1/4 mile times
10-30-2010, 07:43 PM
#82
Guys seriously i dont know what you smoke but its good. I dont mind if you share some. As long as i remember typeR got 3.5 build 255whp(?) but still i dont see it. E46 is able to run 13 flat stock. No wrong wheel drive cl can do that unless 150 hp shot or something.
@edit
Yeah its in your sig but that was what i remembered.
@edit
Yeah its in your sig but that was what i remembered.
Last edited by StreetKA; 10-30-2010 at 07:45 PM.
10-30-2010, 07:48 PM
#83
Guys seriously i dont know what you smoke but its good. I dont mind if you share some. As long as i remember typeR got 3.5 build 255whp(?) but still i dont see it. E46 is able to run 13 flat stock. No wrong wheel drive cl can do that unless 150 hp shot or something.
@edit
Yeah its in your sig but that was what i remembered.
@edit
Yeah its in your sig but that was what i remembered.
10-30-2010, 09:56 PM
#86
Guys seriously i dont know what you smoke but its good. I dont mind if you share some. As long as i remember typeR got 3.5 build 255whp(?) but still i dont see it. E46 is able to run 13 flat stock. No wrong wheel drive cl can do that unless 150 hp shot or something.
@edit
Yeah its in your sig but that was what i remembered.
@edit
Yeah its in your sig but that was what i remembered.
and btw that was from a 2nd gear pull too, so traction was not too much of an issue even with the so called wrong wheel drive
10-30-2010, 10:11 PM
#88
also altitude here, so roughly a second slower 
, and it was a cooler night, so the cooling effect/advantage of the nitrous was not as great as say during the peak of summer
but spraying in 3rd and 4th only LMFAO, F@CK that 2nd gets it also, along with 1st once i do finally push the throttle 100% (if the tires don't spin i ain't got enough power
)
and you wounder why i am having issues with only like 2k miles on my clutch
, and it was a cooler night, so the cooling effect/advantage of the nitrous was not as great as say during the peak of summerbut spraying in 3rd and 4th only LMFAO, F@CK that 2nd gets it also, along with 1st once i do finally push the throttle 100% (if the tires don't spin i ain't got enough power
)and you wounder why i am having issues with only like 2k miles on my clutch
10-31-2010, 09:13 AM
#91
Senior Moderator
Guys seriously i dont know what you smoke but its good. I dont mind if you share some. As long as i remember typeR got 3.5 build 255whp(?) but still i dont see it. E46 is able to run 13 flat stock. No wrong wheel drive cl can do that unless 150 hp shot or something.
@edit
Yeah its in your sig but that was what i remembered.
@edit
Yeah its in your sig but that was what i remembered.
the day i got my 13.3 i raced an LS1 cam auto about 5xs ... walked him badly ,badly it was trapping 101-103... went from a roll with a 6mt SS he took the hit and put me on his rear wheel ... by top of 3rd i was on his front wheel.... im gonna link a vid of me vs. roush III with upgrades 400whp
http://www.streetfire.net/video/stoc...-32cl_5373.htm
this was a friend would run him alot at track he lost every time ... had he got to the light on time and we launched... id usually get out 2 cars .... he could not run me down to 100 after that make short work of me ... but 113 was highest id go anyway we all no the auto 4th gear limits
Last edited by typeR; 10-31-2010 at 09:22 AM.
10-31-2010, 01:18 PM
#92
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
It all comes down to the driver, wrong wheel drive or not. I still have yet to encounter an E46 that gave me a hard time.
Looking at the dyno graphs of them, I put down more torque. Most of my races are from rolls anyway.
Looking at the dyno graphs of them, I put down more torque. Most of my races are from rolls anyway.
