kinda funny how 650 hp import engines can rape 3500 hp american engines .. and how 4 cylinders these days are pushing over 1600 hp.
im sorry you have an american engine that gets horrible gas mileage and lacks power that it could really be putting out. but if you dont believe me you can do you own research ..
forum | features | events | coverage | wtf | store | downloads | links | home | 





1997 Volkswagen Golf TREK - CHMURA
Photos by Paul F. & Julio M. --- Write up by Paul F. 
This 1997 pearl Imola orange Golf Trek with ghost flames... Did I forget to say turbo with an engine management system? Ok, so its built. Built to put out over 2x the power this 8v beauty came with fromt he factory; with a 0.02 over boar, Ross Forged Pistons, Cunningham Forged Rods, 8.5 to 1 compression, EIP Polished, ported and o-ringed big valve head. I'd say Klaud and his VW have been very busy.
The exterior pretty much has had a complete overhaul with custom paint including ghost flames, vw emblems on the mirrors/roof, shaved rear doors, and hella front head light conversion. The suicide hood really sets the car off.
As for the wheels 18x8Konig Appeals wrapped in Falken 215/35/18 tires... interior custom 2 tone leather to a custom fiberglass sytem bumping two kenwood subs. Overall this is an awesome ride out of Gainsville, GA keep and eye out for this Euro show stopper!

Complete engine management 
Chrome valve cover, Chrome Radiator support, Chromed Custom intercooler Piping, Chrome intake manifold, Chrome intake oil cap, Chrome Underdrive Pulley, Adjustable cam gear, Apexi B.O.V., Apexi AVC-R Boost controller, TEC3 Standalone management system, EIP 8 puck clutch, lightened flywheel, 16 valve transmission w/ limited slip differential, 2.0L 8 valve block, with a 0.02 over boar, Ross Forged Pistons, Cunningham Forged Rods, 8.5 to 1 compression, EIP Polished, ported and o-ringed big valve head, 470cc Injectors, Race-tech main and head studs kits, Balanced and Blueprinted bottom end, early mk3 throttle body fabricated to fit G.M. Throttle position sensor, Team PSI Turbo Manifold, Front Mount intercooler, Turbonetics t3/04 Turbo, Turbonetics Delta Gate Wastegate, 16 valve small diameter CV shafts



that's the motor .... wana tango?


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*

http://www.eiptuning.com/eip/p....html

that setup is capable of 450 at the wheels .... and if you dont believe me that 2.0's 16v and 8v cant put down tell those guys!


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_dude stop getting your panties all bunched up the dude maken 300 whp is on 'vortex

300 is perfectly legit, I am not arguing that. However, the difference between a 300 hp car and a 500 hp car is about the same as the difference between a stock 2.0L 8v and an R32.

_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_oh ya it is also kinda funny how 650 hp import engines can rape 3500 hp american engines

What, are import horsepower 'worth more' because they are import and not American? A horsepower is equal to 746 Watts of power. It doesn't matter what country the engine was made in. BTW - a 650 hp import engine probably puts out 400 ft/lbs of torque while a 650 hp V8 probably is in the neighborhood of 700 ft/lbs. Torque wins races.


_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_
Built to put out over 2x the power this 8v beauty came with fromt he factory

Since when does 2 times 115 equal 500? Or even 300? 


_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_
im sorry you have an american engine that gets horrible gas mileage and lacks power that it could really be putting out.

Gas mileage? That's why I drive an 8V VW to work. As for the Chevelle, I'm not sure whether I spent more on gas or on tires. But for 1/3rd the gas mileage of my Jetta I'll sure take 4 times the torque. Girls like the Chevelle better too


----------



## Rocketbird (Nov 18, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (hav)*

Hey i like the chevelle too!







now you need to spring for the 454


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Rocketbird)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Rocketbird* »_Hey i like the chevelle too!







now you need to spring for the 454









Hell yeah, the 396 is a wuss motor








My dad has been trying to talk me into a 502 or one of GM Performance's new 572 cube monsters. Those get me all hot and bothered, 620 HP and 750 ft/lbs of torque on pump gas right out of the box http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif It's only because my 402 has the right date codes for one of the cars that he's restoring and since it isn't the right engine for mine, I might as well get something with some balls.
I'd really like one of these though:








Now that's a 16 Valve


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (hav)*

do the girls that like the chevelle better have all there teeth?







cause i know the ones i hang out with that say how "cute" it is sure as heck do .. might not have all there brains but they fill out well in other places







.. now dont get me wrong im not dissing your chevelle . i have one of those in the family too '71 454 with a 4 speed . ya that car cars to the tire shop 1 a month . but im just saying you can put down big numbers with imports.


