Alright guys i want ur opinions on these cars and which one would u pick and why .

ok.
rwd.
stick.
more power.
dont like the nissan.
styling is awesome.
fwd isnt bad, but i would love a rwd.
carry more people than the fwd cars.
you can usually have a lot higher limit powerwise in rwd.
they also take off better when done properly.
oh, yeah, im sick of fwd.
and... www.taner.net/movies/tuned_toyota_altezza
need i say more?
cant drive a fwd like that.
:eek2:

IS! If these are your choices, get the IS! You can get great performance by simply adding a turbo, you can fit many people, RWD, and insurance shouldn't be such a bitch (4-doors). Plus, it looks so much better.

I see you've been struggling with this for a while now. Let me ask you a few questions about preference. DO you want tunability? The chance to mess with your car's intake and exhaust systems, maybe do some head work, or add a super or turbocharger in time? If so, your best option is the ITR, with the Prelude a close second. If you don't intend to play as much, and want more usable torque in a more convenient rpm range, get the Prelude. If you just want a nice ride, and like the idea of the four doors, I'd go IS300 over Maxima. It's newer, smaller and lighter, and also makes a great package for turbocharging if you're so inclined. Although there are some strong supercharger kits available for the Maxima as well.

I really think you should go out and test drive all four of these cars to see which one you see yourself in. That will do 100 times as much good in helping you make your decision (especialy in light of the fact that the ITR's will be all gone before too long) as asking us for the 100th time what we think you should get (no offense).

can i get some more time to choose, i have no friggin idea.

Integra Type R
108.5 hp per liter. More than the Ferrari F335(107.3hp)
High reving engine redline of 8500 rpm.
0-60: 6.5 sec. (way faster than the IS)
Look's so good in yellow:D
That's just my two cents

It's a F355. But, I'm assuming that's just a typo. If not, you shall die.:D And, remember in such a comparison that the Ferrari is a V8, not a 4 banger.

YOU ARENT COMPARING TO AN IS STICK THOUGH.. YOU ARE JUST GOIN OFF THE AUTO NUMBERS...
THAT THING SHOULD BE HELLA QUICK WITHA STICK...
sorry, the capslok was on.
but anyways... i would rather have a fourdoor that can run with the teg and lude... that would be cool to me... and there is something cool about having a car that no one really has right now...
b/c i know that no one has a teg... right?

Super Street does not lie. It's in the November 2000 issue. page 252, third paragraph. Here I'll even quote the whole paragraph.


"When the Typ R's tach hits 5,700 rpm(or even less depending on throttle postion), the VTEC system witches over from DR. Jekly to Mr. Hype with an audible blare, and the engine sets about scaling it's 195hp peak at 8,000 rpm with alacrity", reported Car and Driver. " Yes, that's almost 200 hp from a 1,797cc engine, before you reach for that calculator we can tell you that it's works out to a specific output of 108.5hp per liter. The fabulous Ferrari F355 produces just 107.3 horses per liter from it five-valve V-8.

what's your point exactly?

Nothing, just wanted to let people know a litttle fact that some people didn't know. I'm not saying the Integra is better than the F355( I would take the Ferrari over the Integra but I couldn't affored the gas money and insurance). So if I offended you sorry.

Hold on... I can't afford a car at all

I think you should get a TL or CL Type-S. Faster then IS, Cheaper, More room. Only downside is it's FWD. If you want a Fast, Luxorious car, with a good aftermarket, get a Volvo, they have Front and Rear wheel drive cars, and some are already turboed which are good up to 400hp on stock internals.

Integra Type R.........HAS THE LOOKS AND POWER TO MATCH !!!!

As long as you're throwing hp/L stats around, I might as well mention the S2K, with 240 hp (some say 250, but I'll be conservative) coming out of a 1997cc engine, has a power to displacement ratio of about 120 hp/L, the highest of any naturally-aspirated, factory-produced engine on Earth.

