Originally posted by str8edgexx
For $15,000, you could buy an '87-'93 5.0 Mustang and have it running 10s or lower, with money left over. I really don't know if I'd consider a civic a cost efficient car for making go fast. To get a Civic into 13 range, you gotta do a ton of work (swap, some sort of FI, etc). If you had a DSM, you could spend less than $1000 in parts and be in the 13s (or lower). Mustangs and DSM would be cars I would consider cost effective for making fast, but as a tradeoff, you don't get reliability. If you ask probably 90% of the people on here why they drive a civic, its not because its cost effective to make it fast (b/c its not), but because you can have a 13 seconds civic that you can drive everyday and never have to worry about breaking. Its all about reliablity my friend.
yeah i'm well aware of that and i'm sorry for the confusion.. i'm well aware that there are many many cars u can make faster for the same money but i forgot to state that the civic stands above the rest b/c of reliability and looks.. i disregarded those other cars totally.. DSM's and mitsu in general are known to have a crappy rep (nowhere near as reputable as honda) and mustangs are well, mustangs, and look like crap in myopinion.. let me restate: civics are most cost effective with speed And reliability And looks involved (altho looks are disputable)