Fouth Gen Camaro vs. Subaru STi

[MrCool]

Originally Posted by blaSSt

I disagree with one comment.

I disagree with your disagreement. Yes, the WRX STi is a well engineered car, which does have his goods/bads, I do agree with smokin's comment:

Originally Posted by smokin'

...and pretty well king of the ricers.

At least in the area I live, it is the king of ricers...plus, anybody can edit wikipedia, (such as a ricer).

[blaSSt]

Originally Posted by MrCool

plus, anybody can edit wikipedia, (such as a ricer).

Ricers have nothing to do with performance, they have to do with the 'look'. They are posers. The term should not be applied to the STi. You can find a few more 'definitions" here:

http://www.riceboypage.com/
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...erm=rice%20car
http://www.drivehomesafe.com/article...hicles-86.html

I challenge you to find a single definition that includes true performance cars.

[MrCool]

My definition of a ricer is a guy with a 4 - 6 cylinder car, who says that he can beat my 5.7 liter, 8 cylinder muscle car just because he slapped on a turbocharger, added a 4 inch exhaust tip to the end of his car, and just plain because it was made in japan.

[blaSSt]

Rice or not rice?

Toyota powered, 6 cylinder car, with a turbocharger, over 4" of exhaust tip, and yes he says he can beat your 5.7L, 8 cylinder muscle car. (900 RWHP to back that claim up)

Toyota powered.

Rice or not rice?

Japanese made, 6 cylinder, turbocharged, and yes he says he can beat your 5.7L, 8 cylinder muscle car. (no 4" exhaust, can't find that spec.)

[MrCool]

Yes, in fact you could argue that is ricer in some aspects, and not in others.

I'm not saying ricers are bad...I have complimented a ricer like car, and over, over and over

Originally Posted by MrCool

...Yes, the WRX STi is a well engineered car, which does have his goods/bads...

Just not my taste...what I DON'T LIKE...are the cockey one's...muscle car lovers and ricer lovers.

But, to argue that the WRX STi is not ricer, is one heck of an argument...

[Gilby]

To: OP

i was once in ur situation when i was 15 or so b4 i had my license. competing with a friends car. problem for me is i didnt really kno my vehicle much. besides bench racing (reading specification articles online) I say get to kno your car...get to kno the mods and the hp benefits. sign up on a camaro forum specifically for the lt1. www.camaroz28.com www.ls1tech.com www.fbody.com www.z28.com theres a lot out there..the more you read up the more u knowledge urself on ur vehicle everyone starts somewhere. read the stickies, read and learn from peoples experiences...

[blaSSt]

Originally Posted by MrCool

Yes, in fact you could argue that is ricer in some aspects, and not in others.
I'm not saying ricers are bad...I have complimented a ricer like car, and over, over and over
Just not my taste...what I DON'T LIKE...are the cockey one's...muscle car lovers and ricer lovers.

But, to argue that the WRX STi is not ricer, is one heck of an argument...

Not an argument. Ricer is well defined. You are trying to change the definition to suit you. You are misusing the term.

You say ricer is not bad, but it is a pejorative term.

The you switch and are now talking about the owners not the cars (cockey one's).

Nevermind, enough codswallop.

[Super83Z]

Originally Posted by blaSSt

Not an argument. Ricer is well defined. You are trying to change the definition to suit you. You are misusing the term.

You say ricer is not bad, but it is a pejorative term.

The you switch and are now talking about the owners not the cars (cockey one's).

Nevermind, enough codswallop.

He is also young and new to the game and probably doesn't really deserve the riding you are giving him. Try thinking back to the stupid sh*t that rolled out of your mouth when you were learning about cars. Let him like his AMERICAN car, you just seem to want to tell him how inferior it is and how wrong his thinking is. Now your posting pics of Formula 1 cars, how absurd is this going to get? You know what he meant when he made his post.

I say post up some pics of the 94. Makes me remember my 95 that was a fun car. Mine made 250 RWHP and 300 RWT bone stock on a paper filter. I beat some slightly modded f-bods with her.

[MrCool]

Well Mr.codswallop, I really do think you joined the wrong forum,

I started this thread asking for advice, and I did get some really good advice from alot of people. But you came here looking for an argument from the start. So if you don't like to hear this "stupid sh*t", then I sugest you go, and join some Pro-Import/Ricer forum...(however you define it)

Yes, I agree, American cars are not the best quality cars out there, hence all the bailouts going around, but for god's sake man, why the hell are you so anxious to prove me wrong, huh?

