Intro - Page 4

LarryIII · #46 09-22-2002, 08:05 AM

SVXENO,

Don't knock my Toro. I'll take off the bag, sharpen the blade and challenge your Mopar at any stoplight or front lawn.

#47 09-22-2002, 11:41 AM

I've also driven a Sebring with the 2.0, and it was a complete slug. But guess what? The Sebring weighs a lot more than 2400 lbs. :P

- Ca$h

#48 09-22-2002, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LarryIII
SVXENO,

Don't knock my Toro. I'll take off the bag, sharpen the blade and challenge your Mopar at any stoplight or front lawn.

Larry iii,

oh ya? OH YA!?! I'll mow you down buoyee!!

(Get it...mow...chuckle)

Randy ii (I'm so d@mn serious sometimes)

ps: My lawyer can beat up your lawyer!

#49 09-22-2002, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by $VX
I've also driven a Sebring with the 2.0, and it was a complete slug. But guess what? The Sebring weighs a lot more than 2400 lbs. :P

- Ca$h

I drove all three versions, before buying, available in '95 4/auto, 4/stick, 6/auto. 4/stick was the quickest relative to each other. Still needed much much more. My SVX is my first auto in 18 years. I still miss the stick!

How I wish I had 2 svx's one auto one stick!

Randy ii

wasions · #50 09-22-2002, 08:06 PM

Uhh, welcome, uhm, whatever new guy it was who started this thread.

I happen to think the Neon (It's spelled like peon only with an 'n', right?) is, well, cute.

Go out and drive one if you want to. Personally, I wouldn't be caught, um, dying in one.

When we were shopping for my wife's 1.9L Volvo automatic (which, by the way, will lose to a Neon for the first hundred feet, and then proceed to whup it like a real slow thing - same weight plus a turbo) we happened to drive a Saturn L(W)300 automatic. If it didn't look so much like a Neon (well, okay, it really is worse looking by the tiniest margin), I would have bought it on the spot. Light as a feather, and 182 really fast ponies. That car is an absolute rocket. It might not have the top speed of the SVX, but I'm guessing it'd beat it, or anything I've ever owned (not to include motorcycles), to 100.

Cash, go easy on your ego (I know you will), don't race a V6 Saturn.

About the Mustang. If you look good enough, you don't have to be fast. My wife's not that fast.

Shadow248 · #51 09-22-2002, 11:23 PM

Cash,

Where are you getting your info? You might want to check the reliability of your sources...

The 1997-2002 Saturn SC2 (1.9L) 2380lbs.
124hp
122ft/lbs at 5800RPM
118ft/lbs at 2400RPM

That's a pretty darn flat curve if i ever saw one.

The 1995-1999 Dodge Neon (2.0L) 2462lbs.
132hp
130ft/lbs at 5600RPM
99ft/lbs at 2500RPM

Not as flat, you see?

SO...AS I SAID...the Saturns have more torque down low...in line with most of GMs engines...the advantage to their "outdated" design. The differences here are minimal...but enough to make the Saturn the winner in a "static" race.

References: www.carpoint.com, Road & Track Oct. 1998 issue.

And you still have yet to show me a better engine. The Saturn's engine costs much less to repair, and as for reliability, well that engine has been around for over ten years in one form or another, so i don't think that's really an issue.

#52 09-22-2002, 11:44 PM

It's nice to feel welcomed. Ha. I can't believe that this thread is still going. Man do I feel special. If it werent for someone trying to show that his stuff was bigger than mine in my first post as soon as i got on, this would be the best forum I have ever been on. It is still gainning favor though.

And about the one lap thing, a saturn took 22nd.

And about autocrossing, check with most small clubs. The saturns are great cars for it and usually do very well in the standings. The only reason that you have not heard alot about them in the big races is because of the image that the company wants to portrait with the vehicle. For the first 5 years or so, there was only one company really doing anything for performance saturns. If they had half the aftermarket support that neons do, there would be some amazing saturns out there.

I don't know who said it, but winning races is all about the driver. The car only helps out a little.

#53 09-22-2002, 11:54 PM

I finally picked up my car this weekend in StL. The ride quality far surpassed my expectations. It almost feels as though the car has died at stops because of the horizontal. My parents have a jag and the rides feel almost the same. The drive from St. Louis to Decatur was a breeze in a car this nice. Another thing I love is how that door comes up and covers your stereo. That is one of the sweetest things I have ever seen. I am a little scared about how I am going to put in a headunit that reads MP3 CD's, but that will be sorted out in due time. No wonder you guys love your car so much. I am sold already. I should have pictures in my locker so check them out.

DavieGravy · #54 09-23-2002, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by $VX
I agree with you about becoming attached to cars, but some cars are just ... eh... take for example a V6 automatic mustang. WHY!?!!? I mean, yeah, it looks fast, and maybe you could pick up chicks at a high school, but DAMN do you pay for it, without even getting to enjoy it. You have high insurance, higher gas bills, mediocre handling, and they're so slllooowww. If you have a buick century wagon, cool, then you loved its character and usability...but when you have a car that was DESIGNED as somewhat of a performance car with just a pathetic engine in it, the character of the car is ruined. It's like a tough guy who cries over papercuts. You're presenting an image (performance) that just... is.... HORRIBLE at backing it up. I'm not joking.. I've beaten older mustang GTs in a NEON. YES. NEON. The cheapest car Chrysler makes... is FASTER than the supposed ponycar. That's just sad man, its just sad! I'm not trying to argue; just pointing out why I could never love a 'poser' car.

- Ca$h

While I don't agree with telling somebody their car outright sucks, I could't resist jumping in on this one. I drove a V6 Mustang all summer when I was staying at my sisters. It was loud, slow, unsolid, uncomfortable, and unreliable. Lwin says don't buy an SVX if you want to save money? My sister spent more on her 98 mustang with 55k on it inside of 3 months than I've spent on my SVX in the year I've owned it (run-on sentence, I know). And my SVX has more miles.

#55 09-23-2002, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wasions
U
Cash, go easy on your ego (I know you will), don't race a V6 Saturn.

V6 Saturns? Since when?

- Ca$h

wasions · #56 09-23-2002, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by $VX

V6 Saturns? Since when?

- Ca$h

Had yer head in a box? (I could have said what I was really thinking.)

solarsvx · #57 09-23-2002, 01:55 PM

well im late on this thread but welcome to the board.. svx guys are the best and know alot abougth our cars, ..

cash u never seem to amaze me these days.. im totaly staying out of this thread..

LOL im forcing my fingers not to coment on your threads or your neons..=>

again we got way way off the thread topic again.

wawazat?? · #58 09-23-2002, 05:05 PM

Look for the L300 Saturn. It uses the 54 degree V-6 in a FWD orientation. The same engine is used by Opel/Cadillac Catera and the Saab 9000 series, in some versions it is turbocharged.

Todd

Aredubjay · #59 09-23-2002, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wasions

Had yer head in a box? (I could have said what I was really thinking.)

I already said it. But, I think I may have used some unintelligent words that he didn't understand.

#60 09-23-2002, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aredubjay

I already said it. But, I think I may have used some unintelligent words that he didn't understand.