mat420 Posted October 28, 2009 Author Share Posted October 28, 2009 new thread on the 2500 dollar car...which btw is now 1500****** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphries Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I would say get an ep civic ie 2001 and up si they are fairly quick and have lots of potential (they don't attract attention either) as far as 01 to 05 ex's go there kinda slow imo. slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 i got a 2001 honda civic LX what would i do to make it as fast as the 2003 lancer ES? anyone got a 0-60 on the lancer ES? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 http://dealerrevs.com/pictures/12974320.jpg man, the 2003 lancer is an ugggllly fracking whip. frack. im so tempted to switch to it though, the 0-60 feels so much fracking faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pballer2005 Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 i think you are buying a crapty car for the wrong reason. neither car is fast by any standard. the lancer is slow, the accord is slow. if you want to step up the accord look at an h22 swap. idk what can be done with the stock f23, that would require some research, but since you don't hear much about spicing up accords then i would say there isn't much out there for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 im in an 01 civic LX not an accord. and, the 2003 lancer ES is fracking quick 0-60 stock eh think i just need to deal with it or switch to the ugly ass lancer speeding up cars is too expensive haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrIaN EG2 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 im in an 01 civic LX not an accord.and, the 2003 lancer ES is fracking quick 0-60 stock eh think i just need to deal with it or switch to the ugly ass lancer speeding up cars is too expensive haha WUT? ProsRoomy cabin, relaxed and quiet at freeway speeds, smooth ride. Cons Underpowered engine, ABS and side airbags only available on LS version Estimated Performance Specs: 0-60 mph 9.71 seconds1/4 mile 17.10 seconds at 81.74 mph ROFLMFAO!! SLOW!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pballer2005 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 the lx has 115 crank hp. i've heard of some people fitting the d16y8 intake mani and some other stuff to help but you are kinda stuck unless you swap. 2001 - 2005 was like the late 70-80's of the muscle cars for honda. they got slower and heavier in exchange for comfort and economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 whered u get that 0-60 brian? 1/4mile WITH NOS said 16 seconds so....17 without nos..... and idk, i dont think her car has any performance parts sounds stock i never bothered to look all i know is that thing is ACTUALLY FUN to drive because of how quick it gets to 60 ah gay @ the 01-05 comment i dont like anything older besides the 95 but those are too old. sofb. 1/4 mile with nos (civic lx)...so 17 without nos (lancer)....isnt bad******************* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XScarAudio Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 My S2000 0-60 is quick. A lancer is not...you have a skewed view on reality. And, my old civic hovered around the 16 second mark. With corrections, mid 15s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmgogo Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 why even bottle feed it? Just boost and call it a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 hmmm back to my original question then, anyone got a place for 0-60 on a lancer es? im not retarded, ive driven 6cylinder cars, 95 civic, 2001 civic, chrysler seabring, 2000 something nissan altima chrysler 300c a grand marquise 6cyl not that any of these cars are fast, but the point is ive driven a few cars in my lifetime and the toyoa solara (2007 i think it was) 6cyl and the 2003 mitsubishi lancer ES have been the only ones that i've driven that ive been like wow this thing accelerates nicely unless theres something else in the car that just making me believe its accelerating fast on the highway (0-60mph), then the cars are ******* quick...no "skewed view on reality." and from my understanding most performance mods make a car more noisy? this car sounds completely stock and i dont remember seeing anything different under the hood either. going to need to start comparing more 1/4 mile times. like i said, the civic came up as like 16 with nos and the lancer es was listed at 17, stock oh the 1/4 mile lancer at 16 wasnt stock. idk all i know is i drove it, that and the solara are ******* quick for a stock car. . V6 models noticeably stronger--test Sport V6 did 0-60 in just under 7.0 sec (solara) whats boost (haha), turbo? i know bottles NOS ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XScarAudio Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 http://www.edmunds.com/used/2003/mitsubish...4129/specs.html First of all, the 96 Civic EX has a similar powered motor, yet weighs 1000+ pounds less. That means, if the stock civic runs about 16 seconds with N20, the same lancer will run about 1 second in the QM slower, or would need 100HP more to go as fast. You do realize that not one of the cars you listed is a sports car, right? They might be quick for economy cars, but they are by no means sports cars. I"m guessing the 0-60 on that car is 8-9 seconds TOPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 <no attitude>not sure where the 96 civic came in here but im between a 95 civic, 01 civic and a 2003 lancer pretty much (maybe give or take a year</no attitude> """""""It's a slow car(120hp) for a speed demon, but it will beat most cars that have the same or little more hp, lancer has more torque(132ft-lb) than hp. I beat many stock Civics(with CAI), Acura EL(CAI), Prelude 2.2l (90-95), good bye in third gear, chased down a vette(the owner didn't want to continue b/c his car consumed too much gas), and 2003 Lexus IS300, doing 130mph. I'm not saying my car is fast but it can run with higher end cars. overall, it's a very good everyday car, fuel economy and comfort. Source(s): Owner Of O3 OZ."""""" btw XSCAR, no idea where ur s2000 came into this... im comparing cars that dont have much to do with an s2000 besides that its the same brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 weird man says 03 rally edition Performance Data: Acceleration (0-60 mph): 9.5 sec thats no quick at all... the 01 civic lx comes up as faster than that shlt i think.. wtf???? im not an idiot... what the hell else could i be missing unless that car has performance parts in it (doubt it with the price she paid, got it cheaper than like all the other lancers....unless the dealer didnt know) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrIaN EG2 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 anything done performance wise done to a car decreases the value of the car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 thats true but not if the stuff isnt noticeable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmgogo Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 seanyc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pballer2005 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 the 07 solara shouldn't have been bad at all they have a little grunt, and are pretty comfortable. you seruiously should not stress fractions of a second to 60 when it comes to these cars, its really not worth it. be happy with what you have. the lancer isn't any faster, is ugly, and has been known to have reliability issues. put a good sound system in the car, enjoy the music and the mpg's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 HAHA the sound system im so close with i already ave a 450dollar mtx sub, and some amp. gonna finally be able to throw speakers in too without the car worrying about dying (i mean me worrying). i stress 0-60 because its what makes the car fun to drive for me :/ considering im going 0-65 mph 99% of the time (dont rly race yet and i dont go on pkwy or turnpike much at all). ur right though lancer is pretty disgusting haha, prolly my 2nd fav though i guess (im pretty picky with cars) crap i was looking at the eclipse...the turbo one...whats ur opinion(s) on that besides that its a girls car? haha seemed to be somewhere around the same price. thanks everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 2nd favorite in THIS price range******************* sorry i was half asleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 and i meant i can throw speakers in it without worrying i wasted my money on a car that might die soon**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pballer2005 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 which eclipse? they can be very fast, but need a skilled owner since they can have serious reliability issues if not very well cared for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat420 Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 which one? i thinkkkkk it was the 1997 gsx if they hav an automatic version of it. mmm 6.4 seconds, ah crap theyre all manual? what kind of taken care of? i got no problem with oil changes/ taans fluid changes and air filter cleaning on time. hey i was thinking....the 0-60 is when u floor it....i mean, im just "pissing in the wind here" trying to find ideas but...maybe cuz im not flooring either car (something with how the gears aare setup or something?), maybe thats why the lancer feels quicker than the civic? cuz the civic if i remember right is like 8.8? seconds...and the lacner keeps coming up at 9+ but that lancer man, sry to keep saying it haha but that thing FEELS quick for some reason and now im like, speechless after finding 0-60 (by searching the OZ rally instead of the ES that i actually drove) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.