KA24DE in a rx7
07-17-06, 02:50 PM
#51
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: san marcos, texas
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
Ok, .4 liters doesnt sound like a lot, but its a matter of ratio. You know a KA can do at 6500 what a SR can do at 7800 rpms assuming perfectly equal efficiency (BSFC, etc) and VE, right? A SR has to spin 1.2x (thats 20% higher) than a KA to do the same thing. Or, the KA can do 20% more at a given rpm than a SR can do.
Thats what people say, poorly, when they get all uppity about 'torque'.
Im having doubts a SR is a pound for pound leader compared to the current kings of the hill, smallblocks and 2.3Ts, but I guess for the tuner market's norms it has cheap parts. But the SR is hardly a perfect motor. The head isnt exactly perfect and its rod to stroke ratio compared to a KA is attrocious - stroking that out would be ridiculous. Unless someone has a tall deck SR or some creative machine shop work with deck plates and sleeves to increase the deck, I wouldnt stroke one out.
Now, tell me, how is it so unbeatable dollar per hp? Youve made your assertions but havent backed it up, and come up with strawmen about 'shifting at 1500 rpms'. Im sure you could but thats hardly a concern - justifying HAVING TO REV 20% higher, and getting a shitty rod to stroke ratio (which is more important the higher you rev) to trade off for 60 lbs off the nose end of the car is.
You'd have to be in a class that pegs weight at your displacement (the only good reason I can think of, dropping 400 lbs off the entire cars frame), or have money to blow in full on racing (and have already extinguished every other means to improve handling) to justify a paltry 60 lb reduction for the need to swap over, especially considering that not only do you lose torque, you could have to deal with surge, you HAVE to build the top end to handle high rpms, youd have to get a .20% shorter rear gear (assuming the KA has 4.0:1 rear gears, thats 4.8:1 in the back now) and you cant have as much of the VE curve effecient as a KA, because without dynamic intakes and variable cam timing, the range at which you can make your rpm range efficient is not very broad.
So, maybe for some full on race situations that might be useful, but an endurance racer would stick with a KA for a lot of obvious reasons. Im sure you know that 6500 rpms is a lot easier on parts than 7800, especially with a tall deck and rods over 6" long, right?
Thats what people say, poorly, when they get all uppity about 'torque'.
Im having doubts a SR is a pound for pound leader compared to the current kings of the hill, smallblocks and 2.3Ts, but I guess for the tuner market's norms it has cheap parts. But the SR is hardly a perfect motor. The head isnt exactly perfect and its rod to stroke ratio compared to a KA is attrocious - stroking that out would be ridiculous. Unless someone has a tall deck SR or some creative machine shop work with deck plates and sleeves to increase the deck, I wouldnt stroke one out.
Now, tell me, how is it so unbeatable dollar per hp? Youve made your assertions but havent backed it up, and come up with strawmen about 'shifting at 1500 rpms'. Im sure you could but thats hardly a concern - justifying HAVING TO REV 20% higher, and getting a shitty rod to stroke ratio (which is more important the higher you rev) to trade off for 60 lbs off the nose end of the car is.
You'd have to be in a class that pegs weight at your displacement (the only good reason I can think of, dropping 400 lbs off the entire cars frame), or have money to blow in full on racing (and have already extinguished every other means to improve handling) to justify a paltry 60 lb reduction for the need to swap over, especially considering that not only do you lose torque, you could have to deal with surge, you HAVE to build the top end to handle high rpms, youd have to get a .20% shorter rear gear (assuming the KA has 4.0:1 rear gears, thats 4.8:1 in the back now) and you cant have as much of the VE curve effecient as a KA, because without dynamic intakes and variable cam timing, the range at which you can make your rpm range efficient is not very broad.
So, maybe for some full on race situations that might be useful, but an endurance racer would stick with a KA for a lot of obvious reasons. Im sure you know that 6500 rpms is a lot easier on parts than 7800, especially with a tall deck and rods over 6" long, right?
owned...
07-17-06, 03:06 PM
#52
Passing life by
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
If youre as accomplished as you claim to be it should be easy as pie to justify your stance, yet youre not. What gives?
07-17-06, 03:16 PM
#53
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iceblue
Use the search button!
Wait, werent you the one who thinks you can just P-Port a rotary cheaply without touching any seals, eshaft, stat gear, etc? Care to show me anyone who was dumb enough to do that?
