94 civic vs some audi...

[drdingo21]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Please.. you are making a fool of yourself by just making up bs. Wher did you get 16.2??? I searched the net for 4 seconds and got some times quickly off consumer reports. Try a 0-60 at 6.2 and a quarter mile time of 14.4. BTW Car and Driver confirms those same times, and Road and Track had the 0-60 mile time the same, and the 1/4 mile time at 14.2.

are you that stupid? I didn't make anything up. You see how "runs a 16.2" is underlined? that means its a link to another website. How did i make up what they put on there and says factory specs? its kind of like

this one. but in that one it runs a 16.1

or this one where it runs a 16.1. So me and those 3 websites all are wrong then huh? If you need to spend more time researching or just shut up before you start talking about shit you don't know about.

Side note, all the "this" are link to other websites, after you read through my reply. and you start to think im wrong, Click those links and they all say what i just said. I but i guess i made those up also.

[Addict]

Originally posted by drdingo21
are you that stupid? I didn't make anything up. You see how "runs a 16.2" is underlined? that means its a link to another website. How did i make up what they put on there and says factory specs? its kind of like

this but in that one it runs a 16.1

or this one where it runs a 16.1. So me and those 3 websites all are wrong then huh? If you need to spend more time researching or just shut up before you start talking about shit you don't know about.

I'm calling you a liar or anything, but my Si is faster than a TT?!?

*EDIT* I guess it is possible

00 Audi TT
Weight: 2910 lbs.
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 7.4 sec.
Base Number of Cylinders: 4
Base Engine Size: 1.8 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4
Horsepower: 180 hp
Max Horsepower: 5500 rpm
Torque: 173 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 1950 rpm

00 Honda Civic Si
Weight: 2601 lbs.
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 7.2 sec.
Base Number of Cylinders: 4
Base Engine Size: 1.6 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4
Horsepower: 160 hp
Max Horsepower: 7600 rpm
Torque: 111 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 7000 rpm

Damn Now I don't see the hype behind the TT.

[drdingo21]

the 2000. and yep. I put more links there becaus i "made up" the other ones. And i know i can beat a 16.1 because i can beat my brothers SI...

[ford50forlife]

wait a minute.... you run 9.1 0-60 in your ex then your doing mid to HIGH 16's cause my jeep does like low 8's and i have some trouble getting outta 16's (but can)

[ford50forlife]

Originally posted by drdingo21
the 2000. and yep. I put more links there becaus i "made up" the other ones. And i know i can beat a 16.1 because i can beat my brothers SI...

LOFL!!! with 9.1 0-60??? your brother musta been short shifting you si's go 7.6 all day long

**EDIT** nm you said STOCK it did that... thats cool then i belive you what you got done to it ?

I think the 16.1 1/4m time is for a front wheel drive 180hp TT.

As for the 225hp TT Quattro I have a December Road and Track and they say 0-60 6.6-------1/4 mile 14.8@93.1mph.

I have yet to see any times for a stock Audi TT that says anything near to a low 14. Maybe like someone said with $1500 of modifications it run in the 13's, but sh*t most newer single turbo cars will run 13's with $1500 to spend.

[Addict]

Originally posted by Slip
I think the 16.1 1/4m time is for a front wheel drive 180hp TT.

As for the TT Quattro I have a December Road and Track and they say 0-60 6.6-------1/4 mile 14.8@93.1mph.

I have yet to see any times for a stock Audi TT that says anything near to a low 14. Maybe like someone said with $1500 of modifications it run in the 13's, but sh*t most newer single turbo cars will run 13's with $1500 to spend.

Yeah, but the '00 TT's are slow. Well slower than they should be. I wouldn't pay that kinda cash for a 180HP car.

[drdingo21]

Originally posted by ford50forlife
LOFL!!! with 9.1 0-60??? your brother musta been short shifting you si's go 7.6 all day long

**EDIT** nm you said STOCK it did that... thats cool then i belive you what you got done to it ?

its the new 2002 si. It sucks for what it is. All i have is an intake exhast and a short throw. I can beat mike up till 95. after that i have to shift to 4th and then he walks away from me. Im not totaly killing him but i am slightly faster than him up till 95.

[V8killimports]

First off you keep talking about the '00 TT being slow. Well please tell me the difference between this TT and a '02 or '03 TT. These sources of yours also talk of a 150hp version which doesn't exist. There is a 180hp version which does the quarter in 15.6. Still, over a 1/2 second than your Si.

