I was up in Milwaukee Wisonson for the past week for Berettafest, which I'll get back to in another post, and one night we went drag racing...

Well some Beretta people run 17 seconds flat with a stock 3.1, thats fine if you ask me. A few Beretta'* were running mid 13'*. But some cars/drivers need to stop trying to be fast. Examples:

A mid 90'* Dodge Stratus had a decent looking body kit, the usual wing, altezias, exhaust, but still stock wheels with hubbies. I was expecting a low 15 from this car, it ran HIGH 17'*! My friend in his bone stock 3.1 V6 Beretta ran a 16.87 with a nasty .807 reaction time. Later in the night I witnessed a somewhat conservative Saturn run some high 16'* with a nice body kit and nothing too tacky. I found out within an hour that the Saturn was turboed with nitrous as well....running high 16'*.

Beretta'* with over 100,000 miles can run high 16'* with no modifications. Time to go shooting retards my friends...

So what did YOU run?

Reaction time doesn't effect ET. You probably already know that but it sounded as if you were thinking with a better reaction time the ET would be better, and that is not the case. Just thought I would let you know, just in case.

I am also wondering the same thing as willwren. What did you run???

I understand exactly what you are talking about. This kid from my school has a Saturn, and it runs like 17'* with just mild mods, but still. When I told him that our TGP runs 15'* STOCK, and that our GTP runs 12'* he said I was a liar. Oh, well. It'* amazing what you can do when you actually have an engine in your car, and not just some little 2 liter. (Although some of those 2 liters can fly, i.e. Lancer Evo & WRX)

Don't you dare go against the power of RED will!

I didn't run that night because my car was in another state.

I got a lot of respect for the 2 liters (most domestic 2'* suck but the Japanese ) Besides the most powerful engine per liter is a 2 liter, the Honda engine in the S2000 which produces 250 horses off of 2 liters

I think you guys are taking this out of context. I'm pointing out that if you run high 16'* with nitrous, turbo, and roughly a 2500lb car, then you need to give up and try on another car.

Has nothing to do with 4 bangers, displacment, or the car. Just a lost desire to win.

I was responding to the comments above mine but I totally agree if you buy a car for say 10G and drop 20G into to make it as fast as a stock car costing half that then yeah you got the wrong car

Yeah, thats what I was thinking. And try to get performance parts for it, they aren't really available except turbos and stuff, because the Intake is as big as it can be, the heads flow as well as they can, the cam has as much lift as it basically can, the exhaust flows exactly as it should for that engine, and it has as high of compression as it can run on pump gas. It is basically the perfect 2 liter. And it only makes 153lb.ft of torque. If GM were to do that with the Northstar V8 (4.6 liter) it would make 120 horses a liter also, but nobody needs a 552 horse Cadillac. And if GM did that with the Northstar it would make more than 76.5lb. ft. per liter, which would be 351.9 in the northstar. The northstar would be making more like 500lb.ft with that setup. But GM has no need to do that.

But I will tell you, I would rather be driving a 420 horse, 450lb.ft, Supercharged & Intercooled 3.8 Liter V6 in a 3500lb. FWD Automatic, than a N/A 2.0 Liter 4 cylinder that makes 240hp, and 153lb.ft in a 2896lb. RWD 6 speed Convertible. I just am not the type for a high-revving, low torque 4-cylinder car. I would much rather be driving a GTP or SSEi.

I completely agree, that is just stupid. But that is the definition of ricer isn't it?

yeah the honda s2000, with it'* paltry torque.. All that HP is also after the hot cam engages and most of it is close to redline which i believe is 8900 or so....