civics are slow...but after you dump in about 10k they pretty quick

 

 

Well, your right, the new mustangs are faster than that but I have another cousin that has an 11 second mustang and the best he could get out of my brother in laws mustang was a 14.6 and he is a really good driver. Which still would have equated to a beat down in my civic and maybe an even race in my SE. My SE ran a 15 flat in stock form so I'm not sure what it runs now with Intake, headers, and exhaust. But it might have been an even match. Also, I don't think you can compare a new mustang to a new LS1 but you can compare it to an LT1(my cousins 94' T/A). I ran even in my civic against a new WS6 and I was happy. When I get my boost controller I'll be a lot happier. Oh, and my other cousin with the 11 second 5.0, well, his car is broke more than it runs, so sure it's fast, but the piece of **** blows head gaskets like they going out of style. He bought that mustang already fast, and two months after he bought it, it had to be rebuilt. It is a crazy fast car though.

 

:werd:

I hate that. I don't think my car's ricey, and I know it doesnt sound ricey.... Just supa loud when vtec kicks in. At idle, or normal acceleration, it's quiet.

Not like my friends prelude that sounds like the jolly green giant was ripping ass all the way down the street.

 

I am SO sorry. Glad you dont have it anymore though

 

just the other day some dude in a white 'stang was laughin at me as i went by him and i get some rude comments from 'stang 5.0's driverz at my skool.. i couldn't care less.. i look at my ride as very money efficient.. it'z a 98 (fairly late model, in my opinion), it looks not too bad (in my opinion), and i only paid $7,000 for it.. i'm very happy with it and i know for only another $6,000 or so i could swap and turbo and whoop ass on everybody else i know in my area.. the bottom line is i paid $7,000 for a newer car that looks good and has potential.. i'd rather have that than a newer mustang that costs $15,000 or a POS-looking 5.0

civic's are very cost efficient for both looking nice and going fast..
$15,000 can build a street/show civic that can run 13s.. or $15,000 can get you a stock 'stang.. i'd take the civic route any day

 

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.

 

*mental picture* :rofl:

 

:werd:

but at least you have an EX. That's about 10-15 horses I'm missing out on

 

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)