03-16-2009, 11:44 AM
|
#25
|
13 Second Club
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ewing/Galloway, NJ
Posts: 3,904
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jims69camaro
while there might have been a time when BOOK number dictated the rustnag as a better performance vehicle, the fight is long from over. i won't debate book numbers with anyone, as it's easy to put out X number of horsepower - a much different story to get it to the ground. if there are numbers that prove stock vs. stock that the rustnag was a better performing vehicle, there are numbers to prove stock vs. stock with comparable drivers that the camaro was a better performing vehicle - no matter what track you put them on. that dang torque arm did wonders for the camaro.
if you are going to argue which vehicle was a better base for launching a performance vehicle in terms of modifications, i think the rustnag loses again. of course, that is my opinion, not stating it as fact.
except for the first and maybe second generation, i think the camaro beats the rustnag in the looks department, too. again, that's my opinion and i am not stating it as a fact.
also, need i remind you of the rustnag II? yeah, who stepped on their dingus with that one?
|
we both bring up some valid points so i will agree to disagree
__________________
EB
99 Riviera, Bone stock, 14.34 @ 96 "Walking 5.0's in luxury" RIP
95 Cherokee, Bone stock 16.2 @ 83 "Treeing your 3rd gen and beating it to the line despite trapping less....and looking better"
93 TA, Bone stock, 13.8 @ 100 "Beating ****** drivers in ****** LS1's"
https://www.facebook.com/groups/285090241699967/
R.I.P. Tia
|
|
|