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_but im just saying you can put down big numbers with imports. 

No doubt


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Impulse333)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_do the girls that like the chevelle better have all there teeth?







cause i know the ones i hang out with that say how "cute" it is sure as heck do .. 

I Guaran-damn-tee those girls you hang out with would get buck-ass-nekkid after a ride in a big block muscle car. The little 16 year old cashiers at my work are the same way, they get all fluttery when a kid rolls up in his moms corolla with a loud system and they talk about how "hot" imports are. When the fact is they have never even had the privelage of going blind, deaf, numb and damn near suffocating after witnessing a standing 60 mile-per-hour burnout in or around some nuts out american muscle.
It was proven long ago by people older, uglier and with less money than any of us that bikes, and muscle cars get the ladies attention. And I will most likely get flamed for this but I believe "imports" and their associated "lifestyle" are a passing fad. The cars will be around and horsepower is always cool but the whole image surrounding it will die a slow cancerous death and hopefully very soon. and two words prove my theory. Custom Vans.


----------



## LZ7J (Jun 10, 2003)

all motor with a mild amount of modding (intake, chip, exhaust, 270 - 9a) I was able to beat SI's, stock boosted talons/eclipses, MK4 VR's, maximas/3.2TL's/A4's/V6 stangs, camaro's.
Once boosted, I took type R's, s2000's, E36 M3's, 350Z, a 95 'vette, CL-type S, supercharged MK3 VR, civic hatches /w various swaps (b16's, b18c/c5, etc.).
The 2.0 is a great motor for what it is, and that is to be economical and reliable. When you start pushing it... it'll quickly go downhill.
You need to spend (A LOT of) money on this motor to make it boogie. But if I were to do it again, I would have saved all that $ I wasted and invested it. I could have been driving an M3 by now (though, I was pretty close on getting one.)


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: (LZ7J)*

hahaha custom van's? now that would be pretty crazy! lol ... well i can agree and disagree with you punisher because imports are the new ara(sp) of what was once the muscle cars and such. street racing will always be around and modifing vehicles will always be around. and i would have to disagree with you on the fact that imports and it's lifestyles will die ... the sport grows bigger and bigger each year and now JGTC ( Japanesse grand touring championship ) is coming to the US for it's first year and will grow no doubt and everything related. muscle cars will always be around because there will always be a love. but i know plenty of girls who hate muscle cars and i do know a few who love them. im not dissing them though because i have one! my family has a 454 '71 chevelle that's done up decently. i love anything fast or modified so i think each scene as you could say will be around for it's respective time. but man have a







and chill! lol


----------



## 96GTImang (Aug 1, 2004)

Import vs. Domestic posts and debates really make me want a smoke :/ but eh, fast is fast guys, I respect all that american jazz and the displacement vs. technology argument. Two different styles of performance really, I just let domestic guys talk this or that about putting our nuts in a strap wrench on down the 1/4mi, but it's apples and oranges. As for me I'll take a solid all rounder of a car with the ability to put in some quality time on a road course, with enough power to be competitive at the strip/street. I don't get too into kill threads but the 2.0 is no powerplant to put ABA 2.0L banners across your window like V-ATTAK yO, perhaps I'll post kills in springtime


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: (96GTImang)*

I got another confirmed loss today








Audi S4 straight up smoked me on my way to work. I got a good jump outta the hole and hung about a carlength behind him through 1st and 2nd, but he just dumped it on me in 3rd and I got a nice good look at the S4 logo under the left taillight. 
At least it wasn't a Neon... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: (hav)*


_Quote, originally posted by *hav* »_I got another confirmed loss today








Audi S4 straight up smoked me on my way to work. I got a good jump outta the hole and hung about a carlength behind him through 1st and 2nd, but he just dumped it on me in 3rd and I got a nice good look at the S4 logo under the left taillight. 