The only thing youve done is spew childish bullshit and act half your age and say "LOLZ PP + TURBO > *"
07-17-06, 03:43 PM
#54
Passing life by
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
YOU bring it up, YOU back it up.
Wait, werent you the one who thinks you can just P-Port a rotary cheaply without touching any seals, eshaft, stat gear, etc? Care to show me anyone who was dumb enough to do that?
The only thing youve done is spew childish bullshit and act half your age and say "LOLZ PP + TURBO > *"
Wait, werent you the one who thinks you can just P-Port a rotary cheaply without touching any seals, eshaft, stat gear, etc? Care to show me anyone who was dumb enough to do that?
The only thing youve done is spew childish bullshit and act half your age and say "LOLZ PP + TURBO > *"
07-17-06, 03:47 PM
#55
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: san marcos, texas
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GtoRx7
Haha, Nihilanthic is still posting dynos! J/k Nih, but I hope everyone realizes the fastest and quickest 240sx REAL car/chassis has ran 9.23 @143 mph, and guess what? He is using the SR20DET. Awe, I guess the KA was ripped out in favor of a SR, a guy that has been a leader in toyota supra's and nissans since the begining of time, hardly is someone who would jump on the bandwagon, esp. when all the intake and exhaust were custom fab. from scratch. I think he weighed the options, and a SR comes out on top. The cost alone justifies it, the amount of time and money to get a heavy *** Ka turbo to work, you can buy a longblock SR for like $1500, and plug and play. Its cheaper, lighter, and obviously capable of the same and more power in the end. Big and heavy with low revs and gobs of torque wont always win, in fact I would say most of the time it loses.
I would just like to throw some FACTS out here for a second....
AMS has a 9 second full interior KA-T that they debuted this season that is likely shooting for the 240sx record by next year.
They are pumping out 800 whp (~1000 crank) from the KA
You can put together a turbo kit for the KA for ~$700 and will be faster than a SR20.
From my research, SR20 engines cost about $2000, plus you still need engine mounts, side mount, IC piping etc... but we'll be nice and just call it $2000.
With $2000 in mods, you can have a turbo kit w/ upgraded turbo and bigger IC and run much faster than a stock SR.
Edit: Forgot a few things...
Revving high /= power as Nih has posted, although you would have to rev higher to have the same amount of power from a smaller engine. AMS revs their KA to 8000, you would have to rev a SR to nearly 10k to have the same air consumption (given VE is the same of course).
And I dont know what fantasy you live in, but torque is a GOOD thing. Torque wins races off the line, HP is for up top. KA-T have both.
Last edited by stuffy236; 07-17-06 at 04:03 PM.
07-17-06, 03:58 PM
#56
Originally Posted by stuffy236
I would just like to throw some FACTS out here for a second....
AMS has a 9 second full interior KA-T that they debuted this season that is likely shooting for the 240sx record by next year.
AMS has a 9 second full interior KA-T that they debuted this season that is likely shooting for the 240sx record by next year.
Shooting for records and hitting them are two totally disparate things. Every year somebody new comes out shooting for our records in Top Fuel. Every year we kick their ***.
Shooting for a records doesn't really belong under the facts header, especially if you feel the need to put it in all CAPS.
07-17-06, 03:59 PM
#57
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I figured a 20% difference in displacement would just be self ******* evident but when youre around ricers they think it makes it a 'heavy truck motor' or whatever.
I give the **** up. If you really wanna drop 60# off a damned #2600 lbs car and watch a tach needle sing 20% farther to make the same power, more power to you. Just don't call me stupid!
I give the **** up. If you really wanna drop 60# off a damned #2600 lbs car and watch a tach needle sing 20% farther to make the same power, more power to you. Just don't call me stupid!
07-17-06, 04:06 PM
#58
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: san marcos, texas
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by digitalsolo
...have they broken the record yet?
Shooting for records and hitting them are two totally disparate things. Every year somebody new comes out shooting for our records in Top Fuel. Every year we kick their ***.
Shooting for a records doesn't really belong under the facts header, especially if you feel the need to put it in all CAPS.
Shooting for records and hitting them are two totally disparate things. Every year somebody new comes out shooting for our records in Top Fuel. Every year we kick their ***.
Shooting for a records doesn't really belong under the facts header, especially if you feel the need to put it in all CAPS.
