Hahn Racecraft Cobalt SS 2.4 Turbo Prototype!
09-11-2006 | 12:50 AM
#401
Senior Member
Joined: 02-21-06
Posts: 3,454
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Originally Posted by hypsy
So what if he's a big guy? How does that help him in a race? Is he gonna beat me up so he can win? I mean seriously...do you REALLY think I care if he's 7ft and 300lbs or 5'1" and 93lbs? If you think I'm gonna be scared or intimidated your going to be disappointed. We aren't talking about wrestling, we're talking about racing.
Anyways...Dano (I guess that's your name). Speed is not an indicator of HP. I'll give you EVEN MORE examples to prove that wrong.
These are real runs I made. Both on the same day, same setup, same tire pressures, and almost identical atmospheric conditions and within an hour of each other.
Run 1: 13.003 sec @ 99MPH with a 2.022 60ft
Run 2: 13.005 sec @ 104MPH with a 2.021 60ft
Going by your theory of "speed indicates hp" I had more HP on the second run. No. In fact going by the atmospheric conditions I was running with more HP on the first run. The altitude was 53ft lower on that run, equating to better air, and more power. I record every run into my log book so you know. All of the split times on those runs were DEAD EVEN until the last one (1000ft to 1320ft) where Run 1 was .002 better.
So tell me...where is the HP difference. It doesn't add up. Sorry man.
Anyways...Dano (I guess that's your name). Speed is not an indicator of HP. I'll give you EVEN MORE examples to prove that wrong.
These are real runs I made. Both on the same day, same setup, same tire pressures, and almost identical atmospheric conditions and within an hour of each other.
Run 1: 13.003 sec @ 99MPH with a 2.022 60ft
Run 2: 13.005 sec @ 104MPH with a 2.021 60ft
Going by your theory of "speed indicates hp" I had more HP on the second run. No. In fact going by the atmospheric conditions I was running with more HP on the first run. The altitude was 53ft lower on that run, equating to better air, and more power. I record every run into my log book so you know. All of the split times on those runs were DEAD EVEN until the last one (1000ft to 1320ft) where Run 1 was .002 better.
So tell me...where is the HP difference. It doesn't add up. Sorry man.
Secondly, you're the nub in this argument. That's great that you can show you trapped lower speeds with better 1/4 times. That's also great that you can use the track conditions to "prove" that you made more HP on the runs with a lower trap speed. But you know what, you're an idiot. You're leaving out other factors that make the whole difference... like traction, weight differences, pcm adjustments, etc. Even if you give the benefit of the doubt here to yourself and say that the pcm didn't adjust differently from run to run... and you ran with exactly the same weight in the car (fuel levels, etc.), you still don't account for traction. So what if you trapped a higher speed on a day where you'd THEORETICALLY make less HP? What's to say that you didn't break traction (moreso) on the day with the lower trap speed? Maybe you made too much HP that day and couldn't get off the line without spinning?
I'm not saying either one of you is correct. I'm just saying that you talk a lot of **** for someone that leaves such a wide open hole in their argument.
09-11-2006 | 01:43 AM
#402
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
maybe u shifted early...maybe u hit the brakes cause u were gonna break out...like u seem to do based on ur sig.
your arguement has just as many holes in it as mine...and lay the **** off...I would totally expect u to beat me with a completely rebuilt car with lots o money stuck into it...hell id hope u would for your own ego's sake.
Did I call u out...No...you took it upon yourself to make yourself look like an ass...btw my e-**** is longer, thicker, and throbs harder with bigger veins, and i make more hp neiner neiner neiner...
Besides we have another race right up ur alley here...a 450whp srt that likes to eat up internet e thugs that think they are fast...or the 500whp audi s4...or the rb25dett swapped 240sx at hybrid...take ur choice...or their low low 10 second car that just got rebuilt and is going for mid 9s...those all have stock bottom ends cept for the 9 sec 240. They are more up ur built bottom ends' alley than the car that just got tuning support and still has no turbo kit out for it.
your arguement has just as many holes in it as mine...and lay the **** off...I would totally expect u to beat me with a completely rebuilt car with lots o money stuck into it...hell id hope u would for your own ego's sake.
Did I call u out...No...you took it upon yourself to make yourself look like an ass...btw my e-**** is longer, thicker, and throbs harder with bigger veins, and i make more hp neiner neiner neiner...