But it wasn't one of the choices, so nevermind.

the lex. i'd sell it and get more parts for teh civic.

(i need to get around to getting my civic... yeah i need to get one.)

I'd have to go with the IS, but I was unaware that they had a manual version. :confused:

keep up w/ the news
the manual is300 is comin soon, as well as a sport wagon and a 2dr coupe version


everyone wants to talk about the hp #s of an s2k, but what about tq?
that only has 175... super low, especially when you compare it to other cars that make similar hp/l ratings...
and dont forget, the tq hits at 7500 rpm...

i like the s2k, and this isnt about it, but hp/l liter isnt everything... it is better when the hp/l is average and the hp number is astronomical... like a viper... roughly 80something hp/l but 450hp... hmm... also... what is the total hp # for that ferrari f355? it is higher than the s2k... and it is faster... so hp/l doesnt really matter all that much...

go with the is though... its badass, and no one will really expect one to be pimped out...

well guys i've got some bad/ good news i went to the acura dealership with mommy hehehe and i test drove the CL type S its pretty smooth and i love the inside ...only thing that kinda didnt really like is the rear .....its too damn rounded ...so i'll just the get the spoiler so it wont look too crappy .....but sometiem this week im going in to get my car looked at to trade in and then ....comes the Type S hehehe ......later guys and thanks for everyones thoughts and stuff ......later guys...oh yeah i'll tell u guys when i get it and ill get some pics of it posted up :D

It would be tough to choose between Type-R and the IS300, but let face it for the price and the aftermarket support the Type-R would have to be my choice.. It looks sweet and produces a good amount of power that can easily be increased... Why wouldnt you choose it.

Originally posted by flylwsi
keep up w/ the news
the manual is300 is comin soon, as well as a sport wagon and a 2dr coupe version


everyone wants to talk about the hp #s of an s2k, but what about tq?
that only has 175... super low, especially when you compare it to other cars that make similar hp/l ratings...
and dont forget, the tq hits at 7500 rpm...

i like the s2k, and this isnt about it, but hp/l liter isnt everything... it is better when the hp/l is average and the hp number is astronomical... like a viper... roughly 80something hp/l but 450hp... hmm... also... what is the total hp # for that ferrari f355? it is higher than the s2k... and it is faster... so hp/l doesnt really matter all that much...

go with the is though... its badass, and no one will really expect one to be pimped out...

Cars making similar hp/litre with S2000 that have more torque all have bigger displacement. For example a E46 M3 is 3.2L and S2000 is only 2.0L!

Originally posted by Silver S2000
As long as you're throwing hp/L stats around, I might as well mention the S2K, with 240 hp (some say 250, but I'll be conservative) coming out of a 1997cc engine, has a power to displacement ratio of about 120 hp/L, the highest of any naturally-aspirated, factory-produced engine on Earth.

But it wasn't one of the choices, so nevermind.

JDM S2000 have 250hp.

i dont understand the point about the bigger motor, more tq thing...
i have a 2.0 in my lude si, and i have 140 tq, almost an s2k, but it has 100 more hp... at an unusable, at least for me daily, rpm.
if cars like my 2.0 have similar hp and tq numbers, why cant an s2k? that is what i mean...
honda is the only manufacturer out that has big differences b/n tq and hp... most others are pretty close, not as far off as the s2k, there is a gap of around 65 there... that is my point...
and yes, a bigger motor means more tq, but if my nonvtec motor was modded to make 240 hp, it would have more than 175tq...
see what i mean?

Originally posted by flylwsi
i dont understand the point about the bigger motor, more tq thing...
i have a 2.0 in my lude si, and i have 140 tq, almost an s2k, but it has 100 more hp... at an unusable, at least for me daily, rpm.
if cars like my 2.0 have similar hp and tq numbers, why cant an s2k? that is what i mean...
honda is the only manufacturer out that has big differences b/n tq and hp... most others are pretty close, not as far off as the s2k, there is a gap of around 65 there... that is my point...
and yes, a bigger motor means more tq, but if my nonvtec motor was modded to make 240 hp, it would have more than 175tq...
see what i mean?

