Ralliart: $32K??????
Account Disabled
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
From: Up North
also, please please please explain to me how a car that weighs 300lbs more than mine, with 60 less hp, and about the same deficit in tq, that can't launch as hard is pulling the same times as my car stock with a flash and a boost pill and nothing else?
using GST's numbers, and calculating a 15% drivetrain loss, GST's ralliart made 236whp, 244wtq. 236/.85, 244/.85 gives you about 278hp, 287tq.... my car was rated at 286hp 289tq, and weighs 300lbs less, and can launch harder. so tell me again how this car will run my times? are you counting on a really strong tail wind? lol
we can even be generous and us a 19% drivetrain loss applied to those numbers. 236/.81 244/.81 gives us 291hp 301tq. even then it only comes out to almost exactly EVO X power numbers, but with EVO X weight, with a WORSE launch than the EVO X MR, and we've all seen how the EVO X MR compares to the EVO IX in straight line acceleration.
stop making **** up.
using GST's numbers, and calculating a 15% drivetrain loss, GST's ralliart made 236whp, 244wtq. 236/.85, 244/.85 gives you about 278hp, 287tq.... my car was rated at 286hp 289tq, and weighs 300lbs less, and can launch harder. so tell me again how this car will run my times? are you counting on a really strong tail wind? lol
we can even be generous and us a 19% drivetrain loss applied to those numbers. 236/.81 244/.81 gives us 291hp 301tq. even then it only comes out to almost exactly EVO X power numbers, but with EVO X weight, with a WORSE launch than the EVO X MR, and we've all seen how the EVO X MR compares to the EVO IX in straight line acceleration.
stop making **** up.
LOL, firstly, i launch harder then you, as is obvious from my better 60 ft times. I have the ability to boost launch at 15 psi or higher when i choose too, the RA has no real limitation on that. Maybe you should do some research. I could easily drop my 60's into the 1.70 flat area with more then one track session.
The reason i ran 12.8 was due to my altitude. Guys with less power are running 12.22 at sea level with our car. Thats a half second faster then your "Stock numbers" with 30 less whp and 50 less torque then i have. The 2006 evo 9 ran around 240 whp stock, not 286. the RA makes roughly 200 whp stock. As youve shown, with a pill and tune the RA makes 236,which is almost exactly what your car makes stock. For reference, a evo 9 turbo'd ra is making 345 whp and 360 torque. A turbo is easily changed.
The MR has a first gear limitation on torque, the RA doesnt. Our launch may not be through launch control, but is in no way worse. Infact, we have the ability to control boost at launch better then the MR does which makes for a harder launch, you're truly out to lunch on everything you say.
The fact we can run 12.4 @ 6000 ft, when you can maybe run 12.2 at 300 ft is hilarious and makes everything you say just a bunch of useless misinformation.
Account Disabled
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
From: Up North
I'm doing my best, but the kids these days, and their infinite fanboi'ism tries my patience. It also forces me to create words like fanboi'ism lol
Anyway, I don't have anything against you or the Ralliart, but that little guy is the reason people point fingers at the regular lancer and hate it. it's not the car, it's the drivers.
I know, I know, you're going to point the finger and say that I'm the reason people don't like EVO owners, and maybe to some degree you're right. I'm not bashing the ralliart though, and I've already said that I like the transmission, just wouldn't personally drive the thing, but I understand now why some would.
I'm making progress, but then the fanboi's start with this Ralliart is GOD talk, and it's just hard not to want to stomp a mud hole somewhere.
Anyway, I don't have anything against you or the Ralliart, but that little guy is the reason people point fingers at the regular lancer and hate it. it's not the car, it's the drivers.
I know, I know, you're going to point the finger and say that I'm the reason people don't like EVO owners, and maybe to some degree you're right. I'm not bashing the ralliart though, and I've already said that I like the transmission, just wouldn't personally drive the thing, but I understand now why some would.