Besides we have another race right up ur alley here...a 450whp srt that likes to eat up internet e thugs that think they are fast...or the 500whp audi s4...or the rb25dett swapped 240sx at hybrid...take ur choice...or their low low 10 second car that just got rebuilt and is going for mid 9s...those all have stock bottom ends cept for the 9 sec 240. They are more up ur built bottom ends' alley than the car that just got tuning support and still has no turbo kit out for it.
09-11-2006 | 11:03 AM
#404
Member
Joined: 10-04-05
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Hold up now. I never threatened anyone. I accepted a challenge that I saw thrown out to people who he KNEW couldn't accept it. Y'all need to reset your internet attitude meters because I NEVER ONCE got hostile. Just because I gave some facts to support why speed isn't a true HP indicator doesn't mean I was trying to fight or be hostile. I didn't get hostile until someone tried to threaten me physically. Even then I didn't say anything like "I'm gonna kick your ass." That was Dano's buddy saying he was gonna kick mine because I accepted a race and posted info to go against his theory. So lay the **** off me. You guys are too up tight thinking that anyone who posts something against you is trying to start a fight.
1) If you look at my last post, which you obviously didn't do, I posted my 60ft times on those two runs to show that the traction out of the hole was nearly identical. I also said that all of the split times, except the last, were identical. To clarify that for you, since you don't seem to understand, that means the car ran the EXACT SAME down the track on both runs. If you missed that, that's your fault not mine.
2) If I knew I had hit the brakes on either of those runs, which I didn't, I wouldn't have used them in the argument genius.
3) My weight on the first run was 2816 and on the second it was 2813. I weigh my car as soon as it comes off the track after every run. It goes into the log book and helps me see trends.
4) Both runs were made with IDENTICAL TUNES. I even posted that before. All the computer was doing was dumping in fuel. Nothing more, nothing less. It's WOT...it's ignoring everything else.
That should close those "holes" you say I left in my argument.
Oh and this thread is in a hostile tone. Don't you dare threaten me with physical violence unless your willing to bring your ass out here and back it up.
Oh and why don't you quit tossing out challenges to the 2.4L guys that you know can't accept your challenge? Go out and challenge a car that can actually race you. That's like me going out and challenging a stock Cavalier. I don't do it BECAUSE IT'S STUPID AND A WASTE OF TIME. Be a man and toss out challenges to cars that are equal to you...not three steps down. BIG MAN.
Dano: I like how your trying to pass off the race now. Your like every "racer" around here. They talk big and throw out challenges but when someone accepts they start trying to find other cars to race on it.
Originally Posted by PpAzZ1101
You have a very nasty tone. Can't you argue without sounding like you think you wrote the book on drag racing?
Secondly, you're the nub in this argument. That's great that you can show you trapped lower speeds with better 1/4 times. That's also great that you can use the track conditions to "prove" that you made more HP on the runs with a lower trap speed. But you know what, you're an idiot. You're leaving out other factors that make the whole difference... like traction, weight differences, pcm adjustments, etc. Even if you give the benefit of the doubt here to yourself and say that the pcm didn't adjust differently from run to run... and you ran with exactly the same weight in the car (fuel levels, etc.), you still don't account for traction. So what if you trapped a higher speed on a day where you'd THEORETICALLY make less HP? What's to say that you didn't break traction (moreso) on the day with the lower trap speed? Maybe you made too much HP that day and couldn't get off the line without spinning?
I'm not saying either one of you is correct. I'm just saying that you talk a lot of **** for someone that leaves such a wide open hole in their argument.
Secondly, you're the nub in this argument. That's great that you can show you trapped lower speeds with better 1/4 times. That's also great that you can use the track conditions to "prove" that you made more HP on the runs with a lower trap speed. But you know what, you're an idiot. You're leaving out other factors that make the whole difference... like traction, weight differences, pcm adjustments, etc. Even if you give the benefit of the doubt here to yourself and say that the pcm didn't adjust differently from run to run... and you ran with exactly the same weight in the car (fuel levels, etc.), you still don't account for traction. So what if you trapped a higher speed on a day where you'd THEORETICALLY make less HP? What's to say that you didn't break traction (moreso) on the day with the lower trap speed? Maybe you made too much HP that day and couldn't get off the line without spinning?
I'm not saying either one of you is correct. I'm just saying that you talk a lot of **** for someone that leaves such a wide open hole in their argument.
2) If I knew I had hit the brakes on either of those runs, which I didn't, I wouldn't have used them in the argument genius.
3) My weight on the first run was 2816 and on the second it was 2813. I weigh my car as soon as it comes off the track after every run. It goes into the log book and helps me see trends.
