I didn't say anything about ricers/Civics/inline4's. But horsepower is DEFINITELY not everything. Even if a stock i4 can't beat a stock v8, which I never said anything about. Even if you have this strange bias against Civics/inline4's or whatever it is you hate about those cars, that isn't the point I'm trying to make. I really don't have any definite bias for any cars, unless it shows poorly in it's class. For a 1.6L I4, I don't think Civics are terrible, IN IT'S CLASS.
Stangs are at another level, you can't compare it. But in IT'S CLASS, I find that that Mustangs aren't all that people think that they are. You can't possibly say that HP is a bigger factor in speed than weight, because that is way too broad. Just like the Lotus example. A Lotus would smoke a Mustang, but of course, the Lotus is in ANOTHER class of cars, even with it's INLINE4 1.8LITER TOYOTA ENGINE.
southpark, you're just focusing way too much on your biases againsts Civics/Ricers/Inline4's. You think engine size is everything. It is NOT everything. There is an efficiency to it. Even with a huge engine, you aren't going to get insane speeds. I had an XJ6 for a while with a 4.2L I6 and it was slow, factoring in the weight, and pretty much everything else that made it only a cruiser.
Civics were made for economy. No doubt about it. Otherwise they wouldn't be pushing a 33-37MPG. For a 1.6L I4 and for it's price, I think it's a fine car for the moderate driver. The people who race Civics, race other Civics, just like Stang drivers don't go after Ferraris. Believe it or not southpark, but some people like cars for the car. If it were all about speed, I don't see why you'd stop at a Mustang.