Yes you are correct, they have not broken the record yet. However, they have made a great showing for the few times they have been out to the track. They are still messing around with stall speeds and the turbo is restricting them.
GP owner to GP owner, that would be like saying ZZP should just give up with the TTGT since Intense has the record. ZZP has had one season with their car and they are making adjustments themselves and are surely going to stomp on intense when the weather cools off.
07-17-06, 04:32 PM
#60
Passing life by
you have allot to learn if you think more displacement matters.
There is so much more involved in a motor that affects things it is ridicules to even begin to start at this point. Whoopty ******* do I have the 20% between my legs.
There is so much more involved in a motor that affects things it is ridicules to even begin to start at this point. Whoopty ******* do I have the 20% between my legs.
07-17-06, 04:41 PM
#61
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: san marcos, texas
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iceblue
you have allot to learn if you think more displacement matters.
There is so much more involved in a motor that affects things it is ridicules to even begin to start at this point. Whoopty ******* do I have the 20% between my legs.
There is so much more involved in a motor that affects things it is ridicules to even begin to start at this point. Whoopty ******* do I have the 20% between my legs.
notice that we said keeping VE constant... which would mean displacement would be a huge factor
07-17-06, 05:09 PM
#62
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No **** theres a lot more involved, but not having to worry about them because you have a lower rev range because you have more displacement was my point.
I've still yet to hear why its worth dropping 20% in displacement and spending time and effort to lose only #60 and have to rev higher, or really much of anything with any substance.
Just innane insults and the typical case of arguing when you cant debate anymore.
I've still yet to hear why its worth dropping 20% in displacement and spending time and effort to lose only #60 and have to rev higher, or really much of anything with any substance.
Just innane insults and the typical case of arguing when you cant debate anymore.
07-17-06, 05:16 PM
#63
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stuffy236
notice that we said keeping VE constant... which would mean displacement would be a huge factor
You can easily go from off idle to 6500, but with a 7800 rpm redline youre talking about a whole new animal. And good luck getting a good burn with that rod to stroke ratio the SR20 has
how much timing do they run anyway?
07-17-06, 06:49 PM
#65
Passing life by
stuffy236 n00b shhhhh aren’t you supposed to be selling your car?
The lower end is the least. bore size and stroke is about all that makes that up, good internals a smaller bore will yield more throttle response. The rest goes into the hend design and you can only work a head so far. The KA motors heads are well a truck motor to say the least were the SR20 was built to be a faster revving 4 more like a Honda engine to make strong power up top. You keep it up top not down low so the rpm being lower power on the KA is irrelevant.
Machining of the SR head offers a higher potential plant then the KA. So spending 10x more money trying to make the KA faster is pointless..
The VE is hogwash, start designing your own plenum then lets talk about VE.
The lower end is the least. bore size and stroke is about all that makes that up, good internals a smaller bore will yield more throttle response. The rest goes into the hend design and you can only work a head so far. The KA motors heads are well a truck motor to say the least were the SR20 was built to be a faster revving 4 more like a Honda engine to make strong power up top. You keep it up top not down low so the rpm being lower power on the KA is irrelevant.
Machining of the SR head offers a higher potential plant then the KA. So spending 10x more money trying to make the KA faster is pointless..
The VE is hogwash, start designing your own plenum then lets talk about VE.
Last edited by iceblue; 07-17-06 at 06:52 PM.
07-17-06, 07:14 PM
#66
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh god lets all weld a plenum and act like we're hot ******* ****.
NEWSFLASH: The KA has great headflow, the dohc flows 283.6 CFM @ .500" lift w/ 28" of vacuum on the intake side and the exhaust ports flow 200.4 CFM @ .500" w/ 28" of vacuum.
The stock cam is set up for a sane rev range, yet you call something with 280cfm of headflow a 'truck'.
So, youre a ricer who can weld a plenum. Im supposed to be impressed?
NEWSFLASH: The KA has great headflow, the dohc flows 283.6 CFM @ .500" lift w/ 28" of vacuum on the intake side and the exhaust ports flow 200.4 CFM @ .500" w/ 28" of vacuum.
The stock cam is set up for a sane rev range, yet you call something with 280cfm of headflow a 'truck'.
So, youre a ricer who can weld a plenum. Im supposed to be impressed?