I'm making progress, but then the fanboi's start with this Ralliart is GOD talk, and it's just hard not to want to stomp a mud hole somewhere.
pointing out how uneducated and misinformed you are doesn't equate to being a fan boy.
I could care less, but i do enjoy showing you how stupid you are.
how do i mash the gas and go straight? i don't use the auto mode retard.
And clearly your car has seen plenty of track time, just not since you modded it right? with your "Stock" times and all.
Oh and LOOLOLOL at you thinking 360 whp is 100 over stock on a 9 mr. They arent 260 stock unless your using a honda ricer dyno jet.
You keep mouthing off about making left and right hand turns all day, and how sick you are at it, yet you have no numbers or times to back it up, instead all you have is STOCK 1/4 mile numbers and a fat ego holding your stock pedal down through those 13 seconds.
I think its adorable that your 150lb frame is cocky and arrogant online, trying to paint some picture about the type of "man" i am. Very cliche, and pathetic. You bag on me for not being slower in a straight line, trying to think of ways to mock me about it, such as "you just hold the pedal down and go". My bad my car has the technology to shift when is best. However, i dont use auto mode, thanks for the assumption though.
At the end of the day douche wad, you're some autocross nerd, who set his car up for autocross bagging on someone who 1/4 mile guys or daily driver guys who could give a ****. You have a 5 year old car, with a ****ty 6 speed that people love to swap out, and the interior of a hino, you honestly have no room to say **** to anyone.
And clearly your car has seen plenty of track time, just not since you modded it right? with your "Stock" times and all.
Oh and LOOLOLOL at you thinking 360 whp is 100 over stock on a 9 mr. They arent 260 stock unless your using a honda ricer dyno jet.
You keep mouthing off about making left and right hand turns all day, and how sick you are at it, yet you have no numbers or times to back it up, instead all you have is STOCK 1/4 mile numbers and a fat ego holding your stock pedal down through those 13 seconds.
I think its adorable that your 150lb frame is cocky and arrogant online, trying to paint some picture about the type of "man" i am. Very cliche, and pathetic. You bag on me for not being slower in a straight line, trying to think of ways to mock me about it, such as "you just hold the pedal down and go". My bad my car has the technology to shift when is best. However, i dont use auto mode, thanks for the assumption though.
At the end of the day douche wad, you're some autocross nerd, who set his car up for autocross bagging on someone who 1/4 mile guys or daily driver guys who could give a ****. You have a 5 year old car, with a ****ty 6 speed that people love to swap out, and the interior of a hino, you honestly have no room to say **** to anyone.
LOL, firstly, i launch harder then you, as is obvious from my better 60 ft times. I have the ability to boost launch at 15 psi or higher when i choose too, the RA has no real limitation on that. Maybe you should do some research. I could easily drop my 60's into the 1.70 flat area with more then one track session.
The reason i ran 12.8 was due to my altitude. Guys with less power are running 12.22 at sea level with our car. Thats a half second faster then your "Stock numbers" with 30 less whp and 50 less torque then i have. The 2006 evo 9 ran around 240 whp stock, not 286. the RA makes roughly 200 whp stock. As youve shown, with a pill and tune the RA makes 236,which is almost exactly what your car makes stock. For reference, a evo 9 turbo'd ra is making 345 whp and 360 torque. A turbo is easily changed.
The MR has a first gear limitation on torque, the RA doesnt. Our launch may not be through launch control, but is in no way worse. Infact, we have the ability to control boost at launch better then the MR does which makes for a harder launch, you're truly out to lunch on everything you say.
The fact we can run 12.4 @ 6000 ft, when you can maybe run 12.2 at 300 ft is hilarious and makes everything you say just a bunch of useless misinformation.