Was that in the jetta or the Chevelle??


----------



## Deadlyaura (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (punisher89)*

the only negative thing i have to say about the american muscle cars is that theycant make it out on the road with all the heightened emissions ratings and crap for inspections














its a shame but there's always the track. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif imports and the new gay domestics are just tryin to be more fuel efficient than anything i think. unless of course you have an m5 motor in an m3 body and youre peeling at 80mph http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif







... hehehe... when my friend gets that project done ill try to post pics








ps: the only thing ive ever outrun or tried to outrun in my 2.0gti was a ford bronco that was trying to run me off the road cause my rear windshield washer squirted him... it was through windy roads goin 95 most of the way. i think i lost him cause he maxxed out at 85 and cause he was gonna roll at the speed i was takin those turns. (i have a stock '98 2.0 gti) i almost **** my pants when he tried to run me off the first two times...










_Modified by Deadlyaura at 12:00 PM 8-5-2004_


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: (punisher89)*


_Quote, originally posted by *punisher89* »_Was that in the jetta or the Chevelle??

Hahahah the Jetta, of course!
I would be way too embarassed to even mention it if I my SS got smoked by an S4


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: (Deadlyaura)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Deadlyaura* »_the only negative thing i have to say about the american muscle cars is that theycant make it out on the road with all the heightened emissions ratings and crap for inspections
















In New York state the law is that if the car is over 25 years old it is considered a 'classic' and is not required to pass an emissions test, just safety inspection.
When I had my 71 Olds Cutlass, the 25 year law wasn't made yet. The nice guys at the emissions station scanned my registration sticker and then put the sniffer in the tailpipe of a new Camry. I passed with flying colors, needless to say


----------



## Deadlyaura (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: (hav)*

haha nice with the camry sniff. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif i dunno what the rules or regs are in nj tho, id have to check. chances are its lenient but then again we cant pass inspection with a CEL on either, regardless of emissions or other safety issues. i do know a friend that has a 70-something maverick that's been restored but he cant pass nj inspection and im not sure whether it was cause of emissions, safety, or both. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif







http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif whatever the case, classic cars are still way sweeter than fuel economy cars as far as cool factor and power is concerned but i have to say that with the displacement vs. tech i respect how technology can make the most out of the least displacement.


----------



## par4golf01 (Jul 23, 2004)

well the list grows every day but right now it stands at:
civics even the si
caviliers
nissian maxima----- i think this guy couldn't drive
sentra not the spec iv
toyota celica '94
eclipse rs 
76 vette that was running like ****
'92 accord
and i love to kick the sh*t out of kia's
its just so funny


----------



## reynolds9000 (Oct 16, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (par4golf01)*

I'm not really one for racing, but just recently i raced a 2g Eclipse GS with exhaust and intake, and pulled on him to the top of 3rd, when i let off the gas. Of course i've beaten civic's, even ex's. Never raced an SI, but he'd probably stomp me(right now). 
I really don't car all _that_ much about straight line acceleration. Instead, i modify my car to scream through the twisties.








268 cam is coming soon.










_Modified by reynolds9000 at 6:43 AM 8-23-2004_


----------



## 16V VW (Aug 1, 2004)

you may take the mustang, adjust your throttle cable so it opens all the way when your foot steps 1/2 way, it will make your flaps open faster, 88 cavalier z24 convertable! I LOVE IT! my first car killed every car i raced! even my friends 1.8 8v jetta 1986. lol good fun, but she is parked and the jetta is coming out!


----------



## DonL (Feb 28, 1999)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Rocketbird)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Rocketbird* »_they do grasp it turbo chargers cannot replicate the torque of a larger displacement engine. 
 

That's one of the advantages of _super_chargers. Torque right off idle.

I think alot of people are being raced by 2.0L VW and they don't even know they're being raced.
Sadly, it sounds like a bunch of squids out street racing waiting to kill someone.
Put up, shut up, and take it to a track. Leave the street racing to idiot organ donors willing to prove Darwin correct...


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (DonL)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DonL* »_ 
Put up, shut up, and take it to a track. Leave the street racing to idiot organ donors willing to prove Darwin correct...









