ANYTHING BUT RICE RIGHT?
#1
11-24-2006, 02:00 AM
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location:
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANYTHING BUT RICE RIGHT?
If anybody will know one thing about me, it's that I hate rice, I hear guys asking wthich is better, camaro, mustang, challenger? Well I say they all have their own unique advantages and offerings, but would everybody agree that we take American Muscle over Japanese and Chinese Rice? Please tell me so I know there's still some Detroit car enthusiasts left out there who haven't been pulled to the krapper brands for sake of gas mileage or what not
#2
11-24-2006, 10:11 PM
RE: ANYTHING BUT RICE RIGHT?
Though I'm a Mopar driver through and through, the Japanese automakers admittedly have come out with some excellent vehicles over the years. To dismiss their vehicles as "crappers" just because of their ethnic origin seems rather prejudiced.
I love my enormous, gas-guzzling Charger SRT-8 to death- there's no disputing it. Regardless, I'll openly admit that it's people like us who drive these wasteful glutton-mobiles that are LARGELY to blame for the impending depletion of fossil fuels on this planet. Sadly though, we've become so dependant on oil and gas (in EVERYTHING, not just cars and trucks) that it would be impossible to stop the wheels of death that are in motion. It is for this very reason that I feel no remorse in driving my American Muscle Car- we're all fuc*%d anyways, so we might as well enjoy it while it lasts. At the very least, we should admire the Japanese for trying to delay our extinction for just awhile longer via their energy efficient automobile designs. Afterall, they've long ago felt the blow of fuel shortages and overpopulation and have held their own for some time now, and have done so with flair. Gotta respect that!
All in all, my instinctual, testosterone-driven, caveman esque side loves American Muscle (ie. "Yarrgh, it make me feel strong! Me smash ricers! My engine bigger than yours! I be bad-***!". It fullfills my primal, emotional need to be tha "Alpha-Male". Sadly however, it is our own inability to rationalize past these biological urges that have ALREADY sealed our fate (unless we find oil/gas on the Moon or Mars perhaps). Nearly everything that we take for granted on a daily basis (ie. the shoes you're wearing, the home you're heating/cooling, the containers that store your mouldy old leftovers, etc.) stems from fossil fuels (or requires them to lubricate machinery, etc involved in their manufacture or delivery). I hope I'm long dead before we run dry, but who's to say? We've drained 90% of the world's useable reserves during the last 100 years alone.
I've got one question for you THE STUD: Do you like camping...without clothes, shoes, flashlights, tents, coolers, compasses, hatchets, pocket-knives, soap, running water (except from a stream), stereos, food that isn't caught fresh more than an hour ago, or your L88 Corvette Stingray? Cuz that's a great deal what life will be like real soon for the lucky few of us who are resourceful enough to survive.
End of Rant (Man! That felt good!)
P.S. The Challenger is going to murdalize the Mustang and Camaro! Mopar forever!
I love my enormous, gas-guzzling Charger SRT-8 to death- there's no disputing it. Regardless, I'll openly admit that it's people like us who drive these wasteful glutton-mobiles that are LARGELY to blame for the impending depletion of fossil fuels on this planet. Sadly though, we've become so dependant on oil and gas (in EVERYTHING, not just cars and trucks) that it would be impossible to stop the wheels of death that are in motion. It is for this very reason that I feel no remorse in driving my American Muscle Car- we're all fuc*%d anyways, so we might as well enjoy it while it lasts. At the very least, we should admire the Japanese for trying to delay our extinction for just awhile longer via their energy efficient automobile designs. Afterall, they've long ago felt the blow of fuel shortages and overpopulation and have held their own for some time now, and have done so with flair. Gotta respect that!