4) Both runs were made with IDENTICAL TUNES. I even posted that before. All the computer was doing was dumping in fuel. Nothing more, nothing less. It's WOT...it's ignoring everything else.
That should close those "holes" you say I left in my argument.
Oh and this thread is in a hostile tone. Don't you dare threaten me with physical violence unless your willing to bring your ass out here and back it up.
Oh and why don't you quit tossing out challenges to the 2.4L guys that you know can't accept your challenge? Go out and challenge a car that can actually race you. That's like me going out and challenging a stock Cavalier. I don't do it BECAUSE IT'S STUPID AND A WASTE OF TIME. Be a man and toss out challenges to cars that are equal to you...not three steps down. BIG MAN.
Dano: I like how your trying to pass off the race now. Your like every "racer" around here. They talk big and throw out challenges but when someone accepts they start trying to find other cars to race on it.
09-11-2006 | 11:17 AM
#405
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
Originally Posted by hypsy
Hold up now. I never threatened anyone. I accepted a challenge that I saw thrown out to people who he KNEW couldn't accept it. Y'all need to reset your internet attitude meters because I NEVER ONCE got hostile. Just because I gave some facts to support why speed isn't a true HP indicator doesn't mean I was trying to fight or be hostile. I didn't get hostile until someone tried to threaten me physically. Even then I didn't say anything like "I'm gonna kick your ass." That was Dano's buddy saying he was gonna kick mine because I accepted a race and posted info to go against his theory. So lay the **** off me. You guys are too up tight thinking that anyone who posts something against you is trying to start a fight.
1) If you look at my last post, which you obviously didn't do, I posted my 60ft times on those two runs to show that the traction out of the hole was nearly identical. I also said that all of the split times, except the last, were identical. To clarify that for you, since you don't seem to understand, that means the car ran the EXACT SAME down the track on both runs. If you missed that, that's your fault not mine.
2) If I knew I had hit the brakes on either of those runs, which I didn't, I wouldn't have used them in the argument genius.
3) My weight on the first run was 2816 and on the second it was 2813. I weigh my car as soon as it comes off the track after every run. It goes into the log book and helps me see trends.
4) Both runs were made with IDENTICAL TUNES. I even posted that before. All the computer was doing was dumping in fuel. Nothing more, nothing less. It's WOT...it's ignoring everything else.
That should close those "holes" you say I left in my argument.
Oh and this thread is in a hostile tone. Don't you dare threaten me with physical violence unless your willing to bring your ass out here and back it up.
Oh and why don't you quit tossing out challenges to the 2.4L guys that you know can't accept your challenge? Go out and challenge a car that can actually race you. That's like me going out and challenging a stock Cavalier. I don't do it BECAUSE IT'S STUPID AND A WASTE OF TIME. Be a man and toss out challenges to cars that are equal to you...not three steps down. BIG MAN.
Dano: I like how your trying to pass off the race now. Your like every "racer" around here. They talk big and throw out challenges but when someone accepts they start trying to find other cars to race on it.
1) If you look at my last post, which you obviously didn't do, I posted my 60ft times on those two runs to show that the traction out of the hole was nearly identical. I also said that all of the split times, except the last, were identical. To clarify that for you, since you don't seem to understand, that means the car ran the EXACT SAME down the track on both runs. If you missed that, that's your fault not mine.
2) If I knew I had hit the brakes on either of those runs, which I didn't, I wouldn't have used them in the argument genius.
3) My weight on the first run was 2816 and on the second it was 2813. I weigh my car as soon as it comes off the track after every run. It goes into the log book and helps me see trends.
4) Both runs were made with IDENTICAL TUNES. I even posted that before. All the computer was doing was dumping in fuel. Nothing more, nothing less. It's WOT...it's ignoring everything else.
That should close those "holes" you say I left in my argument.
Oh and this thread is in a hostile tone. Don't you dare threaten me with physical violence unless your willing to bring your ass out here and back it up.
Oh and why don't you quit tossing out challenges to the 2.4L guys that you know can't accept your challenge? Go out and challenge a car that can actually race you. That's like me going out and challenging a stock Cavalier. I don't do it BECAUSE IT'S STUPID AND A WASTE OF TIME. Be a man and toss out challenges to cars that are equal to you...not three steps down. BIG MAN.
Dano: I like how your trying to pass off the race now. Your like every "racer" around here. They talk big and throw out challenges but when someone accepts they start trying to find other cars to race on it.