07-17-06, 07:50 PM
#67
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
Ok, .4 liters doesnt sound like a lot, but its a matter of ratio. You know a KA can do at 6500 what a SR can do at 7800 rpms assuming perfectly equal efficiency (BSFC, etc) and VE, right? A SR has to spin 1.2x (thats 20% higher) than a KA to do the same thing. Or, the KA can do 20% more at a given rpm than a SR can do.
Thats what people say, poorly, when they get all uppity about 'torque'.
Im having doubts a SR is a pound for pound leader compared to the current kings of the hill, smallblocks and 2.3Ts, but I guess for the tuner market's norms it has cheap parts. But the SR is hardly a perfect motor. The head isnt exactly perfect and its rod to stroke ratio compared to a KA is attrocious - stroking that out would be ridiculous. Unless someone has a tall deck SR or some creative machine shop work with deck plates and sleeves to increase the deck, I wouldnt stroke one out.
Thats what people say, poorly, when they get all uppity about 'torque'.
Im having doubts a SR is a pound for pound leader compared to the current kings of the hill, smallblocks and 2.3Ts, but I guess for the tuner market's norms it has cheap parts. But the SR is hardly a perfect motor. The head isnt exactly perfect and its rod to stroke ratio compared to a KA is attrocious - stroking that out would be ridiculous. Unless someone has a tall deck SR or some creative machine shop work with deck plates and sleeves to increase the deck, I wouldnt stroke one out.
Alright, you have alot of numbers and facts, but are somewhat ignorant on practice. For one, have long rods have almost no bad side effect, except for weight, and size of the engine. Longer rods will decrease piston speed at almost all angles of the crankshaft, so guess what? Da DA DA! A Sr20 at higher rpms, will actually have very near the piston speeds of a larger, lower reving engine. Add to the fact a SR20 is in no way shape or form, ever called un-reliable, even with its INSANE (right) rpms, it will do it for years within its capable power levels. I have built, and driven, and watched, and been there with my friends running 400+ hp 240sx's beating the **** out of them on a daily baises, with stock engines, and all of them ran for AT least 4 years. That said, why is the high rpm bad? It obviously can handle it longer than anyone needs, so where is the negative effects again? Also add the the fact the S14 Sr20, has a variable cam on the exhaust side, and I have personally dyno'd many in bone stock form, they dont run out of VE at 5000rpms.
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
Now, tell me, how is it so unbeatable dollar per hp? Youve made your assertions but havent backed it up, and come up with strawmen about 'shifting at 1500 rpms'. Im sure you could but thats hardly a concern - justifying HAVING TO REV 20% higher, and getting a shitty rod to stroke ratio (which is more important the higher you rev) to trade off for 60 lbs off the nose end of the car is.
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
You'd have to be in a class that pegs weight at your displacement (the only good reason I can think of, dropping 400 lbs off the entire cars frame), or have money to blow in full on racing (and have already extinguished every other means to improve handling) to justify a paltry 60 lb reduction for the need to swap over, especially considering that not only do you lose torque, you could have to deal with surge, you HAVE to build the top end to handle high rpms, youd have to get a .20% shorter rear gear (assuming the KA has 4.0:1 rear gears, thats 4.8:1 in the back now) and you cant have as much of the VE curve effecient as a KA, because without dynamic intakes and variable cam timing, the range at which you can make your rpm range efficient is not very broad.
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
So, maybe for some full on race situations that might be useful, but an endurance racer would stick with a KA for a lot of obvious reasons. Im sure you know that 6500 rpms is a lot easier on parts than 7800, especially with a tall deck and rods over 6" long, right?
Originally Posted by stuffy236
I would just like to throw some FACTS out here for a second....
AMS has a 9 second full interior KA-T that they debuted this season that is likely shooting for the 240sx record by next year.
AMS has a 9 second full interior KA-T that they debuted this season that is likely shooting for the 240sx record by next year.
Originally Posted by stuffy236
They are pumping out 800 whp (~1000 crank) from the KA
Originally Posted by stuffy236
You can put together a turbo kit for the KA for ~$700 and will be faster than a SR20.
Originally Posted by stuffy236
From my research, SR20 engines cost about $2000, plus you still need engine mounts, side mount, IC piping etc... but we'll be nice and just call it $2000.
Originally Posted by stuffy236
With $2000 in mods, you can have a turbo kit w/ upgraded turbo and bigger IC and run much faster than a stock SR.
Originally Posted by stuffy236
Edit: Forgot a few things...
Revving high /= power as Nih has posted, although you would have to rev higher to have the same amount of power from a smaller engine. AMS revs their KA to 8000, you would have to rev a SR to nearly 10k to have the same air consumption (given VE is the same of course).
And I dont know what fantasy you live in, but torque is a GOOD thing. Torque wins races off the line, HP is for up top. KA-T have both.
Revving high /= power as Nih has posted, although you would have to rev higher to have the same amount of power from a smaller engine. AMS revs their KA to 8000, you would have to rev a SR to nearly 10k to have the same air consumption (given VE is the same of course).
And I dont know what fantasy you live in, but torque is a GOOD thing. Torque wins races off the line, HP is for up top. KA-T have both.
Lots of Rpms and low torque can be geared to create torque, so HP = POWER, power is the ability to do WORK. Torque is a twisting force.......thats it......a......twisting.....force. Torque needs a little buddy call TIME to accomplish anything at all, and TORQUE mixed in with some TIME is Tq x RPM's. And that only leads to one thing, Horsepower! YAY, we have the ability to do WORK!!!! So get out there and work you lazy *** bastards!
07-17-06, 07:50 PM
#68
Passing life by
LMAO ^ man you actualy took the time to point out his obvious no exsperiance. I thought it was more hillarius to just make fun of him. 
oh well 20 forum bux gave for all that effort.
Oh boy someone cant weld and is bent on a flow test that realy dosent show whats goin on inside of a motor.
Spare us your google searches
To bad my ricer stuff is done right. Hate to see what your real car power KA work looks like then. Oh waite you dont have any work, sorry.
oh well 20 forum bux gave for all that effort.Oh boy someone cant weld and is bent on a flow test that realy dosent show whats goin on inside of a motor.
Spare us your google searches
To bad my ricer stuff is done right. Hate to see what your real car power KA work looks like then. Oh waite you dont have any work, sorry.
Last edited by iceblue; 07-17-06 at 07:55 PM.
07-17-06, 08:01 PM
#69
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
Oh god lets all weld a plenum and act like we're hot ******* ****.
NEWSFLASH: The KA has great headflow, the dohc flows 283.6 CFM @ .500" lift w/ 28" of vacuum on the intake side and the exhaust ports flow 200.4 CFM @ .500" w/ 28" of vacuum.
The stock cam is set up for a sane rev range, yet you call something with 280cfm of headflow a 'truck'.
So, youre a ricer who can weld a plenum. Im supposed to be impressed?
NEWSFLASH: The KA has great headflow, the dohc flows 283.6 CFM @ .500" lift w/ 28" of vacuum on the intake side and the exhaust ports flow 200.4 CFM @ .500" w/ 28" of vacuum.
The stock cam is set up for a sane rev range, yet you call something with 280cfm of headflow a 'truck'.
So, youre a ricer who can weld a plenum. Im supposed to be impressed?
Making what......more Tq per liter? More Tq per liter.....hmmm.....is this all adding up to be a replacement for .4 liters weighed against the extra price and weight, and hassle of a damn KA-t?
07-17-06, 08:05 PM
#70
Originally Posted by iceblue
LMAO ^ man you actualy took the time to point out his obvious no exsperiance. I thought it was more hillarius to just make fun of him. oh well 20 forum bux gave for all that effort.
Oh boy someone cant weld and is bent on a flow test that realy dosent show whats goin on inside of a motor.
Spare us your google searches
To bad my ricer stuff is done right. Hate to see what your real car power KA work looks like then. Oh waite you dont have any work, sorry.
oh well 20 forum bux gave for all that effort.Oh boy someone cant weld and is bent on a flow test that realy dosent show whats goin on inside of a motor.
Spare us your google searches
To bad my ricer stuff is done right. Hate to see what your real car power KA work looks like then. Oh waite you dont have any work, sorry.
07-17-06, 08:28 PM
#71
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GtoRx7
How much CFM does the SR flow? Because it could be what..20% less and achieve the same VE range of rpms? You ALWAYS talk about making up for poor head design, with extra boost, and running a high pressure ratio turbo to be effective at that high boost. Which actually has creates a better VE, hence a smaller SR with more restriction, higher boost, and higher rpms would be rather efficient wouldnt it?
