my best kill was a Cobra.. it was on the roll at about 40mph.

 

I've got my evo 2 days ago. Til now Ive won with Grand am and
Geo metro....
Not much history yet...

 

U know break in period cant race too much

 

12s in a STOCK evo? Not unless it was dropped from an airplane man

 

Check around I have seen at least 2 people make such claims. I'm sure it was under the best weather conditions possible but still...

 

I still don't get basing a car's worth on 0-60, 1/4 mile, etc. The whole car is a dynamic unit - to measure one aspect is missing the point. The complete unit needs to be measured, which is impossible objectively, so it comes down to a subjective decision. Sometimes cars that are slower on paper are more fun when you're driving (ie S2000). Some cars are super fast on paper, but boring to drive (like an M3). To each his own...

 

eegads! Blasphemy!!

 

Obviously you have never driven a WRX or an EVO. The EVO has WAYYYY more power going by the feel alone. The slow evo times are from really bad drivers. MY evo can do 13.9 with no launch stock.

Let me add that the magazine sport compact car is BIAS against anything thats a V8 and have underskilled drivers. They do there testing on my local track... LAME There numbers are similar to a G-Tech

The Other magazines are professional in the test they conduct. Sport compact car uses the editors as drivers, HAHAHAH LAME.

Motor trend used Justin Bell who is a famous drivevr.

 

Have you driven an M3? It's very fast, but so smooth there is no fun to it. As for handling, it feels a lot heavier than it is. The Evo surprised me - it actually feels lighter on its "feet" than my S2000 did. This is my point about not just going by the numbers on a page.

 

SRT-4's will give a stock evo a run for its money if the driver can't drive.

And 04 SRT-4's with Stage 1 will make a stock Evo look like a US Lancer.

 

Actually, the guys who drive the cars at SCC (Josh, Dave, etc.) are pretty damned good drivers. I do agree about the anti-V8 bias. A 3.5L, high-revving (8000+) V8 under 400 pounds that could fit between the axles and behind the front axle would be great...

 

Funny, I was looking over at SRTForums and seeing Stage 1 + a few additional mods SRT-4s running in the mid to high 13 range
@ around 103 MPH AT BEST.

That's slower than a good amount of the stock Evos on this site.

Feel free to stop trolling and go for a spirited drive in your Cavalier.

 

Believe me, I've driven many M3s including one (SMGII) at the S.C. performance center. I tell you that car was exhilarating to say the least, I don't think they feel very heavy at all especially considering the heft my 330 seemed to lug around. It's all a matter of personal preference I suppose.

I thought the S2k I drove was very nimble, but definitely more "solidified" than the Evo, which feels both light and darty (yet maintains its composure pretty much at any speed).

 

<chappelle voice>damn!</chappelle voice>

 

Well, I guess going from a 330 to an M3, the M3 would feel spry. I had my S2000 at the time I drove my buddy's M3 SMG. (He had an E36 M3 before - THAT one was more fun even with only 240hp)

The M3 is a great car - it's just that it demands very high levels of speed to get any enjoyment out of it. If I lived in Europe, I would love it. However, here in VA, it's hard to go over 35 without risking the po-po. As for Neons, um, I mean, "SRT-4"s, get real. Once they start making enough power to cause nervousness, the torque steer will get out of hand. Well, that and the dash will fall off.