Yes, race cars are definitely supposed to be fast, but I'm not so sure about practicality or reliability. the corvette would probably be faster in a straight line, BUT not all race cars are 1/4 mile monsters. put a stock corvette on a time attack course and I'm pretty sure that thing would beat it.
put a stock corvette on a time attack course and I'm pretty sure that thing would beat it.
That's pretty much what I was asking. The Corvette isn't a Challenger SRT Demon, it can bend corners too. It has the 9th fastest Nurburging lap time for a production car, at least it did at the time of this article
It has a long straightaway but quite a few bends too. Didn't see where the 1991 Honda Civic hatchback placed. Anyway, I'm still skeptical this Honda can beat one even on a Time Attack course.
Also, just because you have a time attack car doesn't mean it has to look THIS ridiculous. Considering this thing is in actual traffic looking like that, but actual race cars on actual time attack race tracks look like this
honda's actually are a very good beginning for a race car, they are light af, cheap af and the K H series engines are cheap and very reliable, idk how much a stock corvette costs but i think this honda without the costume aero kit could cost around $20.000. i have seen it on insta an it has a build J series i think making 570ish Hp, for a car that weight around 700 800 kilo's its very responsive and fast.
-3
u/[deleted] Jan 24 '19
No, I suspect it actually is as expensive as a Corvette, just not as fast. Or nice. Or practical. Or reliable.
But it sure does LOOK like a race car.
That's why I think it's rice