07BlackCobalt-LS

Are you a complete moron? I have never hated on faster cars. I like any and all cars. I have owned everything from a Turboed SR20DET powered Rally Nissan Sentra, to a 240sx with a Silvia right side drive conversion, a 1st gen turbo Toyota Supra, and a Honda CRX with a turbo GSR swap.

Every car I have owned previously has been hands down faster then my Cobalt but its still my favorite car with exception of maybe the Silvia. Around here in Dallas Fort worth we have extremely organized car scene that is extremely exclusive to people that have been around it for a long time. Basically everyone there except for a few Honda gus we just let start cruising with us is faster then me. Thats at least 200 people with faster cars then me that I see on average of 2 times a week.

I have never hated on anyone because they have a faster car then me. I hate on people who think that my car is inferior just because its a lower priced model. You think I didnt know that there was a SS/SC version available when I bought my car? Why would I want to pay 25k for a car I would be completely stripping down and building with a turbo setup eventually. Why not go with the cheapest base model and save money for the mods, the lightest model, and the model with the platform engine that I want to build on?

I guess some people just cant put commen sense past their tiny ***** inferiority complex.

suburbanrobot

what actually qualifies as OWNED? can OWNED just a win by an inch? or must it be a car lenght +? I'm a little older and I want to understand the terminology.

BTW.... the V6 mustang is really not a bad car...there was one at the auto-X I go to and he actually did one lap faster than my SC (83.94 to my 84.17) .... thank god it's an averaged total (his 259.73 to my 255.31) that wins !!! Consistancy!!!

anyways the V6 mustang is pretty impressive!!!

jercho73

Another ricer argument..."I bought my base model car because it's lighter and cheaper and i'm going to turboooo it anyway...yeah, that's the ticket." And then of course you have the backup ricer argument..."I know fast cars i had a bunch! That's why i bought an economical, grocery getter this time!". People don't think it's an inferior car because it's a lower priced model...it is, accept it. My car is inferior to a GT because it's the lower priced model, the base RSX is inferior to the RSX-S...that's just the way it works when you have the base model of a higher end model(s).

So if you bought the car with plans to turbo it, why do all the n/a mods that'll be worthless with that turbo? Just save up for the turbo then right? Instead of throwing money into mods you can't use with a turbo? Isn't that common sense? I mean a 15.1 in an LS is impressive so you must have 100,000 under the hood like Johnny Tran. That's a time barely any 2.4's can hit...last i checked they hadn't broken 14's yet but here you are knocking on that door with a car with less power and worse gearing.

And you started any hate bashing on v6 Mustangs saying you own them easy

jercho73

To people who think they "owned" a car most times how much they win by it doesn't matter if it's an inch or mile, winning is winning

Anyway, in my mind ownage is 4-5 cars or more.

1SloBowtie

I drive a slow, 2 door, grocery getter. I like to add little things to make it look and drive a little better. I get 28-35 mpg in my cheap, economical car. I may never have the power of a V6 stang in my 2.2, but the main thing about the V6 Mustang that will always ring true, is that it's always going to be a wanna be muscle car. Dont like my opinion, I dont care, go bitch about it on a Mustang forum, that is all...

SuperchargedSS

The proof is in the videos. So far I have yet to see and LS walk a V6 anything, better yet a stang.

Get some solid proof if youre gonna claim to be a consistent winner against V6 stangs.
I dont doubt you beat a v6 stang, as anything is possible, however from what I have seen and experienced theres no way the 2.2 is a faster car. I drove the LS out to test drive the SC before buying it. They lent me the LS to drive out to a dealership that had n SC.. I got out of my lightly modde Mazda 3 GT and into a LS and what a let down. I told the dealer if the SC handles anywhere near what the LS handles like, I wont be interested. Was I ever suprised at the difference.
Not hating on the LS but they need a lot of work to be a contender. I hate the brakes too. But for what you pay, its a pretty decent car though.

jercho73

Wow, you totally missed the whole point i was making with that. I wasn't putting down the LS but it is what it is, my car is what it is and will always have the ignorant stigma you believe attached to it by many. Anyway if you go back and read he rattled off a bunch of faster cars and the fact is noone who had those is going to be happy with a economical grocery getter like the LS. I never called it slow, you did. All I said was the truth.

SuperchargedSS

LS'ers have it rough around these parts...they can get a bit grumpy sometimes

D4u2s0t

anything pre 98 v6 mustang was 150hp or less... newer ones, no way.... older ones should not be much of a problem though...

i'm not saying this guy beat or didn't beat anyone... just the V6 mustang is a VERY broad spectrum of cars... fourth and fifth generation an ls wont' beat stock... anything before that it probably would.

07BlackCobalt-LS

Any v6 Mustang from the early 80's up to 2002 or 2003, a bone stock LS any bone stock LS 5 speed with a average driver will beat it.Only these new 4th gen or whatever retro body styled v6 Mustangs have power. Isnt it something like 206hp stock? I dont know but the older gen's of mustangs were hellaciously slow. My moms 4dr Nissan Maxima V6 was a faster car stock then a v6 Mustang from the first three generations. Goto any Mustang forum and they wont even argue exactly how much of a turd these cars were. Without a chip and or FI those cars were only around 150hp and were ******* boats.

8cd03gro

yea, but you sat there and talked about raping any v6 mustang. the 4.0 is a v6, and will take a 2.2 with equal drivers stock, lightly modded, pretty much with all bolt ons most likely. You are the fastest ls on the boards supposedly, and you are still running what an auto 4.0 can run stock, yet you and texaswhatever sit there and talk **** about a car that is for a fact faster, and in a totally different class in every way. Then you wonder and bitch about why people give 2.2 owners ****.

07BlackCobalt-LS

Actually you ignorant moron. I was talking about the v6 mustangs that I have raced. I ahvent raced a new one because I dont know anyone who has one. There is almost none around here. Maybe someday someone with a new model v6 will come around and want to race. And when it happens I will race him. Its a hobby and its fun. I have no reason to lie about beating the older model v6 mustangs because everyone knows they are slow. You just went off assuming I had raced a newer v6 or assuming I meant I could beat them. When that wasnt what I said.

Like I posted earlier its fucktards like yourself who are on here only to talk **** and have nothing relevant to add to a conversation. I dont mind criticism from people like D4 because he actually reads the threads and adds relevant statements backed by facts. People like yourself however just get on here trying to talk trash and make yourself look the fool in front of everyone on the boards.

BTW D4, is your name Kevin? I seen someone named Kevin arguing with a guy from Canada on a different forum about doing 140 in a LS. It is impossible BTW. The LS I got has the governor for the higher rated tire package. My Governor only allows me to go 118 before I get a cutoff. Seen you mention arguing with someone about governors and figured it is probably you.

Really sucks cruising along in 4th and having the car fall flat on its face at lik 4krmp before you can even shift into 5th ROFL. Good thing I dont need to go that fast very often. Only when were trying to put a city line between us and the spot where we just got busted. ROFL

the1&only

Actually you said V6 Mustangs are turds and slow or something along those lines. You made no point of saying older or newer. That is why you are getting bitched out, learn not to put your foot in your mouth.

Kahless

dont you have to pass smog in dallas? how are you running no cats?

07BlackCobalt-LS

According to Motortrend...

MotorTrend Magazine:
2006 Ford Mustang - 4.0 L, V-6, 5 speed Automatic

0-50
5.20 sec.

0-60
7.30 sec.

0-70
9.40 sec.

1/4 Mile
15.50 sec.

60-0 Braking
125.00 ft.

Issue
Aug-06

Skidpad
0.75 g.

Now Im not saying they are slow because we all know what happened with MotorTrend's test drive of the SS/SC. But these MT magazine stock specs on the 2006 Mustang V6 are almost similar to the 2007 Cobalt LS Coupe stock specs. Only slightly faster.

07BlackCobalt-LS

Hmm after rereading this I still dont see where I said the new ones were turds.

Here I clearly made the destinction between the two.

the1&only

Actually you said this at the beginning...

Clearly you put your foot in your mouth.

07BlackCobalt-LS

Yes but commen sense would dictate that the, "I have beat them many times" implies Im talking about the v6 mustangs that I have raced. But did anyone stop and ask what model or year mustangs I raced? No they just assumed, taking us right back to my statement about how people on here are quick off to insult and berate each other rather then add useful comments or questions.

Had someone asked which year model mustangs I raced none of this bullshit would have gotten out of hand now huh???

The_Blur

I drive a 2.2. It's slow. I can't beat **** and don't intend to do so until I can build up my motor. Tuning hasn't been released yet so we can't do much, like big nitrous shots or anything crazy like that.

We don't think we're invincible. I know for a fact that anything can happen on the streets. Assuming that no one messes up badly, there is no reason for the GT to lose. On the same token, with the right mods and driver, it is possible for a 2.2 Cobalt to beat a V6 Mustang. I'm not saying it's guaranteed, but it is possible. I don't understand why saying that makes people so angry.

the1&only

No.

If you wouldn't have sounded like such an ass when you said this, and said that you were talking about ONLY the old old V6s then and only then would this bullshit have never happened.

TexasTieaga

Thanx for backing up the whole LS vs. the v6 Stang. That is exactly what I was implying. No one asked what year, they jus assumed it was the retro styled one like that's all that's out there right now. I wasn't flaming the original poster because like someone said earlier, you can't tell the tone of the person talking. Just being playful, no homo. And I don't think that the 2.2 is the "shyt". I know I'm very much beatable, even by the last gen Cavy due to weight differences (still has to be proven). I don't think my car is stupid fast because I have driven a 400 hp 77 Vette, a ten second 77 Nova with a 454 big block transplant, the original 72 Nova SS, and an STI, the slowest (I even felt it). And for the person that said a 2nd gear scratch is not good has never driven a Tracker. That's the fastest way to get to 60 in that thing.
Yeah, you're an absolute idiot. As a matter of fact I am black. 100%. Don't believe me see my myspace url http://www.myspace.com/professortieaga I don't talk like I'm from the "ghetto" cuz I've chosen to better myself and actually be able to get a decent job. But when I get mad, you will see the "*****" come out in me. Now go run along with the other children, grown folk are talkin.

HackAbuse

The 2007's have a 118mph governer? dude, that sucks!

I have an 05' withthe upgraded rim/tire package, and ive gone to damn near 130 (with the wind in my favor of course)

8cd03gro

"ROFL the V6's cant even touch me."

wait who said that? OH YEA YOU DID! maybe they can't touch you because you are way too far behind?
in my mind, saying v6 mustangs can't touch you implies all stock v6 mustangs. since i can take many of the early trans ams no problem, should i say, "trans ams can't touch me"? HELL NO I SHOULDN'T, but i guess it is ok to do that when you drive a 150hp economy car right? I barely ever have problems with anyone on this site, and i usually give and receive respect from everyone including 2.2 owners, but this is just rediculous. Did you read YOUR OWN posts?! You are trying to protect yourself by saying nobody ever asked what year....nobody should have to. if you say no v6 mustang can touch you, you should know how every model of it performs without us having to tell you.

I look like the fool? Is that why everyone except for texas is backing ME up?

nothing relevent to add to the conversation? you are **** talking v6 mustangs, while any variation of the s197 v6 will be able to run your times or better in stock form. WOW. that makes PERFECT sense! I gave you a video of what happens when a 2.2 races a v6. New v6? yes. does it matter? NOPE still a v6. don't beleive the race was fair? that is me driving the stang that is way out in front. the other one is an auto. the camera car is a 2.2 from this site, and the yellow 2.2 on the side is also from this site. Saying, "the 3.8s/older v6's can't touch me" ok i guess that's cool cause it may be true, but saying, "ROFL the v6's can't touch me" is just a stupid ass comment. You are a retard. End of story.

just so you know....

car and driver ran 6.9 to 60 and 15.3 in the quarter in a totally base automatic. many people on mustang forums have gotten low 15's in stock autos and almost all stock sticks have hit low 15's and a few high 14's stock.
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...v-6-page2.html there are more than a few 4.0's running low 14's with bolt ons.
what did the same testers run in an auto 2.2?
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...-ls-page4.html
16.6???? wait a minute i thought the 2.2 had really close performance numbers to the 4.0!
v6 can't touch a 2.2...BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

jercho73

http://american-speed.com/collective...Bsessionurl%5D

Real slips, real world track times.

And if you want to mag race, which is lame as hell-

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=9028

Your backpeddling now is great, fact is you never made any distiction between what v6 you beat, put down all of them, got called on it and proven wrong and only then said it was an older model and made the distinction. BTW a well driven new edge (99-0-4) v6 5-sp should beat an LS. The autos were 4-sp, 190/ 220 but yes dogs. For reference the new v6's (s197) are 210/240 and all 5-sp, and is a bit underrated on both crank #'s. Like 10-15, just a tiny bit.

It's the writers job to include facts, models etc if he doesn't he can't blame the reader for assuming what he meant.

TexasTieaga

You my friend are an over zealous jackass. Prepare for Texas to kick your ass shortly. Talking mainly to the 8cd guy.