It depends on the engine design. S2000 was design to be high hp in a 2.0L engine. The only way to achieve that was to forgo the torque and allow the engine to be rev up to 9000rpms. Your car was mostly likely design with torque in mind. With small displacement engines unless you go force induction. Or else it is unlikely to have high hp rating and high torque rating.

I'd get the Maxima. Fast as heck, and pretty damn spacious...which is good for..._________(fill in the blank) :D

I would get a Altima over Maxima. Altima is just a better car than Maxima at the current moment.

Have they been making the altima with a 6 or is that a new thing this year?

That is definitely new. I am surprised (and scared for Honda!) by Nissan's bold move. My only concern, from Nissan's perspective, is whether or not the new Altima is going to compete with the Maxima now. Nissan argues that it won't.. but I really don't see how it can't.

This kind of competition within a given make is what prompted Honda to eliminate the Prelude from their model line-up.. we'll see how it plays out for Nissan.

f20c,
i just reread that..
what bout vw?
they have small disp motors, and have very close tq and hp numbers... the redline isnt as high,
so i guess the honda "soft cam" kills tq for mileage until vtec kicks in... so i guess i can see it, but not when you can get similar hp and tq outta the vw engines, or alot of other 4 cyl motors...

for example, the focus svt, if it arrives, has 170hp and 145tq, which is alot closer than a b16a... and even the h22 has 200hp w/170ish tq...
so why the looooooow tq on the b16 and the s2k? i dont get why, but i guess that is how they made it... oh well...

Originally posted by flylwsi
f20c,
i just reread that..
what bout vw?
they have small disp motors, and have very close tq and hp numbers... the redline isnt as high,
so i guess the honda "soft cam" kills tq for mileage until vtec kicks in... so i guess i can see it, but not when you can get similar hp and tq outta the vw engines, or alot of other 4 cyl motors...

for example, the focus svt, if it arrives, has 170hp and 145tq, which is alot closer than a b16a... and even the h22 has 200hp w/170ish tq...
so why the looooooow tq on the b16 and the s2k? i dont get why, but i guess that is how they made it... oh well...

Which VW engine are you refering to? 1.8T is turbocharged therefore it's packing more air that would normally go into an engine. When you feed engine more air/oxygen it produces more power.

VTEC is working in low rpm as it increase torque. Without 1st Stage VTEC Honda engine would not be driveable. Before 3rd Stage VTEC kicks in Honda is using VTEC for MPG and Torque purpose.

Basically engines can be tuned for different purpose. Luxury car engine are tuned for smooth delivery. Performance car engine for performance etc.

There is 3 ways to make power.

1. Force induction=Packing more air per density into engine.
2. Displacement=More cubic inch for engine to work with.
3. Raise Redline=Make engine lighter and allow it to rev higher

B16, B18 and F20C all fall into the third category.

Then you have to consider all three engine have relative small displacement. Displacement are in direct relationship with torque. The more displacement you have the more torque you obtain. With the third category you can only obtain either high ratings of hp or torque not both. You can achieve both but it will be too expensive to produce.

Focus SVT will extract 170hp and 145tq from 2.0L Zetec engine. F20C is much more tuned engine therefore with the same 2.0L displacement it extracts 240hp and 153tq. JDM spec S2000 produce 250hp and 163tq from same 2.0L! USDM S2000 is only producing 3 tq less than H22A. Prelude has the advantage of having .2 more displacement as well.

i guess my point is that even the turbo vw has equalish hp and tq.

so, if you turbo a vr6 you get (still) almost equal hp and tq numbers.
if you turbo a b series vtec motor, you get the same gap...
for example...
the scc that had the four 400hp cars.
the teg had like 496hp, and muuuuuuuuuch lower tq.
the nissan had 475hp and alllllllllllllllooooooooootttttttt more tq than the teg...
see what i am sayin?

and i know that vtec is designed to have a "street"cam at low rpm, and an asskikker at high, but what i am saying is that you can raise redline w/ a lighter motor and still have equal tq, like the previous examples...

and on the focus svt...
i guess my pt is that the tq is really close to the hp, and really close the s2k number... thats all, so at least from take off it would be close, especially b/c the focus has it alot lower.
and the s2k has a tq number close to the lude, and a hp number way higher...

and the tq is lower!
if it is so tuned, it should have at least the tq of the prelude... especially b/c it kills it in hp...
i am NOT putting the s2k down at all, i am simply noting that other manufacturers keep tq and hp alot closer, thats all, and they are even uppin the redlines too... so both are possible...
thassall

With Turbo you are packing more air into the engine. More air = power! It's hard to compare Turbocharged engine with N/A engine. Turbo cars are way easier to tuned for equal hp and torque rating.

Ferrari F360 has high hp and low torque rating. It was tuned mostly for hp purpose. That's why it's 3.5L V8 produces 400hp and 276tq. Hp is actual fast and torque is make you think it's fast.

Take a look at Euro Spec Tiburon 2.0L inline4. It was tuned mostly for torque purpose. Therefore it produces 137hp and 180b-ft torque.

What engine was the Nissan using?

Prelude has more displacement that's why it can make torque easier.

If Honda didn't tuned S2000 engine as much for HP. It can very well have 200hp and 200lbs torque.

It really depends on how each manufacture tuned their engine for.

Flylwsi don't worry you are not putting down the S2000. Feel free to comment on the car.

It was really tough making a decision bettween the Type R and the IS.
In all reality, go with the IS. I just test drove on of those puppy's tonite. Definatly a great car. However, I just couldn't turn my back on the type R. Loyalty over Logic. Sorry :) Type R for me.

The IS. Because its practical, and fast. There is lots of room for tuneability, too. And it will be faster than a Type R, because it has more torque over a broader rev-range.

F20C, flylwsi: Please try and stay on topic guys! :D

The Acura Integra Type R Phoenix Yellow 2001 is really the ony car you have on there that I've seen in action and it looks nice and preforms well.

I would get the ITR...I would get the IS last....go drive a used m3....ISwhat?:D

Drive a used E36 M3, you can get one for around $30K, maybe more, maybe less...it's the best car I've ever driven...I would also look into a S4 at around $30K...also fun cars to drive...2.7L twin turbo quattro puts a smile on your face:D

M3's only depreciate about 5000 for an early E36 M3. So it isnt a good deal.

Maxima any day...reliable and powerful with easy upgradability =)

but i guess thats how the other cars are. Just that the Maxima and Type R are closest speed competitors in that category =)

None. Sorry they are all slugs

SHUDDUP....not our fault we live in US and we dont get damn freakin cool skylines

Originally posted by jay@af
As long as you're throwing hp/L stats around, I might as well mention the S2K, with 240 hp (some say 250, but I'll be conservative) coming out of a 1997cc engine, has a power to displacement ratio of about 120 hp/L, the highest of any naturally-aspirated, factory-produced engine on Earth.

But it wasn't one of the choices, so nevermind.

WRONG!!!

The 1987 RX-7 GTU 160Hp 897cc or 1.3 litres=123hp/litre.

Mazda,still the king of HP/LT!! :smoka:

Originally posted by F20C
With Turbo you are packing more air into the engine. More air = power! It's hard to compare Turbocharged engine with N/A engine. Turbo cars are way easier to tuned for equal hp and torque rating.

Ferrari F360 has high hp and low torque rating. It was tuned mostly for hp purpose. That's why it's 3.5L V8 produces 400hp and 276tq. Hp is actual fast and torque is make you think it's fast.