The reason i ran 12.8 was due to my altitude. Guys with less power are running 12.22 at sea level with our car. Thats a half second faster then your "Stock numbers" with 30 less whp and 50 less torque then i have. The 2006 evo 9 ran around 240 whp stock, not 286. the RA makes roughly 200 whp stock. As youve shown, with a pill and tune the RA makes 236,which is almost exactly what your car makes stock. For reference, a evo 9 turbo'd ra is making 345 whp and 360 torque. A turbo is easily changed.
The MR has a first gear limitation on torque, the RA doesnt. Our launch may not be through launch control, but is in no way worse. Infact, we have the ability to control boost at launch better then the MR does which makes for a harder launch, you're truly out to lunch on everything you say.
The fact we can run 12.4 @ 6000 ft, when you can maybe run 12.2 at 300 ft is hilarious and makes everything you say just a bunch of useless misinformation.
first, I apologize for saying you mash the gas and go straight. I didn't realize you used the paddle shifters so let me rephrase what I said. You mash the gas, and use one hand to click a paddle and go straight. I see how that's so much harder, and different.
as for the second statement, I already said that I see NO track time as far as 1/4 mile because I don't do it. I went, did 12.8, went home, never went back.
also, dyno types aren't that important. it's the gain over stock that's important because every dyno is different in the way it reads. You should know that.
the part about me is pretty funny lol If you want me to paint you a picture, I'm 6'4" 195lbs, and athletic, and wear a size 14 shoe. that's where the mud hole size came from, but I don't see how any of that has to do with the fact that your car is still slower than mine, and I'm a better driver than you.
you launching harder has nothing to do with your 60' being better than the one I posted. my 60' was down because the track temps the night I ran were 45 degrees, and I couldn't get around the water box. the hard launch made me spin all 4 tires. stock, my car built about 10psi on the launch. now I build around 15psi for the launch since I raised my stock limiter. get your facts straight before you start mouthing off.
your last post is especially irrelevant because you're comparing whp numbers with crank hp ratings. I showed that the tuned RA made numbers CLOSE to stock EVO numbers but WEIGHS 300lbs more.
there is an RA local that had a baseflash and TBE that only ran 13.8. he's now got a drop in, MBC, and a better custom tune, and he said himself that now he should be in low 13's, but definitely not the 12's. last time i checked, he was at sea level with me.
I like the way you didn't address the weight difference of the RA and EVO IX at all.
bottom line is, you are full of ****. an RA with boost pill and base map will not run 12's. it may make close to the same power, but weighs more, and you're comparing a tuned car to a stock one. hell, guys have cut 1.6 60' all day long on stock EVO IX's with the rev limiter in place. so the IX STILL will out launch you.
you are a damn fanboi, plain and simple. stop making **** up.
all you 2010'ers are alike. you finally discovered a turbo charged car that actually has a little speed behind it and now you think you're Jesus.
bottom line: If you raced me in a straight line, or on a race track, I would murder you. period. it takes ZERO skill to drive in a straight line and click a paddle.
that is the truth.
Last edited by ODUB; Dec 22, 2010 at 03:37 PM.
It just looks like terrible driving, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was your intake+BOV causing problems. There was no reason to get either of them, but people love to hear that whooosh!! If I were you, I'd try a few runs with the stock BOV and stock air box. I ran my 13.1@104 on the firsty try. My only other full run, I got snagged by the rev limiter, too, and only got a 2.4 60-foot time, but I still ended with a 13.8@101. You absolutely should NOT be in the 14s OR below 100mph no matter how bad you drive.
Do some completely stock runs to make sure your 2 mods aren't messing you up. If you absolutely have to keep those mods, then get a flash to match.
Also, if you're at Coastal Plains Raceway, that place hooks up like no other. You can run 1.6x 60-ft times there once you figure out the launch limiter (or if you disconnect it). I used to blast 12.1s down that track with the Talon.
Do some completely stock runs to make sure your 2 mods aren't messing you up. If you absolutely have to keep those mods, then get a flash to match.
Also, if you're at Coastal Plains Raceway, that place hooks up like no other. You can run 1.6x 60-ft times there once you figure out the launch limiter (or if you disconnect it). I used to blast 12.1s down that track with the Talon.
Last edited by ODUB; Dec 22, 2010 at 03:55 PM.
Account Disabled
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
From: Up North
lol so much fail, i'll do my best to address it all though...
first, I apologize for saying you mash the gas and go straight. I didn't realize you used the paddle shifters so let me rephrase what I said. You mash the gas, and use one hand to click a paddle and go straight. I see how that's so much harder, and different.
as for the second statement, I already said that I see NO track time as far as 1/4 mile because I don't do it. I went, did 12.8, went home, never went back.
also, dyno types aren't that important. it's the gain over stock that's important because every dyno is different in the way it reads. You should know that.
the part about me is pretty funny lol If you want me to paint you a picture, I'm 6'4" 195lbs, and athletic, and wear a size 14 shoe. that's where the mud hole size came from, but I don't see how any of that has to do with the fact that your car is still slower than mine, and I'm a better driver than you.
you launching harder has nothing to do with your 60' being better than the one I posted. my 60' was down because the track temps the night I ran were 45 degrees, and I couldn't get around the water box. the hard launch made me spin all 4 tires. stock, my car built about 10psi on the launch. now I build around 15psi for the launch since I raised my stock limiter. get your facts straight before you start mouthing off.
your last post is especially irrelevant because you're comparing whp numbers with crank hp ratings. I showed that the tuned RA made numbers CLOSE to stock EVO numbers but WEIGHS 300lbs more.
there is an RA local that had a baseflash and TBE that only ran 13.8. he's now got a drop in, MBC, and a better custom tune, and he said himself that now he should be in low 13's, but definitely not the 12's. last time i checked, he was at sea level with me.
I like the way you didn't address the weight difference of the RA and EVO IX at all.
bottom line is, you are full of ****. an RA with boost pill and base map will not run 12's. it may make close to the same power, but weighs more, and you're comparing a tuned car to a stock one. hell, guys have cut 1.6 60' all day long on stock EVO IX's with the rev limiter in place. so the IX STILL will out launch you.
you are a damn fanboi, plain and simple. stop making **** up.
all you 2010'ers are alike. you finally discovered a turbo charged car that actually has a little speed behind it and now you think you're Jesus.
bottom line: If you raced me in a straight line, or on a race track, I would murder you. period. it takes ZERO skill to drive in a straight line and click a paddle.
that is the truth.
first, I apologize for saying you mash the gas and go straight. I didn't realize you used the paddle shifters so let me rephrase what I said. You mash the gas, and use one hand to click a paddle and go straight. I see how that's so much harder, and different.
as for the second statement, I already said that I see NO track time as far as 1/4 mile because I don't do it. I went, did 12.8, went home, never went back.
also, dyno types aren't that important. it's the gain over stock that's important because every dyno is different in the way it reads. You should know that.
the part about me is pretty funny lol If you want me to paint you a picture, I'm 6'4" 195lbs, and athletic, and wear a size 14 shoe. that's where the mud hole size came from, but I don't see how any of that has to do with the fact that your car is still slower than mine, and I'm a better driver than you.
you launching harder has nothing to do with your 60' being better than the one I posted. my 60' was down because the track temps the night I ran were 45 degrees, and I couldn't get around the water box. the hard launch made me spin all 4 tires. stock, my car built about 10psi on the launch. now I build around 15psi for the launch since I raised my stock limiter. get your facts straight before you start mouthing off.
your last post is especially irrelevant because you're comparing whp numbers with crank hp ratings. I showed that the tuned RA made numbers CLOSE to stock EVO numbers but WEIGHS 300lbs more.
there is an RA local that had a baseflash and TBE that only ran 13.8. he's now got a drop in, MBC, and a better custom tune, and he said himself that now he should be in low 13's, but definitely not the 12's. last time i checked, he was at sea level with me.