Making what......more Tq per liter? More Tq per liter.....hmmm.....is this all adding up to be a replacement for .4 liters weighed against the extra price and weight, and hassle of a damn KA-t?
Making what......more Tq per liter? More Tq per liter.....hmmm.....is this all adding up to be a replacement for .4 liters weighed against the extra price and weight, and hassle of a damn KA-t?
If I was gonna run NA I'd definitely go with a KA24DE or a SR, Ill give you that.
But anyway, if you want to talk experience, I know a guy who blew up two SRs, then went KA and got over 500 whp on a stock longblock.
I also know with more displacement and lower revs youre almost always more reliable as well... youre instead making weird arguements for effectively longer gearing by revving higher when you could just as soon gear a lower revving motor longer too, and ignoring the fact that with static cam timing, its easier to make the rev range efficient with 6500 rpms as a redline than with 7800.
Youre ARGUING and trying to back up a forgone conclusion instead of looking at the facts as they are. Ive still yet to see any real reason why I should pull a KA to go with a SR unless its because I can drop chassis weight due to lower displacement, and "too much torque" is ricer bullshit, and you know that.
07-17-06, 08:34 PM
#72
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iceblue
LMAO ^ man you actualy took the time to point out his obvious no exsperiance. I thought it was more hillarius to just make fun of him. oh well 20 forum bux gave for all that effort.
Oh boy someone cant weld and is bent on a flow test that realy dosent show whats goin on inside of a motor.
Spare us your google searches
To bad my ricer stuff is done right. Hate to see what your real car power KA work looks like then. Oh waite you dont have any work, sorry.
oh well 20 forum bux gave for all that effort.Oh boy someone cant weld and is bent on a flow test that realy dosent show whats goin on inside of a motor.
Spare us your google searches
To bad my ricer stuff is done right. Hate to see what your real car power KA work looks like then. Oh waite you dont have any work, sorry.
And yeah, I can weld, and I do actually understand what rod/stroke ratio means, and what it has to do with dwell time, side loading, and reliability.
If you're actually a professional, why not write a paper (with proper grammar and spelling, please) about any real advantage of a SR over a KA, and Id gladly read and review it.
All Ive gotten so far is nonsense with no substance, and appeals to authority. Why not offer some proof instead of arguements?
07-17-06, 08:46 PM
#74
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iceblue
I know a guy that knows a guy that knows a guy thats best friends cusins wifes boy friend and he said the KA was awsome dude so it must be true!
Tell ya what, debate with facts and logic instead of arguments and emotion, and Ill listen. But right now I still dont know any reason why a SR would save me any money over a KA, or be any better at all, except people who like watching a tach needle swing real far or tell me it wont make 'too much torque' if its only a 2 liter engine
07-17-06, 10:48 PM
#75
Stuffy,
Until the TTGP beats Intense's record, Intense still owns it though; and until that car gets down the track cleanly it can't beat the record. Do I think it will, hell yes, and I hope it does (not an intense fan here) but still, until then, it's just talk. :-) I understand what you're saying though.
Nihil,
I've seen some of the stuff that Iceblue has worked on, and it's pretty nice stuff. I've heard about the broken Saturn and other such vehicles you drive. You really need to get a car, and start implementing some of your talk into reality or back off and downing other people. I'm going to start a "Benchracers Anonymous" for ya. First 3 sessions are on the house.
Oh, and by the way, it's arguments, not arguements. Don't make spelling errors in the same paragraph you critique someone's spelling. 
Gto,
I hope you type fast, cause damn, you talk a lot.
Until the TTGP beats Intense's record, Intense still owns it though; and until that car gets down the track cleanly it can't beat the record. Do I think it will, hell yes, and I hope it does (not an intense fan here) but still, until then, it's just talk. :-) I understand what you're saying though.
Nihil,
I've seen some of the stuff that Iceblue has worked on, and it's pretty nice stuff. I've heard about the broken Saturn and other such vehicles you drive. You really need to get a car, and start implementing some of your talk into reality or back off and downing other people. I'm going to start a "Benchracers Anonymous" for ya. First 3 sessions are on the house.
Oh, and by the way, it's arguments, not arguements. Don't make spelling errors in the same paragraph you critique someone's spelling. Gto,
I hope you type fast, cause damn, you talk a lot.
Last edited by digitalsolo; 07-17-06 at 10:50 PM.