[drdingo21]

Originally posted by V8killimports
First off you keep talking about the '00 TT being slow. Well please tell me the difference between this TT and a '02 or '03 TT. These sources of yours also talk of a 150hp version which doesn't exist. There is a 180hp version which does the quarter in 15.6. Still, over a 1/2 second than your Si.

At first i thought you were just being an asshole. But now i relize you honestly are stupid. All 3 of the websites say 180 hp except for one. Those specs i gave are of a TT 1.8.

Even the god dam audi website says what i have been saying all along. ill quote it for you since you can'e seem to grasp it.

taken from audiworld.com

Model: 180 fwd 180 quattro
Type: Four cylinder inline, turbocharged, charged air intercooling
Bore: 3.18 in. (81 mm)
Stroke: 3.40 in. (86.4 mm)
Displacement: 107 cu. in. (1781 cc)
Compression Ratio: 9.5:1
Horsepower (SAE Net): 180 @ 5500 RPM
Torque: 173 ft. lbs.@ 1950-4700 RPM
Cylinder block: Cast Iron
Crankshaft: Forged Steel, 5 main bearings
Cylinder head: Aluminum alloy
Valve Train: DOHC, belt driven, hydraulic lifters
Firing Order: 1-3-4-2
Cooling System: Water-cooled, thermostatically controlled radiator fan
Fuel/Ignition System: ME 7.5 Motronic with electronic multi-point sequential fuel injection, hot film air mass sensor, solid state direct ignition with multiple coils, dual knock sensors w/cylinder selective knock control and fully adaptive controls, electronic throttle control


Performance

0-50 mph (0-80 kmh): 5.5 sec 5.5 sec.
0-60 mph (0-100 kmh): 7.4 sec 7.4 sec
1/4 Mile: 16.1 sec. 16.1 sec.
Top estimated speed: 130 mph (203 kmh) - Electronically limited for North America

I guess audiworld.com has no idea what they are talking about.


heres another from a differnt site

SPECIFICATIONS

Base Price $ 30,500
Price As Tested $ 33,925
Engine Type dual overhead cam, 20-valve,
turbocharged inline 4-cylinder
Engine Size 1.8 liters / 107 cu. in.
Horsepower 180 @ 5500 rpm
Torque (lb-ft) 173 @ 1950 through 4700 rpm
Transmission 5-speed manual
Wheelbase / Length 95.4 in. / 159.1 in.
Curb Weight 2655 lbs.
Pounds Per Horsepower 14.8
Fuel Capacity 14.5 gal.
Fuel Requirement unleaded premium (91 octane)
for best operation
Tires P225/45 YR17 Bridgestone
Potenza RE 040
Brakes, front/rear vented disc / solid disc, antilock standard
Suspension, front/rear independent MacPherson strut /
torsion beam axle with trailing arms and
coil springs
Drivetrain front engine, front-wheel drive

PERFORMANCE
EPA Fuel Economy - miles per gallon
city / highway / observed 22 / 31 / 24
0 to 60 mph 7.4 sec
1/4 mile (E.T.) 16.1 sec
Coefficient of Drag (cd) 0.34

They must be making all this up also.


Now i know you probly won't understand, but the third site is obviously a typo because the state it as having 180 in the article.


i don't have an SI as i said in the title to my thread, which you had to click on just to start shit.

Im talking about the 2000 being slow because you were dick and came here telling me how i couldn't have beat that car. When you don't know what car i even raced. Your a jackass and just need to shut up and stop coming into my thread and telling me what i did. taken from audiworld.com

[ford50forlife]

ok drdingo21... its safe to say you owned that part of the thread.....

btw the new si's suck penis they dont even do 16.1 stock... best i saw at the track was 16.4 with intake... (the throw is so short on those cars stock ) but.... i would really love to see a ex with intake and exhaust do 15's in the 1/4 mile...

i raced my boys mid 90's ex with intake exhaust 5spd and freeflow cat and i walked him from a dead stop till 80 when we shut down, 2 cars.. and thats when my jeep was without msd and exhaust....

**EDIT** i also drove it after i let him rip on my old busted black gt and it was quite a fun car that loved the high revs.... but unfortunatly no matter how hard you drive that car it would go 15's if its life depended on it.... for COMPARISONS sake AJ1978's TA with 185hp and 320tq 3spd auto did 16.0 STOCK , when i got behind the wheel, and let me tell you off the line in the car even with 4000+raceweight would destroy an ex id pay money to see a ex pull that thing even back in its stock days...