I like the way you didn't address the weight difference of the RA and EVO IX at all.
bottom line is, you are full of ****. an RA with boost pill and base map will not run 12's. it may make close to the same power, but weighs more, and you're comparing a tuned car to a stock one. hell, guys have cut 1.6 60' all day long on stock EVO IX's with the rev limiter in place. so the IX STILL will out launch you.
you are a damn fanboi, plain and simple. stop making **** up.
all you 2010'ers are alike. you finally discovered a turbo charged car that actually has a little speed behind it and now you think you're Jesus.
bottom line: If you raced me in a straight line, or on a race track, I would murder you. period. it takes ZERO skill to drive in a straight line and click a paddle.
that is the truth.
yep you got me, i discovered a turbo car in 2010, with a 2009, that i traded my stage 4 465 whp fully built dcr srt-4 for that ran mid 11's, after i traded my 2006 mazda speed 6 with a 3076 build making 300 + whp, that i had after my 1998 tsi. OR maybe the gnx hiding in the garage making 600 whp on 16 pounds and 750 on 30 pounds was my starting point with turbos... all of course according to you, ive owned and discovered in the last 12 months. Stupid is stupid, and you bread retardation well.
I don't Get where you think im making up the RA times. There are thread after thread of guns running 12's as low as 12.2 . If you got off your symian machine long enough to focus i think youd learn something. The sad fact is i never stated an ra with a boost pill would run 12's, that notion is nothing more then your inability to read. I said a boost pill and tuned RA is as fast as your STOCK car power wise. They have come as close as 13.1 from what ive seen. Simply switching to an x turbo, with a pill and tune will make 290 whp, and run mid 12's at sea level. like i said, a turbo is an easy swap. Congrats to the IX owners who can actually drive unlike yourself and drop 1.69 60's. that isnt you. You drop 1.86's. Big difference.
you launching harder has nothing to do with your 60' being better than the one I posted. my 60' was down because the track temps the night I ran were 45 degrees, and I couldn't get around the water box. the hard launch made me spin all 4 tires. stock, my car built about 10psi on the launch. now I build around 15psi for the launch since I raised my stock limiter. get your facts straight before you start mouthing off.
I live in canada, northern canada, and in 40*f weather still managed to put down better 60 ft times then you my first time DOWN THE TRACK. There is no excuse, i launch harder, end of story. I kick out and spin too, its not uncommon, but i guess with most of that 190lb frame of yours in your bra it makes for some skinny arms that arent able to control the vehicle and its line.
Lastly, did you actually brag about being a size 14 shoe? Really? Your bosy mass index is close to anorexic and you boast a big foot? Well congrats yao ming.
Oh, and in a straight line, i would destroy your tinker toy, even before i swap turbos again. With either car, you pick which one you wanna look up to as it leaves rock chips on your windshield of shame.
now you're backing off your original statement. you said an RA with a boost pill was as fast as a stock EVO IX. now you admit what we've known all along, it's NOT.
also, what does "a boost pill and tuned RA is as fast as your STOCK car power wise" mean? lol you're comparing power to speed now? two completed different units of measurement?
the rest of your post is complete nonsense. I'd say I'm a pretty good driver to run a stock IX to 12's when most are in 13's. especially when I DO NOT DRAG RACE. 3rd time at the track.
Also, I see the problem. You made everything clear when you said you came from an SRT-4.
you're making stuff up because as I stated, an RA with a boost pill and tune is still slower than a stock IX. PERIOD. that's all I said. now you finally admitted it. none of that other crap is even relavant. stock for stock, mod for mod, your car is slower than any EVO 1-10. deal with it. once you spend all that money on making it as fast as a bone stock X, you could have just bought an X and been done with it.
one thing you keep forgetting is that just because you're faster in a straight line doesn't mean you're faster, and it certainly doesn't mean your car is a better performing car.
your car will never out handle an EVO stock for stock or mod for mod, and won't keep up with mine at all. deal with it, and stop giving all RA owners a bad name. you should have stayed in the neon. it fit you better.
also, what does "a boost pill and tuned RA is as fast as your STOCK car power wise" mean? lol you're comparing power to speed now? two completed different units of measurement?
the rest of your post is complete nonsense. I'd say I'm a pretty good driver to run a stock IX to 12's when most are in 13's. especially when I DO NOT DRAG RACE. 3rd time at the track.