Take a look at Euro Spec Tiburon 2.0L inline4. It was tuned mostly for torque purpose. Therefore it produces 137hp and 180b-ft torque.

What engine was the Nissan using?

Prelude has more displacement that's why it can make torque easier.

If Honda didn't tuned S2000 engine as much for HP. It can very well have 200hp and 200lbs torque.

It really depends on how each manufacture tuned their engine for.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Horsepower is a mathematical function of torque. Torque is what makes a car fast off the line,it's what makes the car "pull."

A good saying to rememeber,"Torque gets you there,HP keeps you there."

Originally posted by F20C


Cars making similar hp/litre with S2000 that have more torque all have bigger displacement. For example a E46 M3 is 3.2L and S2000 is only 2.0L!

The E46 makes 333hp and just as much torque,how is that similar to the S2000?

Originally posted by JD@af
That is definitely new. I am surprised (and scared for Honda!) by Nissan's bold move. My only concern, from Nissan's perspective, is whether or not the new Altima is going to compete with the Maxima now. Nissan argues that it won't.. but I really don't see how it can't.

This kind of competition within a given make is what prompted Honda to eliminate the Prelude from their model line-up.. we'll see how it plays out for Nissan.

Actually,Nissan is looking for the Altima to take over the Maxima's market segment. Just FYI.

HAHA.....no it makes TORQUE period compared to a whole 153 @ the crank.....which is equivlent to about 130 at the wheels which is pathetic number

uhh sorry.....that was in response to the comparison of the S2000 and E46 my bad

f20c meant similar hp/liter numbers.

also... is a rx7 gtu n/a or turbo? i honestly dont know, but if it is turbo, it doesnt count... also... i believe that the number is for current production cars right now on the hp/liter...

Originally posted by Knightsport


This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Horsepower is a mathematical function of torque. Torque is what makes a car fast off the line,it's what makes the car "pull."

A good saying to rememeber,"Torque gets you there,HP keeps you there."

I know HP is basically Constant Torque over Time.

Torque is the powerband below 5200 rpm and Hp is everything after that up till redline. I still stand by my words that Torque(pull) is what makes you think your fast. However HP(Speed) is what's actually fast. You can be pull all you want at 1000 (300 lb.ft Torque) rpm in a Z06 but the maximum speed that gear holds up to would still be near it's 6500 rpm redline.

Originally posted by Knightsport


The E46 makes 333hp and just as much torque,how is that similar to the S2000?

333 hp and 269 lb.ft torque. You call that just as much torque?

It's not like the E36 USDM M3 engine that makes 240 hp and 235 lb.ft torque.

Originally posted by JBL85
HAHA.....no it makes TORQUE period compared to a whole 153 @ the crank.....which is equivlent to about 130 at the wheels which is pathetic number

If I wanted a DRAG machine I wouldn't have bought s2000. Let's see Camaro Z28SS would make a great Drag car. Even the SVT Cobra looks promising with little mods you can be 12's easily. However you can go ask anyone that does Track and Auto-X. S2000 is arugeably one of the best dollar/performance car you can buy today. But then I forgot to mention to you it's a real enthusiast's car. So people like you won't have a clue what kind of car it is.

Originally posted by flylwsi
f20c meant similar hp/liter numbers.

also... is a rx7 gtu n/a or turbo? i honestly dont know, but if it is turbo, it doesnt count... also... i believe that the number is for current production cars right now on the hp/liter...

Hey man I haven't seen you online for a long time.

Originally posted by F20C


333 hp and 269 lb.ft torque. You call that just as much torque?

It's not like the E36 USDM M3 engine that makes 240 hp and 235 lb.ft torque.

It's ALOT closer than the S2000's 240hp and almost 100 less torque!

At least the M3 MAKES torque.


And no,torque doesn't make you "THINK," you are faster,it MAKES you faster period.

So you're telling me a guy in a Viper just "thinks" his car is fast from all that "pesky torque." Riiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Knightsport


It's ALOT closer than the S2000's 240hp and almost 100 less torque!

At least the M3 MAKES torque.


And no,torque doesn't make you "THINK," you are faster,it MAKES you faster period.

So you're telling me a guy in a Viper just "thinks" his car is fast from all that "pesky torque." Riiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

A lot closer but still not the same amount of torque. When was I contesting M3 not making torque? Go find where I said that please! Anyways I said M3 make more torque because it had more displacement.

The force that drive you to your seats is torque (pull) Actually going fast happens in the hp range of the powerband. Which is when you are close to the redline of the engine. Go read your speedometer for first gear 1000 rpm you might be at 10 mph and 6000 rpm you might be 65 mph. Which one is faster?

Don't forget Viper guy also have 450 hp. :devil:

Originally posted by F20C


A lot closer but still not the same amount of torque. When was I contesting M3 not making torque? Go find where I said that please! Anyways I said M3 make more torque because it had more displacement.

The force that drive you to your seats is torque (pull) Actually going fast happens in the hp range of the powerband. Which is when you are close to the redline of the engine. Go read your speedometer for first gear 1000 rpm you might be at 10 mph and 6000 rpm you might be 65 mph. Which one is faster?

Don't forget Viper guy also have 450 hp. :devil:

My main disagreement is that you used the word,"think."

Torque doesn't make you "think" anything. It's what gets you moving,which is why say a Camaro will get to the 1/4 mile marker faster than say a Honda Civic DX.

Originally posted by Knightsport


My main disagreement is that you used the word,"think."

Torque doesn't make you "think" anything. It's what gets you moving,which is why say a Camaro will get to the 1/4 mile marker faster than say a Honda Civic DX.

I'll give you a example and you can think for yourself.

1995 Toyota MR2-T

200 bhp @ 6000 rpm
200 lbs ft @ 3200 rpm
2824 lbs Curb Weight

Manufacture Suggested Time of 6.2 seconds for 0-60 mph.

2000 Honda S2000

240 bhp @ 8300 rpm
153 lbs ft @ 7500 rpm
2809 lbs Curb Weight

Manufacture Suggested Time of 6.0 seconds for 0-60 mph.

You need to explain why a Torqueless car but has more HP can beat a car with plenty of torque and at low rpms too. Weight is not much different either.

uhh....s2000

0-60 is more like 4.9 isnt it?

S2000's 0-60 average is around mid 5. Some people have achieve 5.1 but nothing else better. The 4.9 from Car and Driver's Sibling Love Issue was a misprint.

Originally posted by JBL85
SHUDDUP....not our fault we live in US and we dont get damn freakin cool skylines

Sorry mate I was out of line. Taking frustrations out via my opinion. I actually went and voted for the Integra, even though I have nothing but problems with Honda guys down here constantly trying to have goes with me and frankly it is getting old.

The Honda S2000 is a sleek car. I had the opertunity of getting a ride in one a while back and also got to see it hit the dyno at one of our local tuning houses. It was pretty stock standard with on the filter and exhaust done but actually did pretty good. It threw 118kw (158 bhp) at the wheels. That is pretty much on par with a Skyline GTS-t. The 2 litre single turbo version of the R32 model. That would lead me to believe that the acclaimed hp is slightly off as the GTS-t is rated at 220bhp and can achieve the same number with a really good exhaust system fitted.

The S2000 is factory trim does have a bit of body roll but heck that is to be expected with a plush style of suspension, well not so much plush but not a true high performance touring car suspension.

For those tossing numbers out be fair as the M3 and the S2000 are two totally different machines built on different platforms with different goals in mind. Comparing the two would be the same as comparing the M3 to the mighty GTR (doesn't matter the model R32, R33, or R34). There is not comparison

Originally posted by Razorgtst


comparing the M3 to the mighty GTR (doesn't matter the model R32, R33, or R34). There is not comparison

Lol, there is no comparison, the skyline is a bulky cruel looking beast :D

I suppose that is the perseption of those that only get to view it from behind :p

:D

I would seriously move out of the states to a country that gets that car, I hvae loved that thing for years.

The Skyline is one of those cars you either hate or love. Usually there is no in-between. Personally until you drive it is hard to dis it, but to each his own.

I have driven a 1997 Viper RT/10. A good friend had a black one back in Chicago. The car had heaps of grunt down low and pretty good threw the entire rev range. It just seem to lack true explosive power, but again it was stock standard so what do I expect.

Agreed, Razor. That's in general why I prefer smaller-displacement engines with forced induction over naturally-aspirated larger-displacement engines. I've never driven a Viper, but I have driven vehicles powered by 5-liter V8's and such. And while their toque at very low rpms is VERY impressive (particularly when compared with the nearly torqueless B16A in my Integra), I miss the powerful rush that smaller engines offer when performing beyond factory specs with the benefit of power adders.

As for the Skyline, it invariably draws comparisons with the MKIV TT Supra. And while I actully think the Supra is a better-looking car, and offers some excellent performance, now that I know more about the Skyline, I'd take a Skyline over a Supra any day of the week.. and twice on Sunday :D

True, one of the benifits of large displacement engines is having tackable and usable power and torque from nearly idle through about 2/3's the rev range. The power is usually pretty smooth when compaired to a smaller forced induction engine. Either way it is and will always be a personal preference. I have owned both and driven both.

A very good friend of mine has a 1998 Twin turbo supra here. He runs high 12's all day long and it is also his daily driver. The car is an auto on top of it. They are very heavy, even heavier than the GTR by quite a bit but still that 3 liter engine pushes that car quite nice. I like the styling of that supra, but my personal tastes are towards the GTR. If I did not get into Skylines I would have went the supra way.

Well you made teh right choice :D

All of those cars are nice but the lexus is in a completely better class. Its a different level of car. You will look like a badass in a lexus IS300. My friend has a 2000 integra type r and it is nice, and fast, but an IS is just PIST.

Yep again that boils down to personal preference. the Lexus is more of a style type of ride while it does have a fair bit of grunt to go with that style. I test drove a simular version here and was not impressed with the seats though. You sit on them no in them with no latteral support. The GTR has full latteral support and you sit in them with the sides wrapping around you all the way up including neck and head support. I will have to get some pics and post that up.

go with the integra type-r

Integra's are awesome, a revelation for FWD. not as good looking as an IS though...

The only real two choices I see are the ITR or the IS...I like the IS300 mainly b/c it's RWD and you can dump in a 2JZ-GTE if you are so inclined...which I definitely would do. The ITR has lots out there for it and is probably the best FWD car in the USA...maybe world. But...I mean...you definitely change the car if you dump in another engine like the Supra TT engine...but who says we cant? Cars dont come w/turbo's and we do it all the time...

I have driven a 1997 Viper RT/10. A good friend had a black one back in Chicago. The car had heaps of grunt down low and pretty good threw the entire rev range. It just seem to lack true explosive power, but again it was stock standard so what do I expect.

Are you bluffing, or have you gone crazy? A 97 RT/10 will go to 60 in 4 seconds!!! Acceleration like that is INSANE!!!

BTW, I dont think the is300 really belongs in this comparison...its a sport-lux sedan. Its compared with beemers and mercs.

I would definitly take the IS, the ITR is a pretty amazing car...BUT the IS is defintitly superior by my standards. I really like luxo-boats that haul ass...so my vote is for the Lexus, its got everything, speed, luxury, and the looks to pick up oh so many fine women!

teh lexus is ugly go with the Type R and reomove the basges to make it a sleepaer!!!

Originally posted by MadPrawpz
teh lexus is ugly go with the Type R and reomove the basges to make it a sleepaer!!!

Only an idiot cant tell the differnce, remember the lug pattern is also 5 on a type-r and other subtle hints will give it away.