First of all, don't give them a reason to pull you over. Secondly, I had a cop pull me over for speeding a day after I did it.He said he had been looking for me. I laughed at him and took my ticket. I had to fight it but the judge threw it out. I still had to take time off work and had to pay court costs.

 

yeah, I know it was stupid and immature and will not do it again. I parked my t-bird where its not visable and I drive 1 of my other 6 vehicles around.

just hope there is no search for me.


hmm... do you think they could pull me over in a week or so?

I plan on selling that car pretty soon anyways! its in pretty good condition and I think that I can get $800 for it and maybe if I paint it(black) and put new window motors in it I can get $1000

it only has 75000 miles on it and(the digital cluster says it has 105000 because we had to replace the thing with a used one.

and I think that the car is TBI, the engine has a carburetor and I see that it has two injectors facing down.

 

It's tough to define the difference between AWD and full-time 4wd (I'll call it FT4WD, less typing).

Some people feel that the difference is that FT4WD means that you have a low-range, and if you do not then you have an AWD system.

Some feel that FT4WD means that you have a center differential that can be manually locked, and if you cannot 'lock' the front and rear output shafts together then you have AWD.

Some feel that FT4WD is when you have a center differential that splits torque 50/50 between the front and rear, as opposed to AWD where there is either a viscous or electronic system that splits the power front and rear depending on available traction.

Some feel that the difference is that FT4WD is "pro-active", always sending torque to each end regardless of slippage - as opposed to AWD, which is "re-active" and only sends power to the other end when one slips.

Technically, none of these definitions are right or wrong - because there really isn't any true definition of AWD vs. FT4WD. At this point, they're both pretty much just marketing terms - and all they really mean is that power can be directed to both the front and rear wheels. Most automakers call their cars "AWD" because it sounds less 'truckish' and more sophisticated than calling them full-time 4wd. That's true in this case, and all the automakers I listed consider their systems to be AWD rather than full-time 4WD.

The systems:

The Lambo (the Diablo at least) uses a system that sends power primarily to the rear wheels, but can automatically send up to 15% of that power to the front if it needs to. This would make it an AWD system, by most definitions.

The Porsche, IIRC, uses a center viscous clutch that transfers power to the front wheels if the rear wheels slip. Like the Lambo, this would be an AWD system by most definitions.

The Audi quattro system - at least the ones I'm familiar with - sends power to the both the front and rear wheels all the time, and I think uses a torsen center differential. By some definitions this would be a 4wd system, but Audi considers it to be an AWD system. The older Audis had a center differential lock, and were sort of in the middle - some considered them FT4WD, some AWD.

Nothingbutford already described the BMW system, which is good because I don't know much about it. I do know that BMW considers it to be an AWD system, and that it works automatically with no driver input.

The Audi system is closest to the 'original' AWD systems that started appearing in cars - the pioneers were pretty much Subaru and AMC/Jeep. I think Subaru started using in the early '70s (1972?) and AMC introduced theirs in 1973 (but not in cars until 1980). There were earlier AWD systems, but Subaru was the first one to make AWD cars in any quantity.

Okay, now you have more history & details than you probably ever wanted.

LK

 

Not more then I wanted, never to much info.

Thanks LK.

Chado

 

SAD!!! SAD!!! SAD!!! I'm sorry to say this, but i think its nice that someone finally broke the truth to all u sad *** civic and such drivers. First of all, loud mufflers with a spoiler and low profile tires really look bad on a stock car. If you are going to do something to make it fast put $25000 into the motor then come and see me, my little Bronco 2 could out some of this junk on the streets. and it has tires bigger than most of the driver and passengers of the car alone. When its all worth it, ill break out the big guns and then u can try to keep up with an 87 GMC S15 with a 350 sm blk pushin 400 h.p to the rear wheels and thats not including the NOS kit thats going in this summer. Ive spent around $5000 doing this entire truck, and thats what u morons have spent on tires and rims to make it go faster. IT DON'T WORK LIKE THAT!!!

 

My friend Tyler spent 10,000$ on his engine...no turbo but he was spraying...He could run 13's with a full system in the car (he is an audio installer) oh and he has a kit' wing' and big tight rims y0 ;0

Honestly its a nice car. But I just dont have any craving to have another FWD sports car so long as I am still sane.

Chado

 

I'm 17 also and I'm not as big as I was on the ricer idea. I used to be into it a fair amount and went to check out cars, all that. My take on it was that to race the imports, most of the time the races were one at 70MPH+ which to me was pretty dumb where I live. A lot of the domestics here could blow an import out of the hole and by 60MPH have won with no questions asked. Most of the ricers here also, will do crazy speeds through traffic and force people to move out of the way. Now I'm into boats and offshore racing which to me is much better. Performance boats use big block V8s with no emissions and it's pure HP and TQ. 7000lb boats at 200MPH with 1000HP piston engines is a lot more interesting to me than 2.0L engines. Even a lot of performance waverunners such as the GP1300R or GP1200 put out more HP than a lot of modified ricers. I agree that we (teens) by having ricers is our version of drag racing, but the heart and point isn't there like it was when I hear my dad talk about it when he was my age. My friend's dad laid down $900 for a nitrous system for his Prelude and the kid let the bottle freeze and blew the system. Now the car burns a quart of oil a week due to bad rings. I'll take my truck and play with boats any day instead of a ricer. When I get older (insurance) I'll get a Lingenfelter Corvette and a nice sport bike. The last thing I'll say is that at least in the muscle car era, many of the cars comming off the factory floor were very quick stock. A Civic EX with Intake/Headers/Exhaust, will still have a hard time really breaking into the 16s 1/4 mile.

Just my 2 cents,
Lance

 

Hate to say it, but soon I shall be selling my Bronco. I love it so much, but it's gotta go. I need something that I can afford. I'm going to be going into college soon and I can't afford $40 a week in gas. It's simply insane. I've decided to go with something smaller, faster and that does a bit better on gas. But I've always had a solution to ricers when I wanted something with a smaller engine that could still go fast and that you rarely see out on the streets. The Fiero GT. I love Pontiacs and the Fiero GT is no exception. The GT's have a fastback and 140HP stock coming out of their V6, and they weigh next to nothing. I keep driving around my Bronco (Until I can place and ad in the classifieds) and thinking about how I can smoke all those stupid ricer kids. Boy, it's going to be fun, heh heh heh.

 

I found the difference in gas between the acura - F-150 was in minimal in relation to the way I drive,

ie; In the acura 7000rpm shifts were not uncommon. In the truck, I dont like using the gas so I drive like "an old man" (sorry guys ) and I go through about 40-50$/week in gas as opposed to 40$ in the acura.

Not sure about the fiero though, only thing I know about them is that a friend of mine bailed out of his when his interior was filling with smoke as it was on fire.

Chado

 

I would rather drive my 7mpg hog than a ricer. I don't care if my wallet is empty. It's a matter of Ford pride and respect, not economics. Ricers stink! All the local papers are full of reports of these pieces of (expletive) with 4-bangers. Whipping in and out of traffic, hearing that annoying vroom sound they make. AAHAHAHRH!!!!

My solution to the "Ricer Menace" is to do something that has never been done before (at least that I know of)

We should get together, find a good old FORD truck, punch the (expletive) out of it, I mean 1,500hp - I mean 0-60 in 2 seconds - and go eat us some ricers.
At least, this is my Ford truck goal for the next five years.

 

you mean something like this.
www.78-79bronco.com/NewRacingBuildup1.html
check out hanks new engine, 626ci big block.

 

That was awesome. I now need a second job $$$.

 

As for the Fiero's... don't get too close to a water sprinkler becuz they may drown. I had a friend here that drove an 87 Fiero and he made the mistake of driving it in the rain on the wrong road. He didn't realize how long it had been coming down and went to take his girlfriend home and soon discovered that they don't swim very well. After it was said and done, he had only a small corner of the roof showing and the rest was under water. We dried it out, dropped the gas tank and cleaned that (which was the worst part becuz it was 3/4 full when they pulled it out and there's not much room under those things even jacked up), drained the engine and ran all kinds of cleaners through it, put a new distributor in it (some carbon part had shattered on it .. I didn't know much then...) and pulled out all the interior and set it in the front yard after hosing it off to dry for 3 days. The radio was shot, the speakers destroyed and it took 3 days for the electronics to start working again, but they finally did (including the "Pontiac" on the rear.) The headlight motors never worked again so he just got them raised and then disconnected them so they didn't go down anymore. It was a lot of work and it took us about 4 days total, working mostly at night to get it done but we did. That's really the only thing I can think about being bad with them except I personally don't like the way they look. I still laugh at the guy about that but he's driving Ford now so... lesson learned?? LOLOL

 

I think AWD is great in a performance car. My AWD eclipse is a blast to drive. Nothing like launching off the line and having all 4 wheels biting for traction. Plus in a tight turn I can step the rear out, stay on the gas and let the fronts hook up and pull me thru. My 2.0l Puts down about 380hp and 370lb/ft torque. Its even more fun in the rain and snow. An internally stock mits 4g63 2.0l can handle 500 hp.

On topic, most true import enthusiast hate ricers just as much and anybody. They give everyone with a performance japanese car a bad name.

 

Nice to know that there are people with actually fast imports who see it the way I do. I still would rather have a V8, just more stock power, and more potentiall due to shear size. Also, you get more power in normal driving ranges (not at 7000 rpm's). But yeah, there are certainly "real" racing imports out there that actually can seriously move, and I see why you'd be upset by posers (and there are alot of them).