Also, I see the problem. You made everything clear when you said you came from an SRT-4.
you're making stuff up because as I stated, an RA with a boost pill and tune is still slower than a stock IX. PERIOD. that's all I said. now you finally admitted it. none of that other crap is even relavant. stock for stock, mod for mod, your car is slower than any EVO 1-10. deal with it. once you spend all that money on making it as fast as a bone stock X, you could have just bought an X and been done with it.
one thing you keep forgetting is that just because you're faster in a straight line doesn't mean you're faster, and it certainly doesn't mean your car is a better performing car.
your car will never out handle an EVO stock for stock or mod for mod, and won't keep up with mine at all. deal with it, and stop giving all RA owners a bad name. you should have stayed in the neon. it fit you better.
Last edited by ODUB; Dec 22, 2010 at 04:08 PM.
Except thats not it at all.
No amount of money can buy a evo sport back, or one with larger trunk space, or one with 60/40 folding seats.
I spent 32k on my ralliart, and have since put what...5k into it. On a leaking wastegate i still run better times then you do, at a high elevation, and can bring home a cute yound chick in my trunk with her 3 friends in the backseat if i want you, you cant.
Infact, there isn't an evo in my area that is faster, including fg green tuned gsr's and others in the 1/4 mile. The fastest RA here is 12.4 @ 109 (6000ft elevation) on the x turbo, while the fastest x is 12.67 @ 110 on an fp green at 3500 ft elevation.
cry the round and round track song all day long, but i spent 37k cnd to out perform 52k evo x MR's. Even with 3-4k in tuning and parts they still dont keep up. so really, 37k>55-56k every day of the week.
Clearly my example is just one area of NA and isnt representative of the whole, but neither is your stupid argument. Is the evo overall better... sure, but its also 15k more for relatively the same PERFORMANCE. For those who want a raw 5 spd the gsr is a no brainer, but not everyone wants that.
Imagine if the RA came with the 5spd the evo does. My god would the story be different. It would be another 4-5 k cheaper, and would slaughter an evo price vs price in a straight line every day of the week.
No amount of money can buy a evo sport back, or one with larger trunk space, or one with 60/40 folding seats.
I spent 32k on my ralliart, and have since put what...5k into it. On a leaking wastegate i still run better times then you do, at a high elevation, and can bring home a cute yound chick in my trunk with her 3 friends in the backseat if i want you, you cant.
Infact, there isn't an evo in my area that is faster, including fg green tuned gsr's and others in the 1/4 mile. The fastest RA here is 12.4 @ 109 (6000ft elevation) on the x turbo, while the fastest x is 12.67 @ 110 on an fp green at 3500 ft elevation.
cry the round and round track song all day long, but i spent 37k cnd to out perform 52k evo x MR's. Even with 3-4k in tuning and parts they still dont keep up. so really, 37k>55-56k every day of the week.
Clearly my example is just one area of NA and isnt representative of the whole, but neither is your stupid argument. Is the evo overall better... sure, but its also 15k more for relatively the same PERFORMANCE. For those who want a raw 5 spd the gsr is a no brainer, but not everyone wants that.
Imagine if the RA came with the 5spd the evo does. My god would the story be different. It would be another 4-5 k cheaper, and would slaughter an evo price vs price in a straight line every day of the week.
ive added alot more then 100 whp to my car, but nice try rofl stomp.
And you havent nor will you run better then a 12.4 @ 109 @ 6000ft baton rouge is like 300 ft, do the math wise kid.
The mathematical difference puts it mid elevens. There are guys are sea level with a simple base tune and boost pill running your stock times, with a ****tier power band, and that silly problematic sst, make sure to add that to your ego bank when you make a deposit next.
You have better breaks, and a better suspension. You dont have a better engine, drive train, transmission or driver. The argument is a mute point as you have nothing to show for your "100+ whp" except "Stock" numbers furthering bryans point.
Better your stock numbers by 2.2 seconds like i have. Love to see you try
ohh, and you make what... 340 to the wheels? gee, i make a meesley 325 and 350 torque, you make WAYYYY more then me, bahaha. It will be shameful when i run a 12 flat at 2000 ft next year and you dont come close.
And you havent nor will you run better then a 12.4 @ 109 @ 6000ft baton rouge is like 300 ft, do the math wise kid.
The mathematical difference puts it mid elevens. There are guys are sea level with a simple base tune and boost pill running your stock times, with a ****tier power band, and that silly problematic sst, make sure to add that to your ego bank when you make a deposit next.
You have better breaks, and a better suspension. You dont have a better engine, drive train, transmission or driver. The argument is a mute point as you have nothing to show for your "100+ whp" except "Stock" numbers furthering bryans point.
Better your stock numbers by 2.2 seconds like i have. Love to see you try
ohh, and you make what... 340 to the wheels? gee, i make a meesley 325 and 350 torque, you make WAYYYY more then me, bahaha. It will be shameful when i run a 12 flat at 2000 ft next year and you dont come close.
there you go. two quotes referencing your car being faster than mine now, and a boost pill and baseflash RA being faster than my car when it was stock. both are full of ****. I guess you talk so much bull ****, and make so much stuff up, YOU can't even keep up with your own lies. lol
at this point even YOU have to know you're full of ****. If you'd like to discuss EVO's further, you can IM me. sn on aim is Idntgiveasht. I'm at work all night, and bored, so I've got plenty of time to let you know more about your car, and the rest of the cars on this forum since apparently the only thing you know is straight line acceleration.
that's not what these cars were built for, it's not what they are best at, and it's certainly not any way to measure their level of performance. Coming from the land of the Neon though, I can see why you don't understand what turning is all about, or what a steering wheel is actually used for.
you still haven't commented on the fact that Warrtalon was at high elevation and ran a 13.1 in his bone stock EVO 8 MR (which is slower than the IX MR's by the way). so by your estimation of the elevation and power differnces, a bone stock EVO 8 MR should run what, 12.4-12.5 down here?
really? lol
is that what you're trying to sell us now?
Last edited by ODUB; Dec 22, 2010 at 04:26 PM.
Account Disabled
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
From: Up North
i guess well have to see this summer, that is of course if you can remove your tamp*n long enough to make it out to the 1/4 again.
and if you read, im referencing power numbers being simliar, to make it simple stock 9 mr = boost pill base tuned RA power wise.
Why thats such a hard concept for you to get is beyond me.
Within weeks ill be in the 360-370 whp and 350 torque range. The fact it takes no "Skill" to drive my car will more then make up for the 300 lb difference.
and if you read, im referencing power numbers being simliar, to make it simple stock 9 mr = boost pill base tuned RA power wise.
Why thats such a hard concept for you to get is beyond me.
Within weeks ill be in the 360-370 whp and 350 torque range. The fact it takes no "Skill" to drive my car will more then make up for the 300 lb difference.
i guess well have to see this summer, that is of course if you can remove your tamp*n long enough to make it out to the 1/4 again.
and if you read, im referencing power numbers being simliar, to make it simple stock 9 mr = boost pill base tuned RA power wise.
Why thats such a hard concept for you to get is beyond me.
Within weeks ill be in the 360-370 whp and 350 torque range. The fact it takes no "Skill" to drive my car will more then make up for the 300 lb difference.
and if you read, im referencing power numbers being simliar, to make it simple stock 9 mr = boost pill base tuned RA power wise.