All in all, my instinctual, testosterone-driven, caveman esque side loves American Muscle (ie. "Yarrgh, it make me feel strong! Me smash ricers! My engine bigger than yours! I be bad-***!". It fullfills my primal, emotional need to be tha "Alpha-Male". Sadly however, it is our own inability to rationalize past these biological urges that have ALREADY sealed our fate (unless we find oil/gas on the Moon or Mars perhaps). Nearly everything that we take for granted on a daily basis (ie. the shoes you're wearing, the home you're heating/cooling, the containers that store your mouldy old leftovers, etc.) stems from fossil fuels (or requires them to lubricate machinery, etc involved in their manufacture or delivery). I hope I'm long dead before we run dry, but who's to say? We've drained 90% of the world's useable reserves during the last 100 years alone.
I've got one question for you THE STUD: Do you like camping...without clothes, shoes, flashlights, tents, coolers, compasses, hatchets, pocket-knives, soap, running water (except from a stream), stereos, food that isn't caught fresh more than an hour ago, or your L88 Corvette Stingray? Cuz that's a great deal what life will be like real soon for the lucky few of us who are resourceful enough to survive.
End of Rant (Man! That felt good!)
P.S. The Challenger is going to murdalize the Mustang and Camaro! Mopar forever!
#3
11-24-2006, 10:17 PM
RE: ANYTHING BUT RICE RIGHT?
Sorry for the rant everyone, but I just can't stand it when people mindlessly scoff at fuel-efficient vehicles for the sole reason that they're "gutless rice burners".
Yes, I realize that I'm somewhat of a hipocrate for driving an SRT8, but at least I'll admit it.
Yes, I realize that I'm somewhat of a hipocrate for driving an SRT8, but at least I'll admit it.
#4
11-25-2006, 01:27 AM
Grand Champion
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 6,258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ANYTHING BUT RICE RIGHT?
Too bad oil is abiotic and NOT a fossil fuel. Oil, like coal and natural gas, is replenished from sources within the earths mantle...if you don't know what I'm talking about its not a big surprise, because everyone just wants to talk about the impending doom of running out of all resources...too bad its not true. If you don't believe me just look it up, its been widely proven and documented time and again over the last century.
But back on topic...i have never owned a muscle car, the closest thing I have to one is my parents Magnum R/T, so my view is somewhat different. The Japanese car companies have come out with some very nice, and very fast vehicles, but 9 times out of 10 i would choose a Mopar or simply an American made detroit muscle car over a Honda or Toyota if i had the money and the choice...
But back on topic...i have never owned a muscle car, the closest thing I have to one is my parents Magnum R/T, so my view is somewhat different. The Japanese car companies have come out with some very nice, and very fast vehicles, but 9 times out of 10 i would choose a Mopar or simply an American made detroit muscle car over a Honda or Toyota if i had the money and the choice...
#5
11-25-2006, 04:51 AM
RE: ANYTHING BUT RICE RIGHT?
Where exactly did you go to school?
Oil- not a fossil fuel?
Are you daft?
The whole abiotic oil theory was just a dillusion conjured up by a guy named Dave McGowan.
Oil, coal, and natural gas were all created by dead plants and animals being compressed within the Earth after being dead and bured for millions of years. These fuels are NOT a renewable resource (unless you feel like waiting until the year 1 000 000 AD to harvest the petroleum products sourced from all of our dead human bodies).
Here's some of that widely proven documentation for you...
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfa...wable/oil.html
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html (a wonderful debate about abiotic oil)
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm
It's hard to call Dave McGowan a true scientist since he is only out to prove that his theories are correct. A truly objective scientist takes a theory and unbiasedly attacks it to prove it wrong. If, over time, this theory proves impossible to dispute via any and all means currently known, it becomes a fact. Mr. McGowan calls the idea of Fossil Fuels antiquated- this is certainly not the case. Just because the concept of fossil fuels is centuries old, doesn't mean it is a failed one. McGowan has gone to great lengths to try and convince the scientific community that his abiotic oil theory is sound, but has done nothing substantial to directly disprove that oil and gas are fossil fuels. When it all boils down to it, there is FAR more evidence proving the validity of fossil fuels than there is against it. Dave McGowan's work is fascinating, yes, but light years away from being anywhere close to validated.
Is this man just another timid individual who wants to bury his head in the sand about our energy problem, or is he really onto something?
That's a question everybody has to ask themselves. I, however, am not convinced enough of his theory to discount the concept of fossil fuels as scientific fact.
Oil- not a fossil fuel?
Are you daft?
The whole abiotic oil theory was just a dillusion conjured up by a guy named Dave McGowan.
Oil, coal, and natural gas were all created by dead plants and animals being compressed within the Earth after being dead and bured for millions of years. These fuels are NOT a renewable resource (unless you feel like waiting until the year 1 000 000 AD to harvest the petroleum products sourced from all of our dead human bodies).
Here's some of that widely proven documentation for you...
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfa...wable/oil.html
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html (a wonderful debate about abiotic oil)
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm
It's hard to call Dave McGowan a true scientist since he is only out to prove that his theories are correct. A truly objective scientist takes a theory and unbiasedly attacks it to prove it wrong. If, over time, this theory proves impossible to dispute via any and all means currently known, it becomes a fact. Mr. McGowan calls the idea of Fossil Fuels antiquated- this is certainly not the case. Just because the concept of fossil fuels is centuries old, doesn't mean it is a failed one. McGowan has gone to great lengths to try and convince the scientific community that his abiotic oil theory is sound, but has done nothing substantial to directly disprove that oil and gas are fossil fuels. When it all boils down to it, there is FAR more evidence proving the validity of fossil fuels than there is against it. Dave McGowan's work is fascinating, yes, but light years away from being anywhere close to validated.
Is this man just another timid individual who wants to bury his head in the sand about our energy problem, or is he really onto something?
That's a question everybody has to ask themselves. I, however, am not convinced enough of his theory to discount the concept of fossil fuels as scientific fact.
#6
11-25-2006, 03:06 PM
RE: ANYTHING BUT RICE RIGHT?
I have never owned a "rice" car but cant dismiss them just because they do not have a V8 engine. Although not a "rice" vehicle I would say my M3 BMW has plenty of muscle and it is 3.2L L6. That car smokes just about any V8 (including the srt-8 cars) with half the displacement. I like american muscle but until we can build a car like the M3 (under 5 sec car and gets good miliage) we just cant compete. I am thinking of the srt-8 challenger because I love the look, however the new M3s are getting a V8 so once again BMW will one up just about anything out there. ONLY good thing goiving STR-8 Challenger ov new M3 is dodge will be about 28K cheaper.
Another thing that bothers me about the challenger is I would hate to have the srt-8 and have some teenage girl pull up next to mine with a damm v6 version like you see in the Mustang line. I think they should keep them all high performance. I just dont want to own a car that any teenager can have. Sounds snotty but if I am going to spend 45k+ I dont want to see a cheap 26k knock off of mine running the streets, anyone get my point?
Another thing that bothers me about the challenger is I would hate to have the srt-8 and have some teenage girl pull up next to mine with a damm v6 version like you see in the Mustang line. I think they should keep them all high performance. I just dont want to own a car that any teenager can have. Sounds snotty but if I am going to spend 45k+ I dont want to see a cheap 26k knock off of mine running the streets, anyone get my point?
#7
11-25-2006, 03:29 PM
Grand Champion
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 6,258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ANYTHING BUT RICE RIGHT?
Yes you make a wonderful counterpoint just recycling the the same old information every mindless child is taught through grade school and basic physical science, bravo to you!
Lets look at a few things...in the 1970's their was a very publicized scientific study known as "Hubberts Peak" that predicted that we would exhaust ALL oil reserves by the year 2003, a claim made three times in previous decades but never occurred. It is a FACT that vast oil fields are being discovered in places and depths where the fossil fuel theory says is impossible. Lets take for instance that according to the fossil fuel theory, organic material is found to a maximum depth of 18,000 feet, then how is it possible that we have found oil as deep as 30,000 feet and maybe even deeper? How is it possible that many capped oil wells that were deemed exhausted have since returned to original operating pressure with even more estimated reserves then previously? How is it also possible that according to estimated amounts of organic material that would be present and converted to oil/nat gas/coal we have exceeded in the amount we have used? How is it possible that U.S Scientists have witnessed production of methane under the condtions that are present in the Earths mantle and not by any organic method?