I said alls welcome to try referring to 2.4 ss turbos ...not built 2.2 ecotecs
They said theyll spank lsj's when they are done...i said bring it...put up or shut up...then u come outta nowhere and challenge me...id said ill run u for fun but i know my limits. I'm not a built bottom end 400whp car...tho i do dyno higher and weigh 3100 with me in car...means car is like 28xx. lsj gearing sucks btw. Will I run you...hell yes ill run anything...was I referring to any car...no i guess i didnt specify enough in the thread....consider this teh specification.And wait till i get my car back with a functioning trans before u judge my times.
09-11-2006 | 11:53 AM
#406
Senior Member
Joined: 02-21-06
Posts: 3,454
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Originally Posted by hypsy
Hold up now. I never threatened anyone. I accepted a challenge that I saw thrown out to people who he KNEW couldn't accept it. Y'all need to reset your internet attitude meters because I NEVER ONCE got hostile. Just because I gave some facts to support why speed isn't a true HP indicator doesn't mean I was trying to fight or be hostile. I didn't get hostile until someone tried to threaten me physically. Even then I didn't say anything like "I'm gonna kick your ass." That was Dano's buddy saying he was gonna kick mine because I accepted a race and posted info to go against his theory. So lay the **** off me. You guys are too up tight thinking that anyone who posts something against you is trying to start a fight.
1) If you look at my last post, which you obviously didn't do, I posted my 60ft times on those two runs to show that the traction out of the hole was nearly identical. I also said that all of the split times, except the last, were identical. To clarify that for you, since you don't seem to understand, that means the car ran the EXACT SAME down the track on both runs. If you missed that, that's your fault not mine.
2) If I knew I had hit the brakes on either of those runs, which I didn't, I wouldn't have used them in the argument genius.
3) My weight on the first run was 2816 and on the second it was 2813. I weigh my car as soon as it comes off the track after every run. It goes into the log book and helps me see trends.
4) Both runs were made with IDENTICAL TUNES. I even posted that before. All the computer was doing was dumping in fuel. Nothing more, nothing less. It's WOT...it's ignoring everything else.
That should close those "holes" you say I left in my argument.
Oh and this thread is in a hostile tone. Don't you dare threaten me with physical violence unless your willing to bring your ass out here and back it up.
Oh and why don't you quit tossing out challenges to the 2.4L guys that you know can't accept your challenge? Go out and challenge a car that can actually race you. That's like me going out and challenging a stock Cavalier. I don't do it BECAUSE IT'S STUPID AND A WASTE OF TIME. Be a man and toss out challenges to cars that are equal to you...not three steps down. BIG MAN.
Dano: I like how your trying to pass off the race now. Your like every "racer" around here. They talk big and throw out challenges but when someone accepts they start trying to find other cars to race on it.
1) If you look at my last post, which you obviously didn't do, I posted my 60ft times on those two runs to show that the traction out of the hole was nearly identical. I also said that all of the split times, except the last, were identical. To clarify that for you, since you don't seem to understand, that means the car ran the EXACT SAME down the track on both runs. If you missed that, that's your fault not mine.
2) If I knew I had hit the brakes on either of those runs, which I didn't, I wouldn't have used them in the argument genius.
3) My weight on the first run was 2816 and on the second it was 2813. I weigh my car as soon as it comes off the track after every run. It goes into the log book and helps me see trends.
4) Both runs were made with IDENTICAL TUNES. I even posted that before. All the computer was doing was dumping in fuel. Nothing more, nothing less. It's WOT...it's ignoring everything else.
That should close those "holes" you say I left in my argument.
Oh and this thread is in a hostile tone. Don't you dare threaten me with physical violence unless your willing to bring your ass out here and back it up.
Oh and why don't you quit tossing out challenges to the 2.4L guys that you know can't accept your challenge? Go out and challenge a car that can actually race you. That's like me going out and challenging a stock Cavalier. I don't do it BECAUSE IT'S STUPID AND A WASTE OF TIME. Be a man and toss out challenges to cars that are equal to you...not three steps down. BIG MAN.
Dano: I like how your trying to pass off the race now. Your like every "racer" around here. They talk big and throw out challenges but when someone accepts they start trying to find other cars to race on it.
And as for this one:
Originally Posted by hypsy
I also said that all of the split times, except the last, were identical. To clarify that for you, since you don't seem to understand, that means the car ran the EXACT SAME down the track on both runs. If you missed that, that's your fault not mine.
Originally Posted by hypsy
My best run: 12.53 seconds @ 104MPH
Another run: 13.24 seconds @ 115MPH
Another run: 13.24 seconds @ 115MPH
Dan tossed out a challenge to the 2.4 owners that keep saying they're going to crush LSJs when (IF) they get their turbo kit from Hahn. Tell me how that's an unfair challenge? Furthermore... I don't recall Dan backing out. I'm pretty sure he said he'd race you. I've never seen Dan back out of a race... unlike most people that do when they know the other guy is faster. DCL. I've watched Dan race Evos, STis, Camaros, Vettes, GTOs, and more. Don't talk like you know who he races and who he doesn't. He had the 2.5" pulley setup on his RL well before everyone else started jumpin' on the fast@r train. He made the LSJ fast following in Rob's footsteps before it was "safe" and the cool thing to do. That takes ***** for a kid that pays for every mod on his car as well as the car itself.... especially when it's a daily driver. That kind of testicular fortitude doesn't allow him to back down from races. So don't talk **** on him as if you know who he races. He never said he wouldn't race you.
And for the record, let me throw my 2 cents into the argument. I'd tend to agree more with Dan. I don't see 1/4 times as being more representative of HP as much as top speed. Your times in the quarter can be improved by traction, gearing, shifting, etc. For example, we knocked at least .5 off my time simply by tuning the transmission. I barely increased my trap speeds... but I knocked a nice bit of time off.
09-11-2006 | 12:30 PM
#407
Senior Member
Joined: 02-28-06
Posts: 950
Likes: 0
From: Greensburg (PA)
Originally Posted by djt81185
I said alls welcome to try referring to 2.4 ss turbos ...not built 2.2 ecotecs They said theyll spank lsj's when they are done...i said bring it...put up or shut up...then u come outta nowhere and challenge me...
They said theyll spank lsj's when they are done...i said bring it...put up or shut up...then u come outta nowhere and challenge me...I kinda was wondering who sounded the 2.4 SS distress call so he could jump in....
09-11-2006 | 12:40 PM
#408
Senior Member
Joined: 02-21-06
Posts: 3,454
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
By the way... I would quote this in my sig if I wasn't so sure I'd catch hell from the mods for it.
I died when I read that.
Originally Posted by djt81185
btw my e-**** is longer, thicker, and throbs harder with bigger veins, and i make more hp neiner neiner neiner...
09-11-2006 | 11:27 PM
#411
Member
Joined: 10-04-05
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by PpAzZ1101
First... you were addressing me when you said not to threaten you. I never threatened you at all. Second, GTP was probably kidding when talking about Dan's size. We're not fifth graders over here in Pittsburgh threatening to beat you up. Third, I did overlook the 60' times. Thank you for pointing it out. I also never said anything about you braking... that was Dan's input to the argument.
And as for this one:
Don't be an ass. DO NOT talk down to me like I'm an idiot. I know what I was talking about. I didn't miss a thing either... I think you did:
Hmmm... looks like different split times to me (-0.71)... with different trap speeds as well. Gee, I guess I did know what I was talking about afterall.
Dan tossed out a challenge to the 2.4 owners that keep saying they're going to crush LSJs when (IF) they get their turbo kit from Hahn. Tell me how that's an unfair challenge? Furthermore... I don't recall Dan backing out. I'm pretty sure he said he'd race you. I've never seen Dan back out of a race... unlike most people that do when they know the other guy is faster. DCL. I've watched Dan race Evos, STis, Camaros, Vettes, GTOs, and more. Don't talk like you know who he races and who he doesn't. He had the 2.5" pulley setup on his RL well before everyone else started jumpin' on the fast@r train. He made the LSJ fast following in Rob's footsteps before it was "safe" and the cool thing to do. That takes ***** for a kid that pays for every mod on his car as well as the car itself.... especially when it's a daily driver. That kind of testicular fortitude doesn't allow him to back down from races. So don't talk **** on him as if you know who he races. He never said he wouldn't race you.
And for the record, let me throw my 2 cents into the argument. I'd tend to agree more with Dan. I don't see 1/4 times as being more representative of HP as much as top speed. Your times in the quarter can be improved by traction, gearing, shifting, etc. For example, we knocked at least .5 off my time simply by tuning the transmission. I barely increased my trap speeds... but I knocked a nice bit of time off.
And as for this one:
Don't be an ass. DO NOT talk down to me like I'm an idiot. I know what I was talking about. I didn't miss a thing either... I think you did:
Hmmm... looks like different split times to me (-0.71)... with different trap speeds as well. Gee, I guess I did know what I was talking about afterall.
