

© Copyright 1995 thru 2008 - The Mustang Works™. All Rights Reserved.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
|
![]() |
#1 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,325
|
![]() I've heard this said many times. It is blashemy, and if they ever figure out how to try and make them handle, they'll be corvettes or mustangs. Ugh.
Here's the backstory: People see the '57 Chevy (more the 55-57) as "the car" for hot rodders of a generation. They were relativly cheap, plentiful and parts were easy to come by. Think about how many are still around, after all the abuse they got for almost 50 years. Civics are cheap, plentiful, and now there are plenty of aftermarket parts available. To the untrained eye, they seem the same. Neither one was really a 'performance' car in base form. Bel Air, ok, but how much better was it really than an Si Civic? The major difference is power. You could drop a 350, 396 or even 454 into a Shoebox no problem. Civics you simply cannot make go that fast. oooh, I've got a whole 2.2 in my car now. Heck, I crap bigger than that! If you don't look at performance it may be possible to drink enough dran-o to compare the two. Still makes my stomach turn.
__________________
1997 Mustang GT "The Freak" - 13.80 @ 101.70, 2.07 60' 1995 Honda VFR750 - not much @ really fast (actual data pending.) 1964.5 Mustang 289 Rice Haters Club Member #13 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|