I'm sorry Dad!!! Please don't hit me


----------



## Bolzy (Aug 14, 2000)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (MaxedOutCredit)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MaxedOutCredit* »_No replacement for displacement obviously don't grasp the science behind forced induction.


Oh, I grasp forced induction...but someone (I'm not saying you) who says a 350 chevy or 302 ford motor is a 'big' displacement motor needs to rethink that.
Now, 468 cubic inches...








And 502 is on the 'horizon'....
But, I love my 2.0...24 mpg no matter what!


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Bolzy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Bolzy* »_'71 Chevelle/Malibu...468 big block 395hp/440ftlbs tq AT the wheels

Just out of curiosity, what tranny you running in that? M21/22 or a TH400? Those would be very impressive numbers if you had to spin the huge rotating mass of a TH400 and a 12-bolt diff.
I gotta add another car to the Loss column. I got absolutely smoked by a supercharged Mustang GT. No suprise there, but man, it was fun watching that guy take off, must have been an 11 or 12 second car










_Modified by hav at 3:11 PM 8-23-2004_


----------



## Bolzy (Aug 14, 2000)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (hav)*

Th400, then a Ford 9" w/ 3.89 gears...yes it is stout. Debating whether to go with a better head setup...right now, they're 'small valve' BB cast iron jobs..hmmm, AFR 310"s?!?!
As for the kill/loss list...there are plenty on both...well, more on the loss-to side. I never seem to be driving the Chevelle at the right time to 'square off' against the Don Garlits wanna-be's...


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (Bolzy)*

Very nice http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
A set of big rectangle port heads might do you nicely, especially with the right cam and intake combo.


----------



## JeffMk4 (Nov 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (hav)*

OH YEA!!!!!!!!!!!! 
last weekend i raced an older cougar with a v6
and got him on the highway.
Then i took him from a light first and second gear was
when i gained the most from him.
I GOT ANOTHER WIN!!!!!!!!!


----------



## iceguy (May 26, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (JeffMk4)*

i beat my buddys 2.3 turbo swap ford ranger, only cause it dont run right.


----------



## CoolJetta3 (Jun 28, 2001)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (JeffMk4)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JeffMk4* »_OH YEA!!!!!!!!!!!! 
last weekend i raced an older cougar with a v6
and got him on the highway.
Then i took him from a light first and second gear was
when i gained the most from him.
I GOT ANOTHER WIN!!!!!!!!!

Yeah first and second is all you'll gain on most people because third gear on the Mk3 2.0 is like a mile long and shifting from 2nd to 3rd dumps you in a ****ty part of the torque curve. I learned that most people sticking with a 2.0 are wise to invest in a 6 speed conversion to tighten up the ratios and keep the car pulling. I believe it requires switching to a Mk2 tranny to get the most out of it. Now to just find the funds to do it


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (CoolJetta3)*

Well, if you take it to 6000 in 2nd, you can catch 3rd at about 3500 rpm which is near the top of the torque curve and where the power curve starts getting up into 3 digits


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (hav)*

I've found my motorcycle to be more than adequate in the acceleration department......kinda makes driving the Jetta a bit depressing.


----------



## bajan01 (Nov 26, 2001)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (CoolJetta3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CoolJetta3* »_I learned that most people sticking with a 2.0 are wise to invest in a 6 speed conversion to tighten up the ratios and keep the car pulling. I believe it requires switching to a Mk2 tranny to get the most out of it. Now to just find the funds to do it

You don't necessarily need a 6 speed tranny to tighten up the ratios. An old 2Y, AGB tranny will bolt right up to any A3 and you can also run a 9A if you run the older (smaller spline) 8V pressure plate. For even closer ratios you can run a numerically higher ring and pinion such as a 3.94 or 4.25:1. This may require a swap of the 5th gear for highway cruising but that not a big deal really


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (bajan01)*

ive found a couple 6spd conversion kits for my O2J and im VERY interested. now granted they are quite expensive and im going to do alot of work before that. i feel that would make my car very fun. especially with a better gear


----------



## Pagano (Sep 24, 2001)

*Re: (hav)*

hav
for what it's worth, (I hate pissing matches), but Paul aka "Killa" on the vortex is making over 500whp in a 4 cylinder 16v - damn near 4 times stock output.


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: (Pagano)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pagano* »_hav
for what it's worth, (I hate pissing matches), but Paul aka "Killa" on the vortex is making over 500whp in a 4 cylinder 16v - damn near 4 times stock output.

Not to piss back, but a 16valve ain't even in the same ballpark.. it ain't even the same sport.


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: (punisher89)*

hey anything 2.0 is a fair game in this post! lol now granted most on here posted a 2.0 8v ... still 2.0


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: (Impulse333)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Impulse333* »_hey anything 2.0 is a fair game in this post! lol now granted most on here posted a 2.0 8v ... still 2.0 

Actually dude, you were the one who said you knew a guy with a 500hp 8 valve.


----------



## Pagano (Sep 24, 2001)

*Re: (punisher89)*

Who gives a rats ass 16v or 8v...it's a 4 cylinder VW


----------



## Impulse333 (Apr 6, 2003)

*Re: (Pagano)*

ya and it's an 8v.... do you neeed proof ? 

http://www.importatlanta.com/f...x.htm

that's the car capable of 500 ... he runs 300 whp all the time. 

but really why does it make a difference?


----------



## fluxburn (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: (Impulse333)*

that car is nuts, killa is dope!


----------



## DTMvelocity (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: (04civicvp)*

i have a fairly stock 2.0 with just the swiss airbox w/k&n and no muffler. i believe driver skills has a lot do when racing. i have beaten:
ford probes
stock vtec civics
4 cyl. accords
twin cam saturns
first generation gs300
240 sx's (no sr20det)
altima
infiniti j30
sohc preludes
g60 corrado
mitsu lancer 
camrys (4 and 6 cyl)
and many more
i also have kept up with my friends 00' 323 beemer, like i said...driver skills


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DTMvelocity* »_i have a fairly stock 2.0 with just the swiss airbox w/k&n and no muffler. i believe driver skills has a lot do when racing. 


Driver skills can't bend the laws of physics. Unless you are talking about BAD driver skills then yeah, it makes your 'good' skills looks amazing.
I can't stress this enough people. (and I keep jumping on this thread and kicking people in the kneecaps) Just go to the track, bring some numbers and I'll shut up.... more importantly street racing is really, really, really retarded.


----------



## DTMvelocity (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: (punisher89)*

driver skills can't bend the laws of physics, then again...what can?? driver skills plays a big role when racing on the street or the track. imagine you racing in a LeMans, or a formula McLaren against proffesional experienced drivers with similar powerful cars in a circuit track, you wont last the first lap before crashing into another car , crashing into a tree or totalling your machine, this is an example where your BAD driving skills, make other's skills look amazing.


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*

Yeah but when you roll up at a light next to an automatic Maxima, all he has to do is mash the pedal and hold onto the steering wheel. Minimal skill required and your 2.0 is a 1/4 mile away from getting toasted. When racing against an equal machine, skill is a huge factor. Think about it, if you were racing a formula McLaren against a bunch of pro drivers in Geo Metros, you could drive around at part throttle in 3rd gear and still kick the **** outta them.


----------



## DTMvelocity (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: (hav)*

i understand your point, although you took it to the extreme with the metro's...maybe i dint make myself clear, the automatic maxima has a 3.5 v6 engine rated at 265 hp (one of the best NA v6's around). now, comparing that to a 2.0 5 speed is discriminating. it rates at 115 hp. we have to compare apples to apples. and often times when even comparing apples to apples, the advantage does not only rely on driver skills. take for example that same maxima and put it against a "stock" vr6. the maxima will still hold the advange over the 2.8 bacause of power ratings. but my point was not meant for drag racing. anyone can go fast in a straight line by smashing on the gas, our grandparents, if driving that particular maxima will dust me in my 2.0 or even a vr6. but what i meant was driver skills, going straight does not require driver skills. cornering, braking, power shifting, taking a good apex, drifting (not intended for fwd or you see huge understeering) are good examples of my 2.0 raping that maxima in traffic, since you are using more skills like measuring distance, knowing when to brake or power shift etc rather than just dropping your right foot on the gas.


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DTMvelocity* »_are good examples of my 2.0 raping that maxima in *traffic* since you are using more skills like measuring distance, knowing when to brake or power shift etc rather than just dropping your right foot on the gas.

See, now you made my other point. Please don't race in traffic I can't think of another more stupid thing you could possibly do in a car. I believe its right up there with drunk driving. Not to mention the fact that you can't get a real race in between all the other cars on the road. The fact that you can squeeze through cars and find holes in traffic means absolutely jack s#it.


----------



## CarolinaRocco (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: (punisher89)*

I dunno guys.. we consistantly smoke 6 cyl mustangs, not to mention cooking most the rice we have run up on locally..
2.0 ABA 8valve with big valve head
of course its in a mk1 'rocco


----------



## urspeedracer (Mar 7, 2002)

*Re: 2.slo is faster than... (vasillalov)*

Vasillalov..........Where did you get those specs? a 1992 i roc weighs a lot more than that empty, and the engine option for it was no where near those numbers. An "E" enige code was the 350 tuned port fuel injected one with dual cats and that one stock was only 245 hp at the crank, not at the wheels. I love my third generation F Bodies, but none , not even the vette came stock with over 400 horse in 1992 or in any year after that until the Z06 Vette.with 405 hp.












_Modified by urspeedracer at 12:38 AM 9-1-2004_


----------



## DTMvelocity (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: (punisher89)*

i dont support street racing, and when i said "traffic" i meant traffic in a circuit track, but all my other points are well observed, besides...you are entitled to your jack s#hit opinion 


_Modified by DTMvelocity at 12:05 AM 9-1-2004_


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DTMvelocity* »_i understand your point, although you took it to the extreme with the metro's...maybe i dint make myself clear, the automatic maxima has a 3.5 v6 engine rated at 265 hp (one of the best NA v6's around). now, comparing that to a 2.0 5 speed is discriminating. it rates at 115 hp. we have to compare apples to apples. and often times when even comparing apples to apples, the advantage does not only rely on driver skills. take for example that same maxima and put it against a "stock" vr6. the maxima will still hold the advange over the 2.8 bacause of power ratings. but my point was not meant for drag racing. anyone can go fast in a straight line by smashing on the gas, our grandparents, if driving that particular maxima will dust me in my 2.0 or even a vr6. but what i meant was driver skills, going straight does not require driver skills. cornering, braking, power shifting, taking a good apex, drifting (not intended for fwd or you see huge understeering) are good examples of my 2.0 raping that maxima in traffic, since you are using more skills like measuring distance, knowing when to brake or power shift etc rather than just dropping your right foot on the gas.

Aight, I won't argue with that http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## DTMvelocity (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: (hav)*

hav knows whats up


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*

And how many Maximas do you come across on a "circut track"?








I'm thinking it's more along the lines of the Cross Bronx or LIE....


----------



## DTMvelocity (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: (VW97Jetta)*

ever seen the japanesse grand touring races...they have the gloria/cefiro, which is the equivalent of the maxima here in the americas...come on guys, if you're gonna post, get some knowledge before typing...i bet you have a tv, havent you seen the nismo powered sentra v spec on speedchannel against the type-R's and m3's etc. the stock v spec is less powerful than a stock maxima, then why cant a modified max compete? read, inform yourself and then reply


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*

I was talking about you personally.....I could give a **** what's on TV....
Just as an example, you're telling me your pretty much non-modded 2.0 "beat" a G60? Was the guy sleeping? Was the supercharger working?
Stock for stock, 2.0L's are slower than dog****, so when I hear these stories of how a barely modded 2.0L beat up on a more powerful (and similarly weighted) car, I have to laugh....unless the person in the car beside you is just learning how to drive.


----------



## DTMvelocity (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: (VW97Jetta)*

this particular fuc*er has to be one of those whom get really emotional and suffer from some sort of personality disorder. see billy...i too ...was reffering to myself, yet was given an example like everyone else has... i dont give 2 flying s#its if the guy was sleeping (although it damn din't seam like it) or if the supercharger was functional (although it dint look like it). see billy...when i said i beat the g60...i wasnt reffering i beat him by 2 miles, it sure was close, but i beat the guy. now, in reference to the tv, if you dont give a fu*k about it, then do care to inform yourself via some other way... locate a newstand, pick up an auto magazine and if you can...read it
...and like i said before, get informed, than post










_Modified by DTMvelocity at 4:55 AM 9-1-2004_


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*

You really are stupid, aren't you....
POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO. It is NOT in your Jetta's favor. So....and I'll reiterate....either you were going against some really bad drivers, they weren't racing, or their cars had issues.
If you want to play the handling argument, even modified, VW's still tend to suck as far as roadholding/cornering goes compared to other cars (namely, ones with independent rear suspension setups).
YOU should get a clue before you post. Next you're gonna tell me the Ford Probe you supposedly beat was one of the older turbo GT's. Go ahead....I need a good laugh....


_Modified by VW97Jetta at 6:07 AM 9-1-2004_


----------



## VWinA (Oct 20, 1999)

*Re: (VW97Jetta)*

I can smoke a 1.8t with bad coils. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: (VWinA)*

Man, I got sonned today by a Lexus, could have been an ES 430 or something, I don't know my Lex's very well. I probably could have won if I turned it into a speed contest rather than an acceleration contest, but that's not my style. I'll go all out till I reach my regular cruising speed, if I'm ahead I win and if I'm behind I lost. Today I lost about as badly as the Yankees lost last night


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: (hav)*

Well, for ****s and giggles, let's say it was a 2004 LS430....and we'll say your car has 130HP at the crank and 2700lbs...
Power to weight ratio of the Lexus - 13.7
Power to weight ratio of the Jetta - 20.7
Yep, I'd say you got spanked








He'd destroy you in a top speed contest too, since your car can't go 150 mph.


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: (VW97Jetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VW97Jetta* »_
He'd destroy you in a top speed contest too, since your car can't go 150 mph.

Right, except I'm a stupid kid and he was probably a conservative adult, so he probably would have stopped at 90 or so and I could have gone by him. But what's the point?


----------



## blkhothatch (Oct 9, 2003)

*Re: (hav)*

Sounds like a r1cer flyby to me


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: (hav)*


_Quote, originally posted by *hav* »_
Right, except I'm a stupid kid and he was probably a conservative adult, so he probably would have stopped at 90 or so and I could have gone by him. But what's the point? 

Ummm.....you're the one who said you'd "win" if you turned it into a speed contest







. So what was YOUR point?


----------



## punisher89 (Oct 11, 2002)

*Re: (VW97Jetta)*

Ya know I was gonna jump on this thread to counter what the two bronx s**theads were trying to articulate with their limited-ass vocabulary. But then I realised 2 things
1. Its probably the same 15 year old on two different screen names
2. Dana already stomped out that fire.
Look back through this thread to see what I really think of a race between a 2.0 Jetta and a Maxima.


----------



## hav (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: (VW97Jetta)*

My point is I didn't mean a contest to see whose car could attain the highest top speed, but rather a contest to see who was willing to drive the fastest above the speed limit. My bad for not elaborating.


----------



## DTMvelocity (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: (VW97Jetta)*

this fu*k head has some serious lack of intelligence...can anyone tell me if i at any point was i talking about handling?? correct me if im wrong, but din't billy initially wrote about the possibilities of the driver being "asleep" or the supercharger "not working" resulting in me taking victory...then why is he jumping arguments? look billy, to conclude this argument, the drivers for both the sohc prelude and the j30 are both friends, neither are bad drivers or their cars have issues. and the probe was the 95' model...same crappy engine as the mx6 and 626 mazda, and it was an automatic. but you speculate it being the older turbo model...you need a good laugh? go read the comics...


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: (hav)*


_Quote, originally posted by *hav* »_My point is I didn't mean a contest to see whose car could attain the highest top speed, but rather a contest to see who was willing to drive the fastest above the speed limit. My bad for not elaborating.

Gotchya....


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DTMvelocity* »_this fu*k head has some serious lack of intelligence...can anyone tell me if i at any point was i talking about handling??

You did, you dumb fu(k:
_but my point was not meant for drag racing. anyone can go fast in a straight line by smashing on the gas, our grandparents, if driving that particular maxima will dust me in my 2.0 or even a vr6. but what i meant was driver skills, going straight does not require driver skills. cornering, braking, power shifting, taking a good apex, drifting (not intended for fwd or you see huge understeering) are good examples of my 2.0 raping that maxima in traffic, since you are using more skills like measuring distance, knowing when to brake or power shift etc rather than just dropping your right foot on the gas._

_Quote »_correct me if im wrong

Have done plenty of that, Jose...

_Quote »_but din't billy initially wrote about the possibilities of the driver being "asleep" or the supercharger "not working" resulting in me taking victory...then why is he jumping arguments?

Yep, "Billy" sure did say that, because the only way Jose is gonna beat a G60 is if he's not paying attention, not racing, sucks major ass as a driver or just learning to drive, missed a gear or two, was accidentally in reverse at the stoplight, or his car has serious issues.


----------



## DTMvelocity (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: (VW97Jetta)*

quote "You did, you dumb fu(k" <<< can this guy be a little more original?? read back in his post, he'd been using all my insults
quote "correct me if im wrong...have done plenty of that" <<< you mean...IM WRONG, CORRECT ME!!
this ****** praises the g60 as being the ultimate speed rush, and if it all comes down to it again, i will put my 2.0 against that stock supercharged rado' and will again be victorious (drag race or road race)...funny thing is that, i've saw 137 mph on the dash the time racing the rado' (flat road) and he was 3 1/2 car length away until he braked...but you're a ******, your opinion is your opinion and stays as your opinion....
shhhhh....lets see if he'll post something w/ "******", i have $10 that he will


_Modified by DTMvelocity at 2:46 AM 9-2-2004_


----------



## Scirocco20v (Mar 25, 2004)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DTMvelocity* »_quote "You did, you dumb fu(k" <<< can this guy be a little more original?? read back in his post, he'd been using all my insults
quote "correct me if im wrong...have done plenty of that" <<< you mean...IM WRONG, CORRECT ME!!
this ****** praises the g60 as being the ultimate speed rush, and if it all comes down to it again, i will put my 2.0 against that stock supercharged rado' and will again be victorious (drag race or road race)...funny thing is that, i've saw 137 mph on the dash the time racing the rado' (flat road) and he was 3 1/2 car length away until he braked...but you're a ******, your opinion is your opinion and stays as your opinion....
shhhhh....lets see if he'll post something w/ "******", i have $10 that he will

_Modified by DTMvelocity at 2:46 AM 9-2-2004_


****** the last time I checked was a derogative term for a black person. Good going, this is going to a mod. I hope your ignorant ass gets banned http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*

I'm done with this. Have fun with your little street races.....


----------



## DTMvelocity (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: (VW97Jetta)*

not a street racer...this guy still dont get it....man


----------



## fluxburn (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*

if you actually have never raced or at least gunned it on a public road, I must think of you as: a. not having a ***** or testicles, b. smoking way to much of something, c. you had a sex change, d. you take happy prescribed pills(antidepressants) that turn you into a *****, e. you are thinking about becoming a homosexual, f. you haven't figured out why you pay more for insurance rates, g. your just a total loser that has no life and plays video games all day, h. you can't pay a speeding ticket because you are too broke(but at least you did it once so you still are a normal male), i. you just haven't figured out how to drive yet, j, you are just a natural male *****(can't get an erection or get any women).


----------



## DTMvelocity (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: (fluxburn)*

this must apply to the 97jettajerk and bigpun from CT giving me beef about street racing, i have driven hard and fast on public roads, but since having a first born, i now take it easy (normally under 130 mph)


----------



## VW97Jetta (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: (DTMvelocity)*

Alright....let's try a new approach.....namely, cutting out all the sarcasm and slandering....
You have a pretty much stock Jetta. A stock Jetta does a mid/high 16 second to low 17 second quarter mile. Zero to sixty times are in the mid/high 9 second to low 10 second range.....again, all depends on the car, weather conditions, road conditions, etc. There is simply no way your Jetta is going to beat a G60....a G60 is a good 300 to 400 pounds lighter, and stock they put down a good 40 more HP. It just isn't going to happen.
Also, you have a stock ECU...the governer kicks in WELL before 130+ mph with the stock programming. 
And to Mr. Fluxburn......just because I don't parade around with a "kill" list or flaunting stupidity doesn't mean that I drive like an 80 year old woman. Quite the opposite, really.


----------



## wrdvento (Dec 30, 1999)

*Re: (VW97Jetta)*

This whole post is done..no street racing


----------