Dr.Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) has noted that "oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry - oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil." So where then did it come from?
If oil, natural gas, and coal are all formed with oerganic material how is it that NASA has found natural gas on the moon Titan?
Or how about we list a few people who believe this abiotic theory of oil, natural gas, and coal formation...Dimitri Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements), Dr.Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research), and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas...just to name a few important ones.
And heres the theory spelled out...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/9/9/1
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46888
Lets look at a few things...in the 1970's their was a very publicized scientific study known as "Hubberts Peak" that predicted that we would exhaust ALL oil reserves by the year 2003, a claim made three times in previous decades but never occurred. It is a FACT that vast oil fields are being discovered in places and depths where the fossil fuel theory says is impossible. Lets take for instance that according to the fossil fuel theory, organic material is found to a maximum depth of 18,000 feet, then how is it possible that we have found oil as deep as 30,000 feet and maybe even deeper? How is it possible that many capped oil wells that were deemed exhausted have since returned to original operating pressure with even more estimated reserves then previously? How is it also possible that according to estimated amounts of organic material that would be present and converted to oil/nat gas/coal we have exceeded in the amount we have used? How is it possible that U.S Scientists have witnessed production of methane under the condtions that are present in the Earths mantle and not by any organic method?
Dr.Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) has noted that "oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry - oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil." So where then did it come from?
If oil, natural gas, and coal are all formed with oerganic material how is it that NASA has found natural gas on the moon Titan?
Or how about we list a few people who believe this abiotic theory of oil, natural gas, and coal formation...Dimitri Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements), Dr.Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research), and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas...just to name a few important ones.
And heres the theory spelled out...
The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:
Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system - huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.
At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."
In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.
In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.
Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system - huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.
At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."
In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.
In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.
Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/9/9/1
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46888
Trending Topics
#8
11-26-2006, 02:52 AM
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location:
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: ANYTHING BUT RICE RIGHT?
EVERYBODY READ THIS
Hey Dartman 69, I hate rice because people are suckered into believing that they are better in mpg. compare vehicles with similar weights in similar classes and similar engines between foreign and domestic. Their nearly the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The rice quality is krap as well, new study down by Highway crash test found that 12 of the worst 16 vehicles in the tests were toyotas and Hondas. That's your proof, that's my reason for saying rice is krap, because it is, so don't try to defend them, because the facts speak for themselves. The only domestic car in those worst 16 was a Saab car. Woopty freakin dooh. Foreign cars have no technology, they get good gas mileage by making their vehicles more plastic(light) and smaller engines, wow that's a great invention, not. we get good gas mileage by aerodynamics and MDS(YES WE INVENTED THAT). I compared cars for about an hour online with mpg and see the differences, here's a list of them for ALL YOU IDIOTS WHO REALLY THINK FOREIGN CARES=BETTER MPG, IT'S A LIE SPREAD BY FOREIGN MAKERS TO MAKE YOU BUY THEIR STUFF BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO OFFER EXCEPT MPG, AND WHAT'S WORSE IS YOU BELIEVE THEM, SO HERE'S SOME REALITY, SOME FACTS, READ THIS IF YOU CAN ADMIT YOU WERE MISLED
EX. 1
truck gas mileage
1. Nissan Titan-305 horses 14/18mpg
Dodge Ram-345 horses 14/18mpg
Chevy Silverado-315 horses 15/20mpg
yes all were 4x4, 4 door standard box, so don't try and ask that question ALL DATA EPA MPG NO LIES
SEE, FOREIGN NOT BETTER GAS MILEAGE, even with less hp, so their actually worse if they tried to up their hp, NEXT EXAMPLE
popular sedans gas mileage
2. Honda accord, 4 dr, v6 240hp, sedan 20/29mpg, curb weight 3300lb
Dodge Charger, 4 dr, v6 250hp, sedan, 19/28mpg curb weight 3700 lb
Chevy Impala, 4dr, v6 233 hp, sedan, 20/29 mpg curb weight 3500lb
AGAIN YOU GUYS ARE WRONG, LOOK THE ACCORD IS LIGHTER AND IT TIES OR GETS 1 MPG BETTER THAN A MUCH HEAVIER AND LARGER CHARGER AND TIES THE HEAVIER IMPALA,
POPULAR SPORTS CARS
3. Mitsubishi Eclipse, 2 dr, roadster, 260hp v6,18/26mpg-HOW PATHETIC
Chevy Corvette, 2 dr, roadster, 400 hp v8, 18/28 mpg-HAHAHA
Saturn(GM) Sky, 2dr, roadster, 260 hp tv6, 22/31 mpg-more the size of eclipse
YOU SEE AGAIN, YOU WERE FOOLED, THE MITS. ECLIPSE JUST ONE EXAMPLE, GETS WORSE GAS MILEAGE THAN THE 400 HP VETTE AND WAY LESS THAN THE SAME HP SKY WHICH IS MORE SIMILAR IN SIZE, HOW PATHETIC YOUR GUYS IDEAS ARE ABOUT THIS, BUT HERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE
4. Toyota Sequoia, 273hp v8(how sad), 15/17mpg-PATHETIC!!!!
Nissan Armada, 305hp v8, 15/18mpg
Chevy Tahoe-320hp v8, 15/21 mpg-SUCK ON THAT
CHEVY WINS, MAN HOW CAN YOU EVEN THINK THEIR GREAT GAS MILEAGE, BUT ONE MORE WE'LL LOOK AT BECAUSE I'M SURE YOUR STILL DENYING IT
POPULAR Small MID SIZE SUV all 4x4, 4 drs,
1. Honda Pilot, 244 hp v6, 17/22mpg- BIG WOW, NOT
Toyota 215 hp v6, 18/24mpg-same as pilot
Jeep Liberty, 210hp v6, 18/22mpg-and that's a jeep, kills rice on offroad
Ford Escape, 200hp v6, 19/23mpg-
SO I HOPE ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE RICE GETS GOOD GAS MILEAGE WOULD JUST LOOKET AT ALL THESE FACTS I LOOKED UP. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, GO TO MSN AUTOS AND THEY HAVE MPG FOR EVERY VEHICLE, NOT LIKE I NEED TO MAKE IT UP, IT'S TRUE, YOU JUST BELIEVE LIES SPREAD, ITS SAD REALLY, THOSE ARE THE FACTS WHEN YOU COMPARE LIKE VEHICLES WITH LIKE ENGINES. FUNNY THINS IS ALMOST EVERY RICER IS LIGHTER THAN DOMESTIC(BY REPLACING METAL WITH PLASTIC) AND THEY STILL ONLY MEET OUR GAS MILEAGE, OR EVEN LOSE TO IT.
SO QUIT SAYING IMPORTS ARE BETTER ON GAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I'M SO SICK OF HEARING THAT
QUIT SPREADING THE LIE, I'M FLIPPIN SICK OF THAT STUFF
STOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
LOOKET THE FACTS
Hey Dartman 69, I hate rice because people are suckered into believing that they are better in mpg. compare vehicles with similar weights in similar classes and similar engines between foreign and domestic. Their nearly the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The rice quality is krap as well, new study down by Highway crash test found that 12 of the worst 16 vehicles in the tests were toyotas and Hondas. That's your proof, that's my reason for saying rice is krap, because it is, so don't try to defend them, because the facts speak for themselves. The only domestic car in those worst 16 was a Saab car. Woopty freakin dooh. Foreign cars have no technology, they get good gas mileage by making their vehicles more plastic(light) and smaller engines, wow that's a great invention, not. we get good gas mileage by aerodynamics and MDS(YES WE INVENTED THAT). I compared cars for about an hour online with mpg and see the differences, here's a list of them for ALL YOU IDIOTS WHO REALLY THINK FOREIGN CARES=BETTER MPG, IT'S A LIE SPREAD BY FOREIGN MAKERS TO MAKE YOU BUY THEIR STUFF BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO OFFER EXCEPT MPG, AND WHAT'S WORSE IS YOU BELIEVE THEM, SO HERE'S SOME REALITY, SOME FACTS, READ THIS IF YOU CAN ADMIT YOU WERE MISLED
EX. 1
truck gas mileage
1. Nissan Titan-305 horses 14/18mpg
Dodge Ram-345 horses 14/18mpg
Chevy Silverado-315 horses 15/20mpg