[drdingo21]

Originally posted by ford50forlife
ok drdingo21... its safe to say you owned that part of the thread.....

btw the new si's suck penis they dont even do 16.1 stock... best i saw at the track was 16.4 with intake... (the throw is so short on those cars stock ) but.... i would really love to see a ex with intake and exhaust do 15's in the 1/4 mile...

i raced my boys mid 90's ex with intake exhaust 5spd and freeflow cat and i walked him from a dead stop till 80 when we shut down, 2 cars.. and thats when my jeep was without msd and exhaust....

**EDIT** i also drove it after i let him rip on my old busted black gt and it was quite a fun car that loved the high revs.... but unfortunatly no matter how hard you drive that car it would go 15's if its life depended on it.... for COMPARISONS sake AJ1978's TA with 185hp and 320tq 3spd auto did 16.0 STOCK , when i got behind the wheel, and let me tell you off the line in the car even with 4000+raceweight would destroy an ex id pay money to see a ex pull that thing even back in its stock days...

they run a 16.2 stock.. I was totally disappointed with mikes SI. I did beat mike, but we have only raced once. then winter came :(.

But when we did race i schooled his ass not by much but none the less. He was at my door all the way to 95! after i had to shift it was all over

Car and Driver ust did a road test in there December 02 edition on a Audi TT, S2000, 350Z, and Mustang Mach 1. There specs on the 1.8 Audi TT are the following 0-60 7.3 seconds--------1/4m 15.7@88mph.

But what really got me was the $30,000 V8 03 Mach 1 (305hp 320lb-ft) does a 1/4m in 14 flat at 103mph-----0-120 in 19.5sec. But in the same magazine they road tested a $20,000 turbo 4 Neon SRT-4 (215hp 245lb-ft) and it did a 1/4m in 14.2@102mph------0-120 in 20 sec. flat. With a $50 boost controller the Neon will be eating up a car with almost 100hp and 60lb-ft more.

[V8killimports]

Yea... sorry but that is incorrect info. Even the curb weight is wrong lol. It's about 400lbs off. So explain that to me.. oh yea, the mfg said so, so that must be true. I have a 12 inch penis. Since that info is now on the internet it must also be true. Now, considering I have the same car as you do.. a 94 civic.. but it is an Si..and has 23 more hp than your ex... I can barely outrun the garbage man in it, so I am sorry but I don't believe that you could even beat the 180hp TT. I have driven both and even the 180TT would wax you. Sorry.

[drdingo21]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Yea... sorry but that is incorrect info. Even the curb weight is wrong lol. It's about 400lbs off. So explain that to me.. oh yea, the mfg said so, so that must be true. I have a 12 inch penis. Since that info is now on the internet it must also be true. Now, considering I have the same car as you do.. a 94 civic.. but it is an Si..and has 23 more hp than your ex... I can barely outrun the garbage man in it, so I am sorry but I don't believe that you could even beat the 180hp TT. I have driven both and even the 180TT would wax you. Sorry.

My god you are stupid. All 3 websites are wrong huh? Even Audiworld.com, the site revolves around audis but they have no idea what the are talking about. I am truly amazed at god dam ingorant and stupid you are. I don't understand how you can read that information from 3 differnt websites and just say that they are all wrong.

oh yea, the mfg said so

It was taken from audi.com ( thats the people who made the car) The people of designed and built the car say it runs a 16.1 but they are wrong too according to you.

Now, considering I have the same car as you do.. a 94 civic.. but it is an Si..and has 23 more hp than your ex... I can barely outrun the garbage man in it, so I am sorry but I don't believe that you could even beat the 180hp TT.

Then you have no idea how to drive and you drive like a dumb ass.

so I am sorry but I don't believe that you could even beat the 180hp TT

the 2000 audi 180 hp TT runs a 16.1 in the 1/4 mile, which is about where my civic is. How come you can't comprehend that car is slow for a TT 180 hp car. everyone except for you seems to under stand it.

I am honestly speechless about how you sit there with 3 differnt websites telling you the specs,

Civic addict gets it

*EDIT* I guess it is possible
*EDIT* I guess it is possible

00 Audi TT
Weight: 2910 lbs.
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 7.4 sec.
Base Number of Cylinders: 4
Base Engine Size: 1.8 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4
Horsepower: 180 hp
Max Horsepower: 5500 rpm
Torque: 173 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 1950 rpm

00 Honda Civic Si
Weight: 2601 lbs.
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 7.2 sec.
Base Number of Cylinders: 4
Base Engine Size: 1.6 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4
Horsepower: 160 hp
Max Horsepower: 7600 rpm
Torque: 111 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 7000 rpm

Damn Now I don't see the hype behind the TT.

his specs must be wrong alo, huh?

