Viewing User Wall: Laloosh

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

"

Originally Posted by LostMarine

lol. somehow ive gone down 200+ rep point in minutes with only a few neg reps.. odd how that happens

but hey, lets not talk about rep, lets talk about how delusional people are to think 1. Atco is fast, 2. N/A M3s are "fast"

Hmm ironically ive had that happen everytime I prove someone wrong. Must be sticky glitch in the software. "

05-17-2013, 01:46 PM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" Lol the m3 runs 11s bro, not one has done it on a real track though. Did you hear the m3 with 600whp and a 130 trap can run 9s? Other cars can, so the m3 must be able to run it as well. In for the AA stage 2 m3 running high 9s at 130....FREAK of a car I tell you. "

05-17-2013, 06:59 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" The problem is that the m3 has yet to drop the 60 a tenth or two, especially a NA one. And the only one who claims they ran a 1.7 60 and 114mph trap speed will not reveal the ET because ironically it doesnt start with an 11 "

05-16-2013, 01:30 PM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" I love how you stop answering when I proove you wrong. Keep it up. "

05-16-2013, 12:58 PM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" Pop Quiz: Car A and B are identical aside from gearing. During Max acceleration Car A can make it in 4th gear to 1000' feet, anything after that it needs 5th. Car B can make it in 4th gear till 1320 feet. Which car will make it to 1000 feet quicker assuming max acceleration. "

05-16-2013, 12:56 PM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" Sticky fails to realize that his gearing and TQ multiplicationg is greater everywhere aside from the last shift, which has minimal affect on ET in a 1/4 mile race.
What was the ET sticky? Still havnt answered or provided any evidence. Whens the last time your ass even ran down the 1/4 strip? "

05-16-2013, 12:31 PM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" Gearing still got you the 114 trap speed correct? From point A to point B that car still went 0-114 mph correct? Point proven. IF it invoved an extra shift, which according to you the M3 does it in .0xx seconds you can subtract that time from your 12 second ET lol.

Like I said my man, play the lottery. Almost 30, living at home, talking about events that NEVER happened in the past 5 years. You sound like you are well on your way lmao "

05-16-2013, 12:04 PM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" 1 second fastern than a NA m3, not 1 second faster then my stock tire time. Nice try though

So in summary sticky says a m3 will run 11.9 @ 115 with a 1.7 60, yet his with a 1.7 60 and 114 trap speed did not do it. Not 1 fucken m3 in the past 5 years has yet proove him right. Keep the hope alive Sticky, one day the m3 will hit 11.9 @ 115, you will move out your house, and MAYBE if your lucky, your car will make down the strip wihout breaking. Hope is all you need.....play the lottery while you are at it. You never know. "

05-16-2013, 11:49 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

"

Originally Posted by Sticky

Exactly and anyone who has ever been to a strip knows that. The fact some of these idiots argue otherwise shows how blatantly biased they are and also their inability to swallow their pride and admit they are wrong. Not to mention a very basic understanding of the M3 with little experience as to what it can or can't do.

I had to deal with these same idiots years ago when I stated the M3 could run 11's and it's sad to see people still have their heads buried in the sand despite reality showing otherwise. This thread shows the difference between car enthusiasts though and blind fanboys though.

Once again, ONE m3 ran 11s at a bullshit track and that has yet to be matched, however that was at a higher trap speed, which once again is yet to be matched.
Until some one does it, it hasnt happened and the car has been out for over 5 years.....
You personally sure as hell didnt do it, even when you ran 1.7 60.

Did you hear that with my 122 trap speed my car is gonna hit a 10.9 the way it sits? Man a whole second faster lol. "

05-16-2013, 11:35 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" So what was the ET sticky? You keep avoiding the answer because it is the key to this discussion. "

05-16-2013, 11:15 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" So you geared to to help it get out the hole confirming what I said previously. What was the ET with that 114 trap speed and 1.7 60? "

05-16-2013, 11:09 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" Post the timeslip of your 1.7 run. Why are you hiding it? Is it because the car ran slower than it did with a 1.9 60? Would like an educational lesson of how trap speed has far less affect on et as apposed to 60 foot time? Keep digging, anyone with half a brain and experience drag racing is laughing at you right now. "

05-16-2013, 10:51 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" you posted ZERO evidence. You posted some a 12.1 @ 115 time slip with a 1.9 60 on drag radials. Then you claimed you hit a 1.7 after a line lock but ran in worse DA. Based on the .1 off the 60 is roughly .15-.20 off the ET your could would run soemhwere around 11.7-11.8 at 115. That won't happen first of all, and second of all it never has happened in a m3. You refuse to post the 1.7 60 timeslip because it will make you put your foot in your mouth and look liek a complete retard on your own board. "

05-16-2013, 10:23 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" BOOM, LostMarine uses common sense again.

Sticky just shut me to fuck up and post the 1.7 time slip. We both know whats going to happen, you are going to look foolish in one way or another. "

05-16-2013, 10:17 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" I dont care what you ran stock. I care what you ran when you hit a 1.7x 60. ONE m3 has run 11s stock at a bullshit inaccurate track and it did it at 118-119 mph. ZERO e9x m3s ran 11.9 @ 115 NA. Some one here is delusional..... "

05-16-2013, 09:56 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" So we are in agreement that you will not post the actually time you ran when you hit that 1.7 60 NA? I love when you dig yourself in a hole and try to talk yourway out of it by dodging the questions. Once again fill in the X's.

1.7X
12.XX @ 1XX.XX mph.
Posting a picture would be nicer. "

05-16-2013, 09:50 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" Physical numbers, not theories. What did your car run when it ran a 1.7 60 foot time na. Fill in the X's

1.7X
12.XX @ 1XX.XX mph.
Posting a picture would be nicer.

I have been down the strip more times then you have been in your lifetime within the past two years while you didnt even have a car that runs..... "

05-16-2013, 09:45 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" Once again dodging the qeustion. What did the car run with the 1.7 60 foot time, what was the mph. I will SCHOOL you in drag racing, and I have been down the strip many more times than you have in alot more cars than you have. So please do share your 1.7 60 foot time slip. "

05-16-2013, 09:39 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" Dodging the question? Where is the NA slip where you hit a 1.7? No 11s sticky? Ricer math not adding up, or do you have some sort of excuse you didnt think of yet? "

05-16-2013, 09:12 AM

Laloosh replied to the thread FBO 335 Vs Tuned M3.

" So where is you 11 second slip with that 1.7 NA? "

05-16-2013, 09:03 AM

What's on your mind?

Viewing User Wall: Laloosh