yes all were 4x4, 4 door standard box, so don't try and ask that question ALL DATA EPA MPG NO LIES
SEE, FOREIGN NOT BETTER GAS MILEAGE, even with less hp, so their actually worse if they tried to up their hp, NEXT EXAMPLE
popular sedans gas mileage
2. Honda accord, 4 dr, v6 240hp, sedan 20/29mpg, curb weight 3300lb
Dodge Charger, 4 dr, v6 250hp, sedan, 19/28mpg curb weight 3700 lb
Chevy Impala, 4dr, v6 233 hp, sedan, 20/29 mpg curb weight 3500lb
AGAIN YOU GUYS ARE WRONG, LOOK THE ACCORD IS LIGHTER AND IT TIES OR GETS 1 MPG BETTER THAN A MUCH HEAVIER AND LARGER CHARGER AND TIES THE HEAVIER IMPALA,
POPULAR SPORTS CARS
3. Mitsubishi Eclipse, 2 dr, roadster, 260hp v6,18/26mpg-HOW PATHETIC
Chevy Corvette, 2 dr, roadster, 400 hp v8, 18/28 mpg-HAHAHA
Saturn(GM) Sky, 2dr, roadster, 260 hp tv6, 22/31 mpg-more the size of eclipse
YOU SEE AGAIN, YOU WERE FOOLED, THE MITS. ECLIPSE JUST ONE EXAMPLE, GETS WORSE GAS MILEAGE THAN THE 400 HP VETTE AND WAY LESS THAN THE SAME HP SKY WHICH IS MORE SIMILAR IN SIZE, HOW PATHETIC YOUR GUYS IDEAS ARE ABOUT THIS, BUT HERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE
4. Toyota Sequoia, 273hp v8(how sad), 15/17mpg-PATHETIC!!!!
Nissan Armada, 305hp v8, 15/18mpg
Chevy Tahoe-320hp v8, 15/21 mpg-SUCK ON THAT
CHEVY WINS, MAN HOW CAN YOU EVEN THINK THEIR GREAT GAS MILEAGE, BUT ONE MORE WE'LL LOOK AT BECAUSE I'M SURE YOUR STILL DENYING IT
POPULAR Small MID SIZE SUV all 4x4, 4 drs,
1. Honda Pilot, 244 hp v6, 17/22mpg- BIG WOW, NOT
Toyota 215 hp v6, 18/24mpg-same as pilot
Jeep Liberty, 210hp v6, 18/22mpg-and that's a jeep, kills rice on offroad
Ford Escape, 200hp v6, 19/23mpg-
SO I HOPE ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE RICE GETS GOOD GAS MILEAGE WOULD JUST LOOKET AT ALL THESE FACTS I LOOKED UP. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, GO TO MSN AUTOS AND THEY HAVE MPG FOR EVERY VEHICLE, NOT LIKE I NEED TO MAKE IT UP, IT'S TRUE, YOU JUST BELIEVE LIES SPREAD, ITS SAD REALLY, THOSE ARE THE FACTS WHEN YOU COMPARE LIKE VEHICLES WITH LIKE ENGINES. FUNNY THINS IS ALMOST EVERY RICER IS LIGHTER THAN DOMESTIC(BY REPLACING METAL WITH PLASTIC) AND THEY STILL ONLY MEET OUR GAS MILEAGE, OR EVEN LOSE TO IT.
SO QUIT SAYING IMPORTS ARE BETTER ON GAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I'M SO SICK OF HEARING THAT
QUIT SPREADING THE LIE, I'M FLIPPIN SICK OF THAT STUFF
STOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
LOOKET THE FACTS
#9
11-26-2006, 06:32 PM
Record Breaker
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lumberton, Texas
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#10
11-26-2006, 10:52 PM
Grand Champion
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 6,258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts