then you're simply incompetent because you didn't check properly.
i've already given you the numbers, retard! do you want me to repeat them??? [rhetorical]
no. and i'm not wiping your ass for you either. retard.
he said, grasping at pathetic irrelevant straws.
so why do you keep coming back? [rhetorical] you are truly brain damaged.
Hey, you're the one making the claims, you back them up.
I'm not even saying you're wrong. I *am* saying that the burden of proof is on you because I (and likely many other readers of this group) are going to take your word for jack s*it because you're hardly an authoritative source. And before you get your nosehairs all in an uproar, that's the way life works - unless you're a published expert, when you make a claim you need to back it up. And if you *are* a published expert, then the backup ought to be in your published works.
I shouldn't have to spend more than a minute or two researching anything you post, you lazy satchel.
In what way is it irrelevant? If you want to name a winner in the "breaking the 100 hp/l mark in a production automotive naturally aspirated engine" unless you exclude them and/or apply an adjustment factor (generally accepted as 2, e.g. the nominal 1.3l 13B engines should be considered to be 2.6l for purposes of this discussion,) Mazda wins.
Unless you want to start looking at two-stroke motorcycle engines... do those count, too? I'm sure I could find examples of those putting out over 200 hp/l before applying an adjustment factor.
Boredom? the need to feel better about myself? Who knows.
Clearly most of the intelligent people have left Usenet; I guess I'm a little nostalgic for the good old days when we used to have actual intelligent, enlightening discussions. A little libertarian/egalitarian part of me truly believes that a moderated forum is inferior in most ways to an unmoderated group; however, you and others like you are starting to make me seriously question that belief.
nate
In message , Nate Nagel writes
Stolen from "Monty Python".
You're a lying idiot. And this is from someone who has owned both a Prelude Sia and CRX Si.
Nope. He's right.
If true, there was "handicapping" going-on to "level the field".
There's not a purpose-built race car on the planet that is FWD. There are reasons for that.
This "Jim Beam" is a real stupid troll.
Well it is nearly fifty years, but IIRC Mini's won the Monte Carlo Rally many times (and would have come 1, 2, 3 in 1966 if they hadn't fudged the rules to disqualify the Brits and let a French car win...)
people that talk smack about fwd vehicles don't know how to drive them.
regardez:
and from 1991 onwards:
Stupid.
There's not a purpose-built race car on the planet that is FWD. There are reasons for that.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required