How can you sit there and say a 16 second car would "wax" my civic. 3 differnt websites disagree with you, everyone that posted in here disagrees with you. Even Audi.com directs you to audiworld.com for specs and audiworld says the car runs a 16.1. But no, you are to god dam stupid to see it.

[Addict]

I doubt we have all found the wrong specs. I pulled mine from Edmunds.com.

Originally posted by V8killimports
Now, considering I have the same car as you do.. a 94 civic.. but it is an Si..and has 23 more hp than your ex...

Where'd you get the extra 23hp? The 94 Si has the same specs as the EX. Its just a hatchback version.
125HP/106FT-LB

[ford50forlife]

Originally posted by drdingo21
they run a 16.2 stock.. I was totally disappointed with mikes SI. I did beat mike, but we have only raced once. then winter came :(.

But when we did race i schooled his ass not by much but none the less. He was at my door all the way to 95! after i had to shift it was all over

sorry but your boy cant drive then cause he shoulda schooled you.... its all about the launch.. like i said before id pay money to see a 5spd ex do 15's in the 1/4 with filter and muffler

[ford50forlife]

as for v8 kill imports..... DUDE YOUR WRONG GiVE IT UP!!!


BTW **** THAT NEW NEON!!!! get the boost controller and we run it 0-120 ITS ON!

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by ford50forlife
as for v8 kill imports..... DUDE YOUR WRONG GiVE IT UP!!!


BTW **** THAT NEW NEON!!!! get the boost controller and we run it 0-120 ITS ON!

Umm..no.. I test drove many 180s and many 225s, and I also drive a 94 Si. I will bet my left nut that the 180TT would wax the civic. I drive one for god's sake. 16.2 for the civic? While the 180 is not the fastest car out there, it certainly is not near as slow as a 94 civic.

[Addict]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Umm..no.. I test drove many 180s and many 225s, and I also drive a 94 Si. I will bet my left nut that the 180TT would wax the civic. I drive one for god's sake. 16.2 for the civic? While the 180 is not the fastest car out there, it certainly is not near as slow as a 94 civic.

Hell yes it will be you 94 Si. The 94 is not the same as the 99-00 Si. The 94 Si has the SOHC engine. The 99-00 Si has the DOHC engine, which is what the specs were for I posted.
The TT will not, however walk all over a 99-00 Si. That I find funny given the price differences.

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by Civic_Addict
Hell yes it will be you 94 Si. The 94 is not the same as the 99-00 Si. The 94 Si has the SOHC engine. The 99-00 Si has the DOHC engine, which is what the specs were for I posted.
The TT will not, however walk all over a 99-00 Si. That I find funny given the price differences.

Oh...I thought we were talking about his 94 EX. Where did this other civic come into play? And you talk about price difference. If I had bought the 180, I wouldn't have bought it for just speed. I could have bought a used Viper with 30K miles for the same price as our 225, but it would have been a hell of a lot faster. What is extra special funny to me, is that a brand new honda accord (yes we did look) with all the extra goodies that the TT already has such as leather, premo stereo, etc will cost only $2000 less than our TT cost. BTW.. here is a sight from CAR AND DRIVER that tested a 180 FRONT WHEEL DRIVE TT.. here ya go:

Aside from slight torque steer -- eliminated, of course, in the Quattro version, which offers all-wheel drive and a 225-hp version of the 1.8-liter, 20-valve four-cylinder -- there is little to complain about. Even 180 horsepower makes for an invigorating experience, with a 0-to-60-mph time of 7.2 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 15.7 seconds at 89 mph. The last front-drive TT coupe we tested ran from 0 to 60 mph in 6.9 seconds and did the quarter in 15.6 seconds at 90 mph. Likely the roadster's extra 240 pounds made the difference. (That weight difference is according to our own electronic scales -- Audi says an identically equipped roadster weighs just 144 pounds more than the coupe.)

You can read everything here:

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...ttroadster.xml

And just for your information the 180 quattro does the 1/4 .2 faster than the FWD, so if you do the math that would be 15.6-.2=15.4. I believe that is faster than 16.2... but just in case let's do the math. 16.2-15.4= .8 faster. Well, I will be damned.

As for the 99-00 civic, the 2000 April issue of Sport Compact Car reported the Si 0-60 at 7.9 and the 1/4 at 15.9.. ouch. Here is another site that confirms those same times, except the 0-60 is 7.95:

http://www.car-videos.com/performanc...sp?id1=4&id2=0

Thank you, come again.

[Addict]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Oh...I thought we were talking about his 94 EX. Where did this other civic come into play?

You brought up your 94 Si in an earlier post. That's where it came from.

