Originally Posted by
02anti_vnm
not to bust anyones bubble but i dont really see where horsepower to liter comes in to effect anywhere... stock 100bhp/liter rsx vs. stock 72bhp/liter z06 means what? dont even try to argue that the rsx would ever ever EVER amount to anything compared to the z06 because it wouldnt! no roll race, dig, drift, handling, or anything... so basicaly the efficency of the 4 cylinder means dick! the corvette is faster now tell me why when it has such a low bhp/liter compared to the rsx... o wait maybe because its a 4 cylinder and 4 bangers suck dick and will never be more efficent because they are only half the engine a v8 ever will be and i mean that litterally and figuratively! now have a nice day
I'm not sure if you read all the posts or not. Basically I was replying to the gentlemen that said, Hondas are pos because they don't make 600bhp NA. It eventually evolved into the hp/liter argument. I have personally had both, a built NA Honda and I currently own a twin turbo mustang. I agree there is no comparison between a rsx and any ZO6.
My argument was not meant to imply that the rsx was faster or that higher hp/liter cars are faster than lower hp/liter cars.