11-01-2010, 08:59 PM
#93
M3's run 13 flat where ? here in florida not so much but my 13.306 @106 was here ! my 257whp/232 was on a mustang dyno ...
the day i got my 13.3 i raced an LS1 cam auto about 5xs ... walked him badly ,badly it was trapping 101-103... went from a roll with a 6mt SS he took the hit and put me on his rear wheel ... by top of 3rd i was on his front wheel.... im gonna link a vid of me vs. roush III with upgrades 400whp
http://www.streetfire.net/video/stoc...-32cl_5373.htm
this was a friend would run him alot at track he lost every time ... had he got to the light on time and we launched... id usually get out 2 cars .... he could not run me down to 100 after that make short work of me ... but 113 was highest id go anyway we all no the auto 4th gear limits
the day i got my 13.3 i raced an LS1 cam auto about 5xs ... walked him badly ,badly it was trapping 101-103... went from a roll with a 6mt SS he took the hit and put me on his rear wheel ... by top of 3rd i was on his front wheel.... im gonna link a vid of me vs. roush III with upgrades 400whp
http://www.streetfire.net/video/stoc...-32cl_5373.htm
this was a friend would run him alot at track he lost every time ... had he got to the light on time and we launched... id usually get out 2 cars .... he could not run me down to 100 after that make short work of me ... but 113 was highest id go anyway we all no the auto 4th gear limits
ok you beat m3 i belive it but tell me what was the weight of the car that time you ran 13.3 ? full interior ? wheels ? tires ? its interesting
its great to see that someone moved that heavy ass boat 1/4 miles away in 13.3
11-01-2010, 09:31 PM
#94
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
He had an auto, part of the reason his times were pretty good. Its easier to get consistent times with automatics.
11-01-2010, 11:11 PM
#95
Three Wheelin'
Just my opinion but the E46 M3 is a far far superior automobile that any CLS 6 sp or SC'ed or not. I also doubt very much that any CLS 257whp or not can or does routinley beat E46 M3's. Not saying it has never happend but I don't think its a regular occurence. Just so we are on the same page here, everyone knows the E46 is the 333 SAE hp model from 2000 and up right? (Not the mid to late 90's E36 with 240 somthing HP) Thats about 85 more hp (remember the CLS is not SAE rated so it really puts out about 240 ish stock) than a CLS and the M3 is a little over 100 lbs lighter. Plus it also has about 50 more ft lbs of Tq with a broader curve. Just my .02 cents.
I would take a E46 M3 over anything Acura has ever put out. Wel.....l maybe not the NSX!
I would take a E46 M3 over anything Acura has ever put out. Wel.....l maybe not the NSX!
11-01-2010, 11:26 PM
#96
Just my opinion but the E46 M3 is a far far superior automobile that any CLS 6 sp or SC'ed or not. I also doubt very much that any CLS 257whp or not can or does routinley beat E46 M3's. Not saying it has never happend but I don't think its a regular occurence. Just so we are on the same page here, everyone knows the E46 is the 333 SAE hp model from 2000 and up right? (Not the mid to late 90's E36 with 240 somthing HP) Thats about 85 more hp (remember the CLS is not SAE rated so it really puts out about 240 ish stock) than a CLS and the M3 is a little over 100 lbs lighter. Plus it also has about 50 more ft lbs of Tq with a broader curve. Just my .02 cents.
I would take a E46 M3 over anything Acura has ever put out. Wel.....l maybe not the NSX!
I would take a E46 M3 over anything Acura has ever put out. Wel.....l maybe not the NSX!
11-02-2010, 01:54 AM
#98
Three Wheelin'
"""""The J32 displaces 3.2 L (~195 cu in) and is a SOHC VTEC design. Bore is 89 mm (3.5 in) and stroke is 86 mm (3.4 in). Output was 225 hp (168 kW) for the J32A1, with the J32A2 raising output to 260 hp (194 kW) @ 6200 rpm and 232 lb·ft (315 N·m) @ 3500-5500 rpm. A more aggressive camshaft, more free flowing intake/exhaust, and a 2-stage intake manifold all result in a 35 hp (26 kW) increase over the J32A1. The J32A3's output in the 2004/2005 TL is 270 hp (201 kW). SAE corrected hp for the 2006-2008 TL is 258 hp (192 kW). The J32A3 also includes the one-piece exhaust manifold cast with the cylinder head, first introduced on the J30A4""""""
Do you see where in 2004 Acura started using the SAE corrected numbers? It took thier 270 hp A3 motor down to 258 hp. Same engine, same power, just corrected for SAE standards. If you took your J32A2 in stock form and put it on an engine dyno it would show about 240ish SAE corrected. Acura used some other measurment at the time the J32a2 was put to use. If you take a new engine today and it messures 260 Hp SAE then it would be more powerful than a J32A2 engine. Almost all engine manufactures use the SAE standard today.