And you talk about price difference. If I had bought the 180, I wouldn't have bought it for just speed. I could have bought a used Viper with 30K miles for the same price as our 225, but it would have been a hell of a lot faster. What is extra special funny to me, is that a brand new honda accord (yes we did look) with all the extra goodies that the TT already has such as leather, premo stereo, etc will cost only $2000 less than our TT cost.

The Accord is over priced. So I agree with you there.

And just for your information the 180 quattro does the 1/4 .2 faster than the FWD, so if you do the math that would be 15.6-.2=15.4. I believe that is faster than 16.2... but just in case let's do the math. 16.2-15.4= .8 faster. Well, I will be damned.

As for the 99-00 civic, the 2000 April issue of Sport Compact Car reported the Si 0-60 at 7.9 and the 1/4 at 15.9.. ouch. Here is another site that confirms those same times, except the 0-60 is 7.95:

http://www.car-videos.com/performanc...sp?id1=4&id2=0

Thank you, come again.

I never said it would beat a TT. But it is possible. The times are not that far apart. I just stated that it wouldn't get walked on. The specs I quoted were for the 00 TT Coupe, not the roadster.
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...lass=21&page=7

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by Civic_Addict
You brought up your 94 Si in an earlier post. That's where it came from.

The Accord is over priced. So I agree with you there.

I never said it would beat a TT. But it is possible. The times are not that far apart. I just stated that it wouldn't get walked on. The specs I quoted were for the 00 TT Coupe, not the roadster.
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...lass=21&page=7

The best 1/4 mile time for the TT FWD is 15.6 so far. For the quattro it would be 15.4. A far cry from 16.2. And I mentioned my 94si because it is comparable to drlingos.. I dunno how the 99-00 civic has anything to do with anything. He has a 94ex, and yes, the TT would walk all over him. Straight line, handling.. whatever you choose.

[Addict]

Originally posted by V8killimports
He has a 94ex, and yes, the TT would walk all over him. Straight line, handling.. whatever you choose.

Agreed.

[drdingo21]

Either way i beat 3 or 4 newer audis. Your the asshole that came in here telling me that i didn't. I was showing you that the car is not that fast.
[quote]The best 1/4 mile time for the TT FWD is 15.6 so far. For the quattro it would be 15.4. [quote] Thats a pretty big differnce from mid to low 14s.

sorry but your boy cant drive then cause he shoulda schooled you.... its all about the launch.. like i said before id pay money to see a 5spd ex do 15's in the 1/4 with filter and muffler

he can drive fine. Im pretty much sick of having to defend evertying that i post on this site. If you don't like then **** off, i don't care. I was telling you guys what i did. you drug this thread on for 5 pages because your a stupid **** that had to argue over dumb shit.

[ford50forlife]

Originally posted by drdingo21
Either way i beat 3 or 4 newer audis. Your the asshole that came in here telling me that i didn't. I was showing you that the car is not that fast.
he can drive fine. Im pretty much sick of having to defend evertying that i post on this site. If you don't like then **** off, i don't care. I was telling you guys what i did.

its all about driver, and i believed that you left him.... i apologize if i came off wrong sorry bro but those 1.8's respond well to mods im just saying open up your eyes to the posibilities in FUTURE races..

[drdingo21]

Originally posted by ford50forlife
its all about driver, and i believed that you left him.... i apologize if i came off wrong sorry bro but those 1.8's respond well to mods im just saying open up your eyes to the posibilities in FUTURE races..

oh, i know they do. Im just saying i beat that one and 3 or 4 before that. Apology accepted, and my last post wasn't really aimed at you. It was aimed more towards v8.

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by drdingo21
oh, i know they do. Im just saying i beat that one and 3 or 4 before that. Apology accepted, and my last post wasn't really aimed at you. It was aimed more towards v8.

Well believe it or not, you can have a heated discussion without calling people names. Maybe someday you will be able to learn that. That fact that you get so defensive shows that you are full of it. Maybe you came across an older audi driven by grandma that didn't know you were racing her and you beat her... well then, congrats. But my wife who drives like a minister would still walk you.

And BTW you were saying that the 180TT does 16.2.. and I proved you wrong. That's where that little discussion came from...

[ford50forlife]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Maybe you came across an older audi driven by grandma that didn't know you were racing her and you beat her... well then, congrats. But my wife who drives like a minister would still walk you.

LOFL!!! i remember one day this k car past me in my jeep and it took me like 1/2mile to catch up finally at like 110 i creap past the car the look at the driver and to my astonishment (BESIDES THE FACT IT WAS A ****ING K CAR) there was a 80+year old women behind the wheel!!!

Guess she had a stroke behind the wheel.... i hope

[drdingo21]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Well believe it or not, you can have a heated discussion without calling people names. Maybe someday you will be able to learn that. That fact that you get so defensive shows that you are full of it. Maybe you came across an older audi driven by grandma that didn't know you were racing her and you beat her... well then, congrats. But my wife who drives like a minister would still walk you.

And BTW you were saying that the 180TT does 16.2.. and I proved you wrong. That's where that little discussion came from...

I never got defensive and called you names untill you kept replying with stupid shit and made me repeat my self 6 times. ANd whats it matter, did i hurt your feelings?

Why am i "full of it"? You know how i drive? did you see the race? were you there? Not to metion i said in my first post it was a punk kid..

And BTW you were saying that the 180TT does 16.2.. and I proved you wrong.

You didn't prove me wrong. You never once said a time that was even close to the actual time of the car. The 15.6 was done by a car and drive employee which probly has some 50,000 passes on the track. Audi the manufacture says the car does a 16.2 in the 1/4. The new SI would more that likely beat the TT. And i beat mikes new SI... until 95. Or i guess i didn't do that either huh?

Not to metion you were saying the car ran low 14s. That was the orginal arugment. 3 differnt companies that test drove that car got the car to a 16.1 or a 16.2.

But lets say the car ran a 15.6, thats about .6 faster than my car. What if the audi i raced was an automatic? I bet they don't run a 15.6. Either way the point of my post was to say how i broke my shifter. Your the asshole that came in here telling me what i did and what i didn't do. and the whole time your arugment was "well you drove one so you know what they can do". What it all boils down to is you had to come in here and start an arugment. Everyone else was all nice and calm about it but then you come in here spouting off stupid shit .

Maybe you came across an older audi driven by grandma that didn't know you were racing her and you beat her... well then, congrats. But my wife who drives like a minister would still walk you.

I said in my first post it was a kid. And how do you know your wife would beat me? How do you know i don't the best reaction time here? You don't. You just wanted to start shit...

I don't sit here and tell you that chevy doesn't run as fast as you say it does, do i?

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by drdingo21
I never got defensive and called you names untill you kept replying with stupid shit and made me repeat my self 6 times. ANd whats it matter, did i hurt your feelings?

No.. just shows how young you are. I am surprised you are old enough to drive.

[i] You didn't prove me wrong. You never once said a time that was even close to the actual time of the car. The 15.6 was done by a car and drive employee which probly has some 50,000 passes on the track. Audi the manufacture says the car does a 16.2 in the 1/4. [/b]

The car does 15.6.. and that is the baseline FWD 180hp motor. You go to the quattro and it does 15.4. Now you are just bsing out of every hole.

[i] The new SI would more that likely beat the TT. [/b]

Uhh... no. Like everyone here has said.. they are just as slow as your car if not slower.

[i] Not to metion you were saying the car ran low 14s. That was the orginal arugment. 3 differnt companies that test drove that car got the car to a 16.1 or a 16.2. [/b]

Ok.. now you are making yourself look like a complete moron. Please do some research before you open your mouth. The 225hp model does 14.2... NOT the 180 model... stay with me here. And The best time the car has is a 15.6/15.4. That time or 16.1 is with a 60 year old man or you driving.

[i] But lets say the car ran a 15.6, thats about .6 faster than my car. What if the audi i raced was an automatic? I bet they don't run a 15.6. [/b]

I bet they don't either considering they didn't exist until a month ago. They are all 5spd/6spd except for the new triptronic option for 2003. Again please do research before you open your mouth. You are starting to sound very silly.

[i] Either way the point of my post was to say how i broke my shifter. Your the asshole that came in here telling me what i did and what i didn't do. and the whole time your arugment was "well you drove one so you know what they can do". What it all boils down to is you had to come in here and start an arugment. Everyone else was all nice and calm about it but then you come in here spouting off stupid shit .


I said in my first post it was a kid. And how do you know your wife would beat me? How do you know i don't the best reaction time here? You don't. You just wanted to start shit...

I don't sit here and tell you that chevy doesn't run as fast as you say it does, do i? [/b]

What chevy are we talking about?

[drdingo21]

No.. just shows how young you are. I am surprised you are old enough to drive.

i don't see how. But how young am i? What makes me look young? You try to insult me with an age thing?

The car does 15.6.. and that is the baseline FWD 180hp motor. You go to the quattro and it does 15.4. Now you are just bsing out of every hole.

Ok, in order for me to "bs" i would need to make stuff up. 3 differnt websites all came up with the same results. Audi says the car runs a 16.2. But since car and driver got a 15.6 they must be right huh?

Uhh... no. Like everyone here has said.. they are just as slow as your car if not slower.

Who is everyone? i see you saying it. If you don't like imports so much then why do you come to this website?

Ok.. now you are making yourself look like a complete moron. Please do some research before you open your mouth. The 225hp model does 14.2... NOT the 180 model... stay with me here. And The best time the car has is a 15.6/15.4. That time or 16.1 is with a 60 year old man or you driving.

You wonder why i started calling you names? anyway... All 3 of those sites and Audi had a the same 60 year old man come and run the 1/4 more for them huh? Not to metion you found 1 site that was able to get the car to a 15.6 and no where else. And i found 3. Which to me would mean that you would have to be a pretty good driver to get a 15.6.

bet they don't either considering they didn't exist until a month ago. They are all 5spd/6spd except for the new triptronic option for 2003. Again please do research before you open your mouth. You are starting to sound very silly.

I should have no reason to research something i shouldn't even be aruging about. You need to sit and think about what i type. Do you even understand what im saying? I said I beat that audi, whcih i did. You said i didn't. I dunno why, but either way i beat the car, and 3 or 4 before that. None of the people were old, and all the cars were new. You don't like it? I honestly give a shit what some 30-40 year man that comes to imports sites to bash imports thinks. Your annoying and ingorant, ive seen you ruin countless thread just because your an asshole.

What chevy are we talking about?

i wonder... But since you don't seem to get it. Your 57 chevy.

I dunno even what kind of audi it was. I was just showing you the car is not a 14 second car, and its very possible for my civic or anyother lightly modded civic to beat a stock audi. But you refused to look at the numbers i showed you and said since you drove one you know it could beat it, and 1 magize was able to get a 15.6 out of one. Don't you think its odd everybody but you can see that my car can beat it?

There are a handfull of dipshits like you that just come to this board to prove other people wrong. I have never seen you post anything to help someone all you do is post if you see something you can argue about. You need to get over yourself, your not near as great as you think.

[V8killimports]

Wow... another brilliant post... where do I begin?

[quote] [i] Ok, in order for me to "bs" i would need to make stuff up. 3 differnt websites all came up with the same results. Audi says the car runs a 16.2. But since car and driver got a 15.6 they must be right huh? [quote] [/b]

Uhh.. yes.. and I gave you a couple sites. I bet ya the people at car and driver know how to drive. You keep trying to argue this point, but look dumber and dumber everytime you try. If audi claims 16.1 (a mfg will often claim slower times) then they didn't know how to drive or didn't drive it hard. The car that did 15.6/15.4 quattro is the SAME EXACT CAR. It doesn't matter who drove it, the care is capable of that time. For example.. take the 16.2 your car can do (on a perfect day), and but the same driver that got a 16.1 in the TT.. your car would run a 17ish with that same driver.

[quote] [i] If you don't like imports so much then why do you come to this website? [quote] [/b]

Who says I don't like them?? I own one smart guy.

[quote] [i]
I honestly give a shit what some 30-40 year man that comes to imports sites to bash imports thinks. [quote] [/b]

Uh.. not even close to that age..and again .. I own an import.. 2 in fact..

[quote] [i] i wonder... But since you don't seem to get it. Your 57 chevy. [quote] [/b]

Well considering my 57 runs about 5 seconds faster than yours in the 1/4....

[quote] [i] I was just showing you the car is not a 14 second car, and its very possible for my civic or anyother lightly modded civic to beat a stock audi. [quote] [/b]

Yes, the 225TT runs 14.2 as a best.. I thought I had found 14.1 but I can't find it again. And I did some more research and found some than run in the 16's.. slowest I have found.. so you would give one a good race..

[quote] [i] But you refused to look at the numbers i showed you and said since you drove one... [quote] [/b]

Yea drove many actually and own one...please read more carefully.

[quote] [i]Don't you think its odd everybody but you can see that my car can beat it? [quote] [/b]

Actually Addict even admitted that it would walk you.. please read previous posts.

[drdingo21]

forget it, im done. reasoning with you just falls on deaf ears. how ever i will address a couple of your dumber comments...

Wow... another brilliant post... where do I begin?

aruging with you is a waste of my time. And again i guess its a good thing i don't give a shit about you opnion or what you think.

Uhh.. yes.. and I gave you a couple sites. I bet ya the people at car and driver know how to drive. You keep trying to argue this point, but look dumber and dumber everytime you try. If audi claims 16.1 (a mfg will often claim slower times) then they didn't know how to drive or didn't drive it hard. The car that did 15.6/15.4 quattro is the SAME EXACT CAR. It doesn't matter who drove it, the care is capable of that time. For example.. take the 16.2 your car can do (on a perfect day), and but the same driver that got a 16.1 in the TT.. your car would run a 17ish with that same driver.

