Just wondering people say power acoustik is a bad brand but i disagree i think their subs and amps sound good but not the best, ne wayz ive never heard lanzar subs are they better then power acoustik subs ne1?? Do they lie on their specs?? Thanks Everyone. And if lanzar has some good subs which are any good? im lookin for about 600 watts rms thanx...........
friend of mine had a pa amp to vofenhag n blew the subs and amp i hated it overall came no were close to 2,000 watts i had a 300 watt amp that played louder honestly
coulda been a lower end pa but its your money if you heard them and like them go for it and make sure you let me know how it sounds
To lil jon it sounds good i have 2 12" PA subs and a 980 watt PA amp and it is loud! Its already started takin off the rubber around the front windshield at the top so i think its a good brand. Every1 who heres it gets surprised and now every1 wants to buy it from me!
You're comparing a Pinto to a Vega. Both of them exaggerate their specs, and both of them aren't that great. If it were me I'd probably take the PA, but after serious consideration of keeping the stock system in place until I saved some more money up.
PA's a/b amps are nothing special. Ok budget stuff. Their most recent series of Class D amps are pretty powerful for the cost, and by most reports seem quite reilable as well. Their "high-end" subs are performing OK for some SPL fans, but are not much in the way of SQ.
Lanzar has two lines of "good" subs - the Optidrives, and the aluminum frame Heritage's. Their motor/magnet structures are very similar. Below that Lanzar has some OK budget subs, the MAX's, and the Heritage -- nothing great.
Thier amps for the most part (Vibe/Viberant/Heritage) are decent on a budget - over-rated, but about on pace with Profile, Power Acoustic etc. as far as performance vs. price.
Lanzar does however, have the Optidrive line of amps. The class D amps are some of the more popular amps going right now - especially the 2000D which has the ability to run at .5 ohm daily making nearly 2kw for about $350. As a whole they're just good amps that aren't over-the-top expensive.
"lol. poor pinto, it is always compared to the worst audio equipment. why not use yugos. those cars were pretty bad too."
The Vega was a bigger POS than a Pinto could have dreamed to be. Really, the Pinto wasn't nearly as bad as people made it out to be, it was fairly reliable compared to the other offerings out there, and no more dangerous than a Vega, Corolla, or any other compact out there, drop in gas tanks were normal then. It's just the way the problem was handled. It's just used as a reference because if I compared them to the 93 Toyota Camry I had, the lemmings wouldn't believe me . I'd take a Pinto anyday over that crap heap.
"but ford use to have that name "Fix Or Rapair Daily" because of the pinto."
And it ended up on Monty Python . Nobody likes to talk about the Pinto, but then again, who likes to talk about 70s compact cars anyway? Nobody cares about a Toyota Corona or 70s Honda Accords (which literally had rust on them on the dealer showroom floors) either, they were just fortunate enough to have their problems forgotten.
I went to the 25th anniversary MCA show a couple years ago, guy drove a 66 Mustang there and was in the unrestored class, been in his family since they bought it and the car had over 600,000 miles on the original 200ci inline six. 3 spd manual trans. behind it. Still ran good, too, aside from the fact it smoked. I think that would be expected, though .
im more of a chevey person myself, but i know that fords can take a beaten, my brother-in-law had a ford ranger, not sure what year, but he would beat the sh!t out of that thing, i remember one year he drove up to the dunes, which is 4hours away, at 70-80mph, then took it into the dunes and jumped repeatedly, getting around 4feet of air each time, then drive it back home 70-80mph and that thing never missed a beat.
I got a saleen clone 87 gt stright pipes bbk headers and still running the stock speed density set up. had 132k miles on it dosnt even think a bout burning oil or smoking of any kind not to mention the 3.73 and the new 4 link to throw the power at the ricers. but before i got the car it was a circut car and so im guessing it got the crap beaten out of it other then the clutch and exhaust never had a problem.
I think it would be a lