vert vs. normal fc
Originally Posted by jhammons01
^^^Why don't you give up??? You've now gone from handling issues to drag racing. So now the Vert is the ugliest, The worst handling and the slowest. Do you have any other issues??? how 'bout the radio. Is the coupes radio better??? How 'bout the carpet?? Is the Coupes carpet 'better' than the Verts??
<Signature removed for size violation>
Last edited by Icemark; Jun 1, 2005 at 09:12 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver, B.C.
the very is ugly as hell ... the trunk ruins the car completly just like the vert 240 ... i duno how u people can say that a vert will out preform a n/a ... i hate to tell you but n/a's have 4pot calipers too ... just not the GX, and im pretty sure that the gxl had the same suspension as a vert. but in a lighter body.
1.3L is not that small
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 1
From: Nacogdoches Tx
Originally Posted by Net Seven
haha because im having fun. I love debates and love to listen to you guys whine about how great your vert is.
actually i dont think anybody is "whining" about how great their vert is.... some people are just jumping in to voice their opinions on why its great to them and correct your mistakes and misknowledge
, sure his engine may be in worse condition, who knows nobody, but seeing how people race and the posts in forum sections such as the kills section why dont you start wars in there about how nobody knows the condition of thier motors due to age so nobody knows who won?!? all i can really say is i hope your really being honest in that comment you made up there.. because if you are really as worked up on this topic as it comes off from your typing YOU HAVE ISSUES.... id give up, as you can see i never once stated that verts rock or verts kick *** or anything because its the internet YOU WILL NEVER PERSUADE SOMEBODY ON THE INTERNET... unless your hot and you show your ***** of course.... but anyway id just let it go and maybe this thread will die AGAIN and stay dead cause it needs too lol
christopher
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 25,896
Likes: 24
From: Rohnert Park CA
Originally Posted by Net Seven
1986 Mazda RX-7 GXL 8.5 16.5
1987 Mazda RX-7 Turbo 6.6 15.2
1988 Mazda RX-7 Conv. 9.7 17.5
1989 Mazda RX-7 GTU 8.5 16.5
Yea tell it to the factory times.. Why the hell is a vert 1 second slower in the 1/4 mile if its "ONLY" 200lbs heavier? There has to have been more than just your intake to make that kind of difference. BIG possibility that your engine was in better shape than his, because intake does not add much power. I mean **** we are talking about 20 year old cars here. How can you expect for both to be in the same condition?
1987 Mazda RX-7 Turbo 6.6 15.2
1988 Mazda RX-7 Conv. 9.7 17.5
1989 Mazda RX-7 GTU 8.5 16.5
Yea tell it to the factory times.. Why the hell is a vert 1 second slower in the 1/4 mile if its "ONLY" 200lbs heavier? There has to have been more than just your intake to make that kind of difference. BIG possibility that your engine was in better shape than his, because intake does not add much power. I mean **** we are talking about 20 year old cars here. How can you expect for both to be in the same condition?
If the reason to get a car is that is goes to 0-60 in 4 seconds go buy a camero...
Either way, this thread is done and closed.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MidnightOwl
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
1
Sep 25, 2015 10:24 PM
