I never said they weren't fast. They do over 200 stock, that's not slow by any means. I just like Porsches better.
The only reason Lamborghini cars exist today is because Ferruccio Lamborghini was a stubborn bastard who thought he could out-do the master himself, Enzo Ferrari. Ferruccio designed Lambos to be good road going cars, not race cars, by any means.
Your STOCK 2000 Mustang isn't shit as far as racing is concerned. Let's see, .36 drag coefficient of the Mustang compared to the Porsche 911, at only .28. Weight, I don't even need to go there. A base Porsche 911 with 345 Horsepower will hit 180 miles per hour. A stock bodied 99-04 Mustang would need at least 400 to hit that type of speed, at a minimum.
The amount of cylinders has literally almost nothing in relation with how fast a car will go.. What really matters is the amount of gasoline the engine is able to burn. Whether it be a high displacement N/A engine, or a F/I setup with a monstrous turbo. THAT is what matters. The power being created, the weight of the vehicle, aerodynamics, gearing, tires, etc..
Oh, the amount of cylinders makes the car fast? You're more of a retarded fuck-job ricer than I thought.
Your Mustang is bone stock, with a damn flashing brake light. Figures, out of all people, a Mustang owner.. Now don't get me wrong, I love Mustangs for what they are, a nice looking pony car. Aerodynamics on them though? Weak.
That's why you like the Murcielago. You own a car with the aerodynamics of a board, and a fake hood scoop. .33 drag coefficient on a $350,000 car, LOL! It's shit.
Wrong. You're actually just paying for the name when you buy a Lamborghini. Lamborghinis are pure style, that's it. They have horrible aerodynamics. While the Porsche can get up to 180 miles per hour with only 345 Horsepower.
Besides, dip shit, haven't you ever heard of the Porsche 9FF GT9? 0-60 in 2.4 seconds, 0-186 in 17.6 seconds, with a top speed of 254 miles per hour, only using 987 Horsepower to do so.
Hondas are lawnmowers. Even Civic Si's are only making a whole 130 FT.-LBS. of Torque.
I don't give a shit how much one car costs over the other, I like Porsches a lot more, simple because they are the better car. The basic entry level 911 Carrera has 345 Horsepower, and a top speed of 180.
V8 911? What the fuck are you on? They have 3.6 Litre 6 cylinders.
You like what you like, and I'll like what I like. At least I'll be able to afford a 911 someday, unlike the ridiculous tractor.
MrElwood69, wow! You must be a retard too! Why would I want another tractor? That's all Lamborghinis are, tractors. They built tractors from the beginning, way before cars, and they still do today.
On the other hand, the Porsche 911 is an extremely sexy car, with an extremely low drag coefficient of .28. While the Poopielago is at a horrible .33. That's like trying to push an 8x4 into a head wind, considering my mullet mobile 1986 Camaro is right near that, at .34.
I never said they weren't fast. They do over 200 stock, that's not slow by any means. I just like Porsches better.
The only reason Lamborghini cars exist today is because Ferruccio Lamborghini was a stubborn bastard who thought he could out-do the master himself, Enzo Ferrari. Ferruccio designed Lambos to be good road going cars, not race cars, by any means.
kcole939 1 year ago
Comment removed
kcole939 1 year ago
Your STOCK 2000 Mustang isn't shit as far as racing is concerned. Let's see, .36 drag coefficient of the Mustang compared to the Porsche 911, at only .28. Weight, I don't even need to go there. A base Porsche 911 with 345 Horsepower will hit 180 miles per hour. A stock bodied 99-04 Mustang would need at least 400 to hit that type of speed, at a minimum.
kcole939 1 year ago
The amount of cylinders has literally almost nothing in relation with how fast a car will go.. What really matters is the amount of gasoline the engine is able to burn. Whether it be a high displacement N/A engine, or a F/I setup with a monstrous turbo. THAT is what matters. The power being created, the weight of the vehicle, aerodynamics, gearing, tires, etc..
kcole939 1 year ago
Oh, the amount of cylinders makes the car fast? You're more of a retarded fuck-job ricer than I thought.
Your Mustang is bone stock, with a damn flashing brake light. Figures, out of all people, a Mustang owner.. Now don't get me wrong, I love Mustangs for what they are, a nice looking pony car. Aerodynamics on them though? Weak.
That's why you like the Murcielago. You own a car with the aerodynamics of a board, and a fake hood scoop. .33 drag coefficient on a $350,000 car, LOL! It's shit.
kcole939 1 year ago
Wrong. You're actually just paying for the name when you buy a Lamborghini. Lamborghinis are pure style, that's it. They have horrible aerodynamics. While the Porsche can get up to 180 miles per hour with only 345 Horsepower.
Besides, dip shit, haven't you ever heard of the Porsche 9FF GT9? 0-60 in 2.4 seconds, 0-186 in 17.6 seconds, with a top speed of 254 miles per hour, only using 987 Horsepower to do so.
The 9FF GT9 is nothing but a modded 911.
kcole939 1 year ago
Hondas are lawnmowers. Even Civic Si's are only making a whole 130 FT.-LBS. of Torque.
I don't give a shit how much one car costs over the other, I like Porsches a lot more, simple because they are the better car. The basic entry level 911 Carrera has 345 Horsepower, and a top speed of 180.
V8 911? What the fuck are you on? They have 3.6 Litre 6 cylinders.
You like what you like, and I'll like what I like. At least I'll be able to afford a 911 someday, unlike the ridiculous tractor.
kcole939 1 year ago
MrElwood69, wow! You must be a retard too! Why would I want another tractor? That's all Lamborghinis are, tractors. They built tractors from the beginning, way before cars, and they still do today.
On the other hand, the Porsche 911 is an extremely sexy car, with an extremely low drag coefficient of .28. While the Poopielago is at a horrible .33. That's like trying to push an 8x4 into a head wind, considering my mullet mobile 1986 Camaro is right near that, at .34.
Make some sense.
kcole939 1 year ago
ron and steve damn that cars xD
ray1244 2 years ago
I'd take a 911 over that any day.
kcole939 2 years ago
How much gas did it take to do that huh? hahaha!
audioconnector
audioconnector 2 years ago 4
damn i want that green car...
amzad89 3 years ago
Id rather have the Murcielago over Carrera GT,the carrera dont look nice at all
and murcielago more attractive
koenigsegg1 3 years ago 3
lol i agree we all have tastes, id rather have both, but the murci rules!
amzad89 3 years ago
thats me saying i dont like my 911 turbo (sound wise) compared to the murcielago
djwaffelz 3 years ago
some Speedart exhaust will take care of that :)
spookylanguage7 3 years ago
Is that guy complaining he dosen't like his Carrera GT and would rather have a Murcielago???How dare he!
porschecarreragtmay6 3 years ago