Originally Posted by bad360rt

I can't believe people still bring out that hp/liter crap.

Chris hit the nail on the head, the only thing that matters is power/weight, period.

Originally Posted by gnv6

The good thing about the HP/liter excuse is that when your not making any power you have that to fall back on.

Originally Posted by Heiss M3

No idea what mine does, but it isn't good I'll tell ya that much.

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

Originally Posted by Heiss M3

Is your TT mustang the 97 svt or the 01 saleen (going by your name)

Originally Posted by 97svt/01saleen

It is the 97 svt. The 01 Saleen was my wife's car that she sold back in the spring.

Originally Posted by 97svt/01saleen

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.