Now I'm having trouble finding a document where it said that the S54B32 E46 engine was rated using SAE standards. The do remember the source ws questionable also. So who knows. Either way if both engines were not SAE cert, the S54 still had a huge advantage in HP and TQ. But it is widley speculated that the S54B32 was underated. I see alot of E46's pulling 275 to 290 Whp stock or with just cat backs. Most CLS's pull what 220whp at best with headers, CAI, pulley. So to say the M3 still has a 85 Hp advantage is not far off.
Like I said, I think that there far fewer CLS's beating E46's then there are E46's beating CLS's. No doubt!
11-02-2010, 02:04 AM
#99
Ok Jacob, I even tried to explain it to you. Why don't you ever do any research before you start popping off at the mouth like a damn fool idiot? Try owning what you say for a change.
"""""The J32 displaces 3.2 L (~195 cu in) and is a SOHC VTEC design. Bore is 89 mm (3.5 in) and stroke is 86 mm (3.4 in). Output was 225 hp (168 kW) for the J32A1, with the J32A2 raising output to 260 hp (194 kW) @ 6200 rpm and 232 lb·ft (315 N·m) @ 3500-5500 rpm. A more aggressive camshaft, more free flowing intake/exhaust, and a 2-stage intake manifold all result in a 35 hp (26 kW) increase over the J32A1. The J32A3's output in the 2004/2005 TL is 270 hp (201 kW). SAE corrected hp for the 2006-2008 TL is 258 hp (192 kW). The J32A3 also includes the one-piece exhaust manifold cast with the cylinder head, first introduced on the J30A4""""""
Do you see where in 2004 Acura started using the SAE corrected numbers? It took thier 270 hp A3 motor down to 258 hp. Same engine, same power, just corrected for SAE standards. If you took your J32A2 in stock form and put it on an engine dyno it would show about 240ish SAE corrected. Acura used some other measurment at the time the J32a2 was put to use. If you take a new engine today and it messures 260 Hp SAE then it would be more powerful than a J32A2 engine. Almost all engine manufactures use the SAE standard today.
Now I'm having trouble finding a document where it said that the S54B32 E46 engine was rated using SAE standards. The do remember the source ws questionable also. So who knows. Either way if both engines were not SAE cert, the S54 still had a huge advantage in HP and TQ. But it is widley speculated that the S54B32 was underated. I see alot of E46's pulling 275 to 290 Whp stock or with just cat backs. Most CLS's pull what 220whp at best with headers, CAI, pulley. So to say the M3 still has a 85 Hp advantage is not far off.
Like I said, I think that there far fewer CLS's beating E46's then there are E46's beating CLS's. No doubt!
"""""The J32 displaces 3.2 L (~195 cu in) and is a SOHC VTEC design. Bore is 89 mm (3.5 in) and stroke is 86 mm (3.4 in). Output was 225 hp (168 kW) for the J32A1, with the J32A2 raising output to 260 hp (194 kW) @ 6200 rpm and 232 lb·ft (315 N·m) @ 3500-5500 rpm. A more aggressive camshaft, more free flowing intake/exhaust, and a 2-stage intake manifold all result in a 35 hp (26 kW) increase over the J32A1. The J32A3's output in the 2004/2005 TL is 270 hp (201 kW). SAE corrected hp for the 2006-2008 TL is 258 hp (192 kW). The J32A3 also includes the one-piece exhaust manifold cast with the cylinder head, first introduced on the J30A4""""""
Do you see where in 2004 Acura started using the SAE corrected numbers? It took thier 270 hp A3 motor down to 258 hp. Same engine, same power, just corrected for SAE standards. If you took your J32A2 in stock form and put it on an engine dyno it would show about 240ish SAE corrected. Acura used some other measurment at the time the J32a2 was put to use. If you take a new engine today and it messures 260 Hp SAE then it would be more powerful than a J32A2 engine. Almost all engine manufactures use the SAE standard today.
Now I'm having trouble finding a document where it said that the S54B32 E46 engine was rated using SAE standards. The do remember the source ws questionable also. So who knows. Either way if both engines were not SAE cert, the S54 still had a huge advantage in HP and TQ. But it is widley speculated that the S54B32 was underated. I see alot of E46's pulling 275 to 290 Whp stock or with just cat backs. Most CLS's pull what 220whp at best with headers, CAI, pulley. So to say the M3 still has a 85 Hp advantage is not far off.
