True. True.

 

are you saying that the super lightweight oz rally wheels hold no benefit over hubcaps?. I still haven't seen anyone present a better rally ready car for 16k or less. I agree the 2.5 is awesome and not terribly more expensive, but more expensive nonetheless as well as lack of 0%apr. so

 

Touring

i got the lancer because it was a god deal for that kind of car and because it wasnt a civic i wanted to be original so i got it and because i plan on making it a touring car,has been my dream since i started to play GT about 5-6 yrs ago

 

That's so far off base it's funny. On the 8 point safety scale used by insurance companies in the US, 1 being a Chevy Nova and 8 being a Volvo 240 wagon, the 2002 Lancer is a 7.

Definately not a bad crash rating.

 

How are you two going to come onto a Lancer forum and start bashing Lancers? If you think thats cool, why dont you try running into Compton and yelling the "N" word?

 

um, racial slurs aren't analagous to pointing out a car's limits. simple as that. it's just the usdm lancer being discussed in this thread... i joined the board for the evo. i never said mitsubishi sucks, or the lancer sucks, or anything like that. just that there are better cars in the price range and edmunds had some nasty things to say about the o-z.

-bd

 

but you cant convince a bunch of Lancer owners that they should have bought a different car...aint gonna happen

 

the point was, for 17k there are better rally cars, i.e. cars that don't need to put "rally" on a sticker on the trunk. and not everyone here already has one, i imagine there are people reading the boards because they're thinking about getting a lancer.

-bd

 

I have a question for the people that are naming all these cars that they would rather have... Why do you have a Lancer if it sucks so bad?


Matt

 

personally, i have a neon

-bd

 

A Neon??? Ok... lol I'm speechless.. So if you have a Neon, why are you on the Lancer forums?

And BTW- A buddy of mine has a Neon that is heavily modded and I beat his car in just about any aspect of racing we could do. 1/4 at the track, 40 punch, 70 punch, turns on the back road, all that stuff. I'm saying this as nicely as I can, go buy a car that even remotely resembles that it has some guts and then come back.

 

If they have an ounce of brain cells they won't buy a car because of the name.

Have you ever considered people look for different qualities in cars than you? I'd dare say most of us here on the forums are happy with our purchases....ES, LS and OZ. Apparently we shouldn't be.

 

a thread started about whether people got their cars to rally or to rice. i suggested that since the "rally" package didn't add a lot, it was probably the latter. somehow it transformed into a "best car for under 17k" discussion.

i have said this already, i'm interested in the evo, but i read other threads.

you can beat your friend's "heavily modded" neon. interesting, but not really that important. http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/compa...4/page014.html puts the lancer below the neon in all of the performance categories, including most importantly "fun to drive", and i'll take their word over your more-than-slightly unscientific comparison. i don't know what level of skill you and your friend are at, that's all.

you haven't been paying much attention. i haven't slammed the lancer, i've said that for the $ the neon's a better car. "resembles that it has some guts" isn't english. let's see: neon ACR: 150 hp, 2600 lbs; o-z rally, 120 hp, 2701 lbs. 17.3 lb/hp vs. 22.5 lb/hp.

are you that insecure that you can't admit these things? hey, i drive a neon, but i don't claim it's fast and didn't pay $1000 for floor mats and a "rally" badge.

-bd

 

i don't get what you mean. but i'd hope anyone with an ounce of brain cells would look at the specs instead of reverting to "it's a neon." i guess the srt-4 is "just a neon" too right?

-bd

 

is that think out yet? I think I was one, but maybe it was a modded svt....and right behind it was an ugly orange color 350 z.