![]() |
Can't wait to see the real deal...
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Oh yeah. With nomodsjk! I looked like Kenchans copied paragraph. :rofl2: |
I love S2k's (particularly the 2.2L ones) The handling is awesome, the cockpit "fits" like a glove, and the understated design will probably still look good another 30 years from now.
As for a new one, I hope they don't stray from the original recipe. |
Quote:
|
The S2K is not my cup of tea per se. But ugh... I don't understand how people don't understand why people would LOVE a free revving high Rpm fun small lightweight sports car. Honestly, I would've rather owned an RX8 over a S2k if I were looking for that type of car. But an S2K is a logical choice for fans of them...
|
Quote:
Should have added a turbo from day one |
Quote:
ur AT variant was a faking joke. s2k's rev high, actually pretty fast. quite fast if u know how to drive MT. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
There are so few cars I have such little respect for as an RX-8. That was a failure on so many levels. Who signed off on that? Its like the person who said "ok, lets run with that" had no idea what a vehicle is, let alone a sports car, and by God a platform with an RX history.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Edit: Yet SOMEHOW it won the huge majority of test against the 350's of the day because it "had a back seat" and was better in traffic....Rag editors are on meth. *edit Edit...Despite losing every conceivable metric in performasnce. Not by "Well that could have gone either way", no butchered it, to the point of my cat could have tested against the 8 in my 350 and murdered it. It has backseats so that negates everything. Cant park the farking thing without flodding it IF you have enough gas to attempt to start it. |
So wait... this thing is gonna be turbosupercharged?
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2