Like I said, I think that there far fewer CLS's beating E46's then there are E46's beating CLS's. No doubt!
Last edited by Jacobpockros; 11-02-2010 at 02:09 AM.
11-02-2010, 02:11 AM
#100
Three Wheelin'
Sorry guy, but your information is bs. Show me credible resources to back up your information. This means showing me a dyno of a J32a2 motor, if you can't do it, then all your talk is nothing but toilet matter. You are additionally wrong about what these cars dyno at as well. They dyno 220 stock, with the headers, intake, and pulley, they dyno at 235-250. Learn before you type.
Wow, now I know why everyone clowns your ass.
Ok you are right.
Last edited by CH46ESeaKnight; 11-02-2010 at 02:15 AM.
11-02-2010, 02:34 AM
#101
Three Wheelin'
You know wheel HP is subject to the dyno type and the operator right? If the parameters are not set right you can get a CLS to dyno 300whp. A dyno jet may show 250 whp but go down the street to a mustang or dyno dynamics and it will show about 220. So wich one is right? Naturally you would take the highest number someone can throw up on you tube right?
And you were right I see a few CLS 6sp's pulling 235 to 240 with I/H/E/P.
And you were right I see a few CLS 6sp's pulling 235 to 240 with I/H/E/P.
11-02-2010, 03:00 AM
#102
Three Wheelin'
Here is a little something I found on Wikipedia. You can take it or leave it, I don't care.
SAE certified power
In 2005, the SAE introduced "SAE Certified Power" with SAE J2723[15]. This test is voluntary and is in itself not a separate engine test code but a certification of either J1349 or J1995 after which the manufacturer is allowed to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349" or "Certified to SAE J1995" depending on which test standard have been followed. To attain certification the test must follow the SAE standard in question, take place in a ISO9000/9002 certified facility and be witnessed by an SAE approved third party.
A few manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota switched to the new ratings immediately, with multi-directional results; the rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 to 469 hp (330 to 350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 to 190 hp (160 to 140 kW). The ES330 and Camry SE V6 were previously rated at 225 hp but the ES330 dropped to 218 hp (163 kW) while the Camry declined to 210 hp (160 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 to 505 hp (370 to 377 kW).
While Toyota and Honda are retesting their entire vehicle lineups, other automakers generally are retesting only those with updated powertrains. For example, the 2006 Ford Five Hundred is rated at 203 horsepower, the same as that of 2005 model. However, the 2006 rating does not reflect the new SAE testing procedure as Ford is not going to spend the extra expense of retesting its existing engines. Over time, most automakers are expected to comply with the new guidelines.
SAE tightened its horsepower rules after some engineers noticed parts of the old test could be subjected to different interpretations. Under the old testing procedures, there were small factors that required a judgment call: how much oil was in the crankcase, how the engine controls were calibrated and whether a vehicle was tested with premium fuel. In some cases, such can add up to a change in horsepower ratings. A road test editor at Edmunds.com, John Di Pietro, said decreases in horsepower ratings for some '06 models are not that dramatic. For vehicles like a midsize family sedan, it is likely that the reputation of the manufacturer will be more important.[16]
Either way it apears the S54 engine was not done using SAE.
SAE certified power
In 2005, the SAE introduced "SAE Certified Power" with SAE J2723[15]. This test is voluntary and is in itself not a separate engine test code but a certification of either J1349 or J1995 after which the manufacturer is allowed to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349" or "Certified to SAE J1995" depending on which test standard have been followed. To attain certification the test must follow the SAE standard in question, take place in a ISO9000/9002 certified facility and be witnessed by an SAE approved third party.
A few manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota switched to the new ratings immediately, with multi-directional results; the rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 to 469 hp (330 to 350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 to 190 hp (160 to 140 kW). The ES330 and Camry SE V6 were previously rated at 225 hp but the ES330 dropped to 218 hp (163 kW) while the Camry declined to 210 hp (160 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 to 505 hp (370 to 377 kW).