My point is Car and driver drivers are experinced track drivers. The kid i raced was a normal person, he doesn't have the same reaction time as them so i doubt he would pull a 15.6. Either way i beat him, you don't like it, then go cry and whine somewhere else. So **** you.

Who says I don't like them?? I own one smart guy

i said that because you bash them you stupid ass.

Well considering my 57 runs about 5 seconds faster than yours in the 1/4....

No it doesn't

Yea drove many actually and own one...please read more carefully.

No shit? im point out your argument sucks.

Actually Addict even admitted that it would walk you.. please read previous posts.

beat and "walk" me are two differnt things. the car isn't second faster than mine.

Uh.. not even close to that age..and again .. I own an import.. 2 in fact..

Im not trying to guess you age...

This is it im done arguing with you. Your pissing me off and wasting my time for no reason. 1/4 mile time doesn't even matter in that last race beacause i broke my shifter in 2nd gear, either way i was ahead of him, And ive beat 3 or 4 before, mike in his SI has beat a couple also, so again **** you.

[V8killimports]

[i] My point is Car and driver drivers are experinced track drivers. The kid i raced was a normal person, he doesn't have the same reaction time as them so i doubt he would pull a 15.6.[/b]

Same with your car. Car and Driver came out with a 16.2. I am comparing a car and driver time to another car and driver time. You have no point, and are talking in circles.

[i] i said that because you bash them you stupid ass. .[/b]

Umm... no.. I don't.

[i] No it doesn't [/b]

Well considering your car runs 16.2 on a very good day, my car is actually 5.27 seconds faster than yours if you want to get technical.. you do the math.

[i] mike in his SI has beat a couple also, so again **** you. [/b]

Who is mike? And I believe he and or you beat maybe an A4 from 96,97, or 98.

[drdingo21]

Same with your car. Car and Driver came out with a 16.2. I am comparing a car and driver time to another car and driver time. You have no point, and are talking in circles.

Im saying that because just because bar and driver put up that time doesn't mean the kid i raced knew how to drive.

Umm... no.. I don't.

right off the top of my head i remeber your first couple of post bashing them in this very section of the board.

Well considering your car runs 16.2 on a very good day, my car is actually 5.27 seconds faster than yours if you want to get technical.. you do the math.

The point of that was me telling you what you do. Just like you did me. And no you car isn't 5.27 seconds faster than my civic.

Well considering your car runs 16.2 on a very good day, my car is actually 5.27 seconds faster than yours if you want to get technical.. you do the math.

Then what the hell are you aruging with me for? All i said was i beat an audi, and 3 or 4 before that. You just wasted 5 pages of aruging with me just to finally say what ive been saying all along.

I could see A EX beating a newer Audi, if the guy driving the Audi had no clue on how to drive a manual. Or even if he had an auto. Audi Auto trannys are EXTRMELY SLOW!!! I mean, with my old beat up, no guts, Audi 4000, I managed to bet a Hyundai Tibroun V6. Its all on how you drive the stick. This kid just had got the car and just had learned how to drive a stick. I mean a Geo Metro could have beaten him.

[V8killimports]

Originally posted by drdingo21
Im saying that because just because bar and driver put up that time doesn't mean the kid i raced knew how to drive.

Doesn't mean you know how either. Car and Driver gets 16.2 for your car on a great day with a great driver.. but you driving would be more like a 17.

[i] And no you car isn't 5.27 seconds faster than my civic.[/b]

I told you to do the math.. but you didn't want to or you can't so I will do it for you. 16.2-5.26= 10.93. The best my 57 ran was a 10.93@125mph.

[i]Then what the hell are you aruging with me for? All i said was i beat an audi, and 3 or 4 before that. You just wasted 5 pages of aruging with me just to finally say what ive been saying all along. [/b]

I agree that you beat a slower, older A4, but not a TT. If you beat a TT they didn't know they were racing you..

[Kyle]

Originally posted by V8killimports
Doesn't mean you know how either. Car and Driver gets 16.2 for your car on a great day with a great driver.. but you driving would be more like a 17.



I told you to do the math.. but you didn't want to or you can't so I will do it for you. 16.2-5.26= 10.93. The best my 57 ran was a 10.93@125mph.



I agree that you beat a slower, older A4, but not a TT. If you beat a TT they didn't know they were racing you..

lol...v8...you seriously sound like an idiot...

[ChrisCantSkate]

it had to be posted