Dan tossed out a challenge to the 2.4 owners that keep saying they're going to crush LSJs when (IF) they get their turbo kit from Hahn. Tell me how that's an unfair challenge? Furthermore... I don't recall Dan backing out. I'm pretty sure he said he'd race you. I've never seen Dan back out of a race... unlike most people that do when they know the other guy is faster. DCL. I've watched Dan race Evos, STis, Camaros, Vettes, GTOs, and more. Don't talk like you know who he races and who he doesn't. He had the 2.5" pulley setup on his RL well before everyone else started jumpin' on the fast@r train. He made the LSJ fast following in Rob's footsteps before it was "safe" and the cool thing to do. That takes ***** for a kid that pays for every mod on his car as well as the car itself.... especially when it's a daily driver. That kind of testicular fortitude doesn't allow him to back down from races. So don't talk **** on him as if you know who he races. He never said he wouldn't race you.
And for the record, let me throw my 2 cents into the argument. I'd tend to agree more with Dan. I don't see 1/4 times as being more representative of HP as much as top speed. Your times in the quarter can be improved by traction, gearing, shifting, etc. For example, we knocked at least .5 off my time simply by tuning the transmission. I barely increased my trap speeds... but I knocked a nice bit of time off.
Those times were made in a completely different post, one where I wasn't showing that almost identical times could be had at multiple MPHs. I was showing that you could go much quicker while going slower.
Anyways I'm done with this thread. It's so far off topic and so full of people trying to make themselves look big and bad after I accepted a challenge that was made to people who couldn't possibly accept it and after I posted contradictary info to that posted by someone else, who apparently is well know and can have his e-thugs come after me. Oh well. I'll just take care of my own business and not call in my buddies to take over my discussion. No biggie.
You can all go back to your own 2.0L area and swing your respective e-dicks and have a nice e-circle jerk. Sure it wouldn't be the first time.
09-11-2006 | 11:41 PM
#412
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
Originally Posted by hypsy
Those times were made in a completely different post, one where I wasn't showing that almost identical times could be had at multiple MPHs. I was showing that you could go much quicker while going slower.
Anyways I'm done with this thread. It's so far off topic and so full of people trying to make themselves look big and bad after I accepted a challenge that was made to people who couldn't possibly accept it and after I posted contradictary info to that posted by someone else, who apparently is well know and can have his e-thugs come after me. Oh well. I'll just take care of my own business and not call in my buddies to take over my discussion. No biggie.
You can all go back to your own 2.0L area and swing your respective e-dicks and have a nice e-circle jerk. Sure it wouldn't be the first time.
Anyways I'm done with this thread. It's so far off topic and so full of people trying to make themselves look big and bad after I accepted a challenge that was made to people who couldn't possibly accept it and after I posted contradictary info to that posted by someone else, who apparently is well know and can have his e-thugs come after me. Oh well. I'll just take care of my own business and not call in my buddies to take over my discussion. No biggie.
You can all go back to your own 2.0L area and swing your respective e-dicks and have a nice e-circle jerk. Sure it wouldn't be the first time.
i accepted it btw even tho my challenge was to 2.4's cause they were talkin ****.
Get your head outta ur ass and go back to jbo
09-12-2006 | 08:16 AM
#415
Senior Member
Joined: 08-19-05
Posts: 3,018
Likes: 0
From: Horseheads, NY
Originally Posted by hypsy
I'm aware that I don't have a 2.4L. At least I'm contributing to the actual topic of the post. All you guys are doing is trying to stir up trouble.
How is calling me out contributing to the post anyway?
09-12-2006 | 09:45 AM
#416
Senior Member
Joined: 05-26-06
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
From: N/A
How is not staying ON ******* TOPIC contributing to the post in any way? Now I, and probably many others, am going to have to find another new thread to get all the info about the turbos from. Neither one of you can follow a simple guideline about staying on the subject.
For the sake of actual helpful info...
For the sake of actual helpful info...
09-12-2006 | 09:55 AM
#417
Senior Member
Joined: 02-21-06
Posts: 3,454
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Originally Posted by cawpin
How is not staying ON ******* TOPIC contributing to the post in any way? Now I, and probably many others, am going to have to find another new thread to get all the info about the turbos from. Neither one of you can follow a simple guideline about staying on the subject.
For the sake of actual helpful info...
For the sake of actual helpful info...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
09BlkCrusader
Parts
30
09-09-2015 04:47 PM