While Toyota and Honda are retesting their entire vehicle lineups, other automakers generally are retesting only those with updated powertrains. For example, the 2006 Ford Five Hundred is rated at 203 horsepower, the same as that of 2005 model. However, the 2006 rating does not reflect the new SAE testing procedure as Ford is not going to spend the extra expense of retesting its existing engines. Over time, most automakers are expected to comply with the new guidelines.
SAE tightened its horsepower rules after some engineers noticed parts of the old test could be subjected to different interpretations. Under the old testing procedures, there were small factors that required a judgment call: how much oil was in the crankcase, how the engine controls were calibrated and whether a vehicle was tested with premium fuel. In some cases, such can add up to a change in horsepower ratings. A road test editor at Edmunds.com, John Di Pietro, said decreases in horsepower ratings for some '06 models are not that dramatic. For vehicles like a midsize family sedan, it is likely that the reputation of the manufacturer will be more important.[16]
Either way it apears the S54 engine was not done using SAE.
11-02-2010, 03:14 AM
#104
Here is a little something I found on Wikipedia. You can take it or leave it, I don't care.
SAE certified power
In 2005, the SAE introduced "SAE Certified Power" with SAE J2723[15]. This test is voluntary and is in itself not a separate engine test code but a certification of either J1349 or J1995 after which the manufacturer is allowed to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349" or "Certified to SAE J1995" depending on which test standard have been followed. To attain certification the test must follow the SAE standard in question, take place in a ISO9000/9002 certified facility and be witnessed by an SAE approved third party.
A few manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota switched to the new ratings immediately, with multi-directional results; the rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 to 469 hp (330 to 350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 to 190 hp (160 to 140 kW). The ES330 and Camry SE V6 were previously rated at 225 hp but the ES330 dropped to 218 hp (163 kW) while the Camry declined to 210 hp (160 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 to 505 hp (370 to 377 kW).
While Toyota and Honda are retesting their entire vehicle lineups, other automakers generally are retesting only those with updated powertrains. For example, the 2006 Ford Five Hundred is rated at 203 horsepower, the same as that of 2005 model. However, the 2006 rating does not reflect the new SAE testing procedure as Ford is not going to spend the extra expense of retesting its existing engines. Over time, most automakers are expected to comply with the new guidelines.
SAE tightened its horsepower rules after some engineers noticed parts of the old test could be subjected to different interpretations. Under the old testing procedures, there were small factors that required a judgment call: how much oil was in the crankcase, how the engine controls were calibrated and whether a vehicle was tested with premium fuel. In some cases, such can add up to a change in horsepower ratings. A road test editor at Edmunds.com, John Di Pietro, said decreases in horsepower ratings for some '06 models are not that dramatic. For vehicles like a midsize family sedan, it is likely that the reputation of the manufacturer will be more important.[16]
Either way it apears the S54 engine was not done using SAE.
SAE certified power
In 2005, the SAE introduced "SAE Certified Power" with SAE J2723[15]. This test is voluntary and is in itself not a separate engine test code but a certification of either J1349 or J1995 after which the manufacturer is allowed to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349" or "Certified to SAE J1995" depending on which test standard have been followed. To attain certification the test must follow the SAE standard in question, take place in a ISO9000/9002 certified facility and be witnessed by an SAE approved third party.
A few manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota switched to the new ratings immediately, with multi-directional results; the rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 to 469 hp (330 to 350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 to 190 hp (160 to 140 kW). The ES330 and Camry SE V6 were previously rated at 225 hp but the ES330 dropped to 218 hp (163 kW) while the Camry declined to 210 hp (160 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 to 505 hp (370 to 377 kW).
While Toyota and Honda are retesting their entire vehicle lineups, other automakers generally are retesting only those with updated powertrains. For example, the 2006 Ford Five Hundred is rated at 203 horsepower, the same as that of 2005 model. However, the 2006 rating does not reflect the new SAE testing procedure as Ford is not going to spend the extra expense of retesting its existing engines. Over time, most automakers are expected to comply with the new guidelines.
SAE tightened its horsepower rules after some engineers noticed parts of the old test could be subjected to different interpretations. Under the old testing procedures, there were small factors that required a judgment call: how much oil was in the crankcase, how the engine controls were calibrated and whether a vehicle was tested with premium fuel. In some cases, such can add up to a change in horsepower ratings. A road test editor at Edmunds.com, John Di Pietro, said decreases in horsepower ratings for some '06 models are not that dramatic. For vehicles like a midsize family sedan, it is likely that the reputation of the manufacturer will be more important.[16]
Either way it apears the S54 engine was not done using SAE.