I got to hand it to you though, way to go to have an open mind about things, (sarcrasm)
The arrogance in the air is disgusting...

[BowtieGuy]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

why would you want to roll race? that doesnt really prove much. not to mention..... street racing is bad.

and roll races are for ricers.

I can't begin to count the times I have told friends and random idiots that I will not race them from a "roll" because it proves nothing about either car or driver. It's more like a handicap. Anybody who cares about roll races, horsepower per litre, or VHP (visual horsepower) is most likely a ricer.


You people, this bickering is ridiculous on either side. Ricer has nothing to do with the car. A ricer is a person, and whatever retarded and outlandish car they drive is only a product of their own stupidity.

[MrCool]

Originally Posted by BowtieGuy

You people, this bickering is ridiculous on either side.

Yes, it is ridiculous, what's even more ridiculous is that it turned from me asking advice to this, "ricer or not" technicalities.

:(

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by BowtieGuy

I can't begin to count the times I have told friends and random idiots that I will not race them from a "roll" because it proves nothing about either car or driver. It's more like a handicap. Anybody who cares about roll races, horsepower per litre, or VHP (visual horsepower) is most likely a ricer.


You people, this bickering is ridiculous on either side. Ricer has nothing to do with the car. A ricer is a person, and whatever retarded and outlandish car they drive is only a product of their own stupidity.

you have done well, my apprentice.

[Visual_Perfection]

Whats all this knocking on LT1's? I have owned 2 LT1's and an 1 LS1, both engines are GREAT engines for their time.

My last LT1 was very mildly modded as far as engine performance goes. It was set up for road course racing and not the 1/4, however it still ran strong in the 1/4. It was a 6 speed with Moroso Intake, Borla Catback, and 3.73 gears (stock were 3.42's) That car ran 13.6 @ 102mph in the 1/4 mile. Stock I am guessing the car would have ran 14.0 @ 98 mph...My LS1 6 speed with Intake, and Catback Exhaust ran the 1/4 in 13.4 @ 106 mph. So yes the LS1 was a faster car and pulled much harder in the upper RPM's but the LT1's while not the fastest things out there, are no slouch either, especially considering they are 12-16 years old.

And I thought someone mentioned LT1's ran at BEST a 14.0 in the 1/4 with most of them running in the high 14's? LOL, I recall some STOCK LT1's pulling mid 13 second passes and many pulling high 13's to low 14's... To say that MOST LT1's ran high 14's is way off. The majority ran LOW 14's and some better.

The LT1 like I said is now 12-16 years outdated obviously, especially when the new V6 camaro should be putting down similar times as some of the LT1 cars in the 1/4 if they are pulling low 14's. However once again, the LT1 was an amazing motor in it's day, and was one of the rulers of the streets. Someone saying My 2006 car is WAY better than your 1994 Car, well keep in mind that car has 12 years of technology on the older car! Lets see the 1994 version of that 2006 car compete with an LT1.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by Visual_Perfection

Whats all this knocking on LT1's? I have owned 2 LT1's and an 1 LS1, both engines are GREAT engines for their time.

My last LT1 was very mildly modded as far as engine performance goes. It was set up for road course racing and not the 1/4, however it still ran strong in the 1/4. It was a 6 speed with Moroso Intake, Borla Catback, and 3.73 gears (stock were 3.42's) That car ran 13.6 @ 102mph in the 1/4 mile. Stock I am guessing the car would have ran 14.0 @ 98 mph...My LS1 6 speed with Intake, and Catback Exhaust ran the 1/4 in 13.4 @ 106 mph. So yes the LS1 was a faster car and pulled much harder in the upper RPM's but the LT1's while not the fastest things out there, are no slouch either, especially considering they are 12-16 years old.

And I thought someone mentioned LT1's ran at BEST a 14.0 in the 1/4 with most of them running in the high 14's? LOL, I recall some STOCK LT1's pulling mid 13 second passes and many pulling high 13's to low 14's... To say that MOST LT1's ran high 14's is way off. The majority ran LOW 14's and some better.

The LT1 like I said is now 12-16 years outdated obviously, especially when the new V6 camaro should be putting down similar times as some of the LT1 cars in the 1/4 if they are pulling low 14's. However once again, the LT1 was an amazing motor in it's day, and was one of the rulers of the streets. Someone saying My 2006 car is WAY better than your 1994 Car, well keep in mind that car has 12 years of technology on the older car! Lets see the 1994 version of that 2006 car compete with an LT1.

well SAID/TYPED.