Why thats such a hard concept for you to get is beyond me.
Within weeks ill be in the 360-370 whp and 350 torque range. The fact it takes no "Skill" to drive my car will more then make up for the 300 lb difference.
on top of that, even if they make the same power, one car is at a big weight disadvantage, and launch disadvantage.
even if you do reach the power my car has, it'll still be slower in a straight line, and in every other way you care to measure. it also will not perform as well overall, sorry to burst your bubble.
I am not a drag racer. I don't see why that's so hard for you to understand. I will most likely go to the track to see what my car can do, but when I do, the car will be retuned for more power. I'm on a very safe tune right now because I have a knocking issue that we haven't proved is phantom yet. that will be solved in two weeks, and the car will be retuned at which time I should pick up another 20-30whp depending on how aggressive I decide to get.
My car is being tuned for autocross/track duty, not drag racing.
and again I say your car requires ZERO skill to drive in a straight line. when you actually learn how to drive the car using the steering wheel and the throttle, then we can talk. it was nice chatting with you 2010'er. Can't wait to see what piles of crap we'll get in here in 2011.
Account Disabled
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
From: Up North
ill be slower in a straight line? haha.
with more torque, no lost time in shifting, or in your case, lack of skill in shifting, somehow ill be slower? i guess well see
like i said, anytime you want to question my "Driving" skill remember the vehicles ive had and have, that require a hell of alot more skill then your long, skinny, and gangley body can muster.
Phantom knock, not wanting to drag, water boxes out to get you, cold weather, too tall, size 93 shoe... any other excuses?
with more torque, no lost time in shifting, or in your case, lack of skill in shifting, somehow ill be slower? i guess well see
like i said, anytime you want to question my "Driving" skill remember the vehicles ive had and have, that require a hell of alot more skill then your long, skinny, and gangley body can muster.
Phantom knock, not wanting to drag, water boxes out to get you, cold weather, too tall, size 93 shoe... any other excuses?
Evolving Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
From: Calgary
I can get to the beer store faster than you.
My daddy can kick your daddy's butt.
My girlfriend is red hot your girlfriend aint diddly squat.
Jebus Cripes grow the F up both of you.
H8R,Fanboi either way it = some entertaining reading but ends in a face palm.
Oh yeah "in before the lock" lol and Merry Christmas to all and peace on EvoM
My daddy can kick your daddy's butt.
My girlfriend is red hot your girlfriend aint diddly squat.
Jebus Cripes grow the F up both of you.
H8R,Fanboi either way it = some entertaining reading but ends in a face palm.
Oh yeah "in before the lock" lol and Merry Christmas to all and peace on EvoM
Last edited by RADriver; Dec 23, 2010 at 05:45 AM.
ill be slower in a straight line? haha.
with more torque, no lost time in shifting, or in your case, lack of skill in shifting, somehow ill be slower? i guess well see
like i said, anytime you want to question my "Driving" skill remember the vehicles ive had and have, that require a hell of alot more skill then your long, skinny, and gangley body can muster.
Phantom knock, not wanting to drag, water boxes out to get you, cold weather, too tall, size 93 shoe... any other excuses?
with more torque, no lost time in shifting, or in your case, lack of skill in shifting, somehow ill be slower? i guess well see
like i said, anytime you want to question my "Driving" skill remember the vehicles ive had and have, that require a hell of alot more skill then your long, skinny, and gangley body can muster.
Phantom knock, not wanting to drag, water boxes out to get you, cold weather, too tall, size 93 shoe... any other excuses?
You're still making **** up, your car is slow, and you can't drive.
so after all your bull****, I'm still bigger, faster, and stronger than you, a better driver, own a faster car, have a better job, bigger feet, and a prettier girlfriend.
Back on topic though, 32k is too much for a ralliart.
Merry Christmas, and I'm out before lock
Last edited by ODUB; Dec 23, 2010 at 04:20 PM.