11-02-2010, 04:20 AM
#105
I just cant belive that he was an auto. First of all no lsd. Its heavier. AT is like 0.5-0.7 slower than 6 speed. I know that AT is getting more accurate times bc its a machine. I dont belive it until he striped the car like crazy
@ CH46ESeaKnight
Better give up you are not gonna teach this kid anything its wrothless and its better for you. Just let him talk whatever he wants just like yes jacob you right.
@ CH46ESeaKnight
Better give up you are not gonna teach this kid anything its wrothless and its better for you. Just let him talk whatever he wants
just like yes jacob you right.
Last edited by StreetKA; 11-02-2010 at 04:24 AM.
11-02-2010, 11:20 AM
#106
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
You're wasting your time. It doesn't matter how many facts you can post (links included), he will say you are wrong because you disagree with him. He doesn't realize that the Society of Automotive Engineers updated the equation for metering power when they moved to SAE J1349 in 2005.
If he actually sat down and looked at specs, saw that the TL, which used an engine that was rated 10hp higher then the CL-S for 2004, was then retested by Honda for the 2006 model year and came out at 258hp, he'd realize that the 260hp rating for the CL-S and the 270hp rating for 2004 TL were on the old J1995 rating scale. Had the CL been sold in 2005 or later with the exact same motor it had in 2003, on the new rating scale, it would have been in the 240-250hp range.
Then again, that would require logic, and I rarely see him use any of it.
If he actually sat down and looked at specs, saw that the TL, which used an engine that was rated 10hp higher then the CL-S for 2004, was then retested by Honda for the 2006 model year and came out at 258hp, he'd realize that the 260hp rating for the CL-S and the 270hp rating for 2004 TL were on the old J1995 rating scale. Had the CL been sold in 2005 or later with the exact same motor it had in 2003, on the new rating scale, it would have been in the 240-250hp range.
Then again, that would require logic, and I rarely see him use any of it.
Last edited by civicdrivr; 11-02-2010 at 11:31 AM.
11-02-2010, 11:34 AM
#107
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/witnesses.htm
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/manufacturers.htm
http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tec...horsepower.htm
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-messa...sage_id=379321
http://auto.ihs.com/news/newsletters...n-standard.htm
http://hondanews.com/channels/acura-...specifications
http://hondanews.com/channels/acura-...-tl-powertrain
The VTEC V-6 generates 258 horsepower SAE net (Rev 8/04) and 233 lbs-ft of torque SAE net (Rev 8/04).
11-02-2010, 02:21 PM
#117
Three Wheelin'
I gave some thought to picking this up. Now before you all start flamming how the CLS is so much nicer of a car let me just say i agree it is a nicer car then this. but i'm not looking for a sport luxury car anymore. Also just the fact that its a great price and I should be able to rip off low 12 second 1/4's all day long with some drag radials. Besides the car is proven to handle its own in the corners too. I just think it would be a fun car to beat up on. I put this here because I'm intrested in a car I can take to the 1/4 mile strip and play with and DD it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...K%3AMEWAX%3AIT
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...K%3AMEWAX%3AIT
11-02-2010, 02:38 PM
#119
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
Remember it? Where you vehemently denied that wheel hop is a bad thing? And how your car was actually faster with wheel hop then without?
If I fuck up, I admit it. As in that tire thread. Youre so thick headed that when you are presented with so much evidence that refutes your argument, you still refuse to accept it and say everyone else is wrong.
I gave some thought to picking this up. Now before you all start flamming how the CLS is so much nicer of a car let me just say i agree it is a nicer car then this. but i'm not looking for a sport luxury car anymore. Also just the fact that its a great price and I should be able to rip off low 12 second 1/4's all day long with some drag radials. Besides the car is proven to handle its own in the corners too. I just think it would be a fun car to beat up on. I put this here because I'm intrested in a car I can take to the 1/4 mile strip and play with and DD it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...K%3AMEWAX%3AIT
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...K%3AMEWAX%3AIT
The warranty is transferable right?
i just want to enjoythe time here without you.