gt pic?
07-07-2005, 11:56 PM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
RE: gt pic?
hey ive really "flamed" the jato latley tell the truth i kno its fast but do the tires wear really easy and is it durable to bash specs the gt is tight but i might get an x-cell faster .18 wheelies on command and such my friend says hes gettin a jato
07-08-2005, 12:04 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bayamon, PUERTO RICO (USA)
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: gt pic?
ORIGINAL: BugattiFreak
FORD SUCKS!!!!! FORD SUCKS!!!!! and that GT RC owns, you have one? i have a jato, want to race?
FORD SUCKS!!!!! FORD SUCKS!!!!! and that GT RC owns, you have one? i have a jato, want to race?
seeeeyaaaa!!!!!!!!
07-08-2005, 03:51 AM
#11
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Norwood,
OH
Posts: 22,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: gt pic?
ORIGINAL: nitroboy01
i hate domestics rc10gt DUH this is a rc forum
i hate domestics rc10gt DUH this is a rc forum
you are one of the saddest people i've seen on any of these forums.
btw, the RC10GT is the fifth most winning american nameplate in racing history. so suck it.
oh, and some nice five-oh's on here...my fox birdie will show up eventually, i promise
07-08-2005, 08:08 AM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Blair County, PA
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: gt pic?
I didnt think much of 87-92 GTs until I actually drove one. It went like this: Mash the throttle, listten to the flowmasters roar, scare your passenger (and yourself too).
The 87-92 GT is every bit a performance icon as the Civic or Integra. Maybe more so because they are more affordable, there are more of them, and its not difficult to get over 300 hp with just a few mods. You didnt need to do an entire engine swap to get performance.
I loved my 90 GT. It didnt handle the best or have the best brakes, but it went like hell.
The 87-92 GT is every bit a performance icon as the Civic or Integra. Maybe more so because they are more affordable, there are more of them, and its not difficult to get over 300 hp with just a few mods. You didnt need to do an entire engine swap to get performance.
I loved my 90 GT. It didnt handle the best or have the best brakes, but it went like hell.
07-08-2005, 08:40 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: LauncestonTASMANIA, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: gt pic?
This is one thing that bugs me about the USA, they are so limited on import cars, they actually consider integra's and civic's "performance" cars, yes you can mod them but in my country they are just a waste of money. A civic is a shopping trolley, an integra is a sportier shopping trolley....
In about a years time I should have myself a nice bayside blue, R34 GT-T parked in my driveway, that's what I call a performance car!
In about a years time I should have myself a nice bayside blue, R34 GT-T parked in my driveway
, that's what I call a performance car!
07-08-2005, 09:17 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: hamilton, ON, CANADA
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: gt pic?
to tell u the thruth i HATE every mustange ever made but for the shelby and the mach 1. those cars had the power for mustang, now these ones are coming out with 300 mabey 350 horsepower and u can get the new ones in v6 3.1 ooo no lol witch may be alot to u but no. u want new or old horsepower GO DODGE LOL. look at the new charger u can ones with 450 horepower and the olds the 70s u can get the with 440cc [>:].
07-08-2005, 10:21 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Blair County, PA
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: gt pic?
What can one say to somebody who hates a car like a 70 Mustang Boss 302?
One thing about the 87-92 Mustants is that they didnt weigh much more than 3000 lbs. The current Mustang is cool, but its also bloated with weight. I still want one though.
One thing about the 87-92 Mustants is that they didnt weigh much more than 3000 lbs. The current Mustang is cool, but its also bloated with weight. I still want one though.
07-08-2005, 03:23 PM
#16
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Norwood,
OH
Posts: 22,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: gt pic?
actually the LX notch was the one that was light.
the 91-93 GT's were porky...they weighed more than my Fox body Thunderbird that's 11" longer.
and that's 440 cubic INCHES, not cc's
440 cc's is quite a sizeable amount smaller than my bike.
also, after about 66, the Shelby stangs had no more power than what you could get in a regular stang, and ditto the Mach 1. they were simply suspension/styling treatments and fancy valve covers.
that being said, here's my RC10GT
Also, to the guy that "hates domestics", it's hilarious that when the S2000 came out, it was expected to run with Mustang Cobras and Camaro SS's and Firehawk Firebirds, SCCA class-wise, but then it started running against GT's and Z28s, and was getting waxed, and now it's having trouble keeping up with the V6 Camaros and Mustangs.
the 91-93 GT's were porky...they weighed more than my Fox body Thunderbird that's 11" longer.
and that's 440 cubic INCHES, not cc's
440 cc's is quite a sizeable amount smaller than my bike.
also, after about 66, the Shelby stangs had no more power than what you could get in a regular stang, and ditto the Mach 1. they were simply suspension/styling treatments and fancy valve covers.
that being said, here's my RC10GT
Also, to the guy that "hates domestics", it's hilarious that when the S2000 came out, it was expected to run with Mustang Cobras and Camaro SS's and Firehawk Firebirds, SCCA class-wise, but then it started running against GT's and Z28s, and was getting waxed, and now it's having trouble keeping up with the V6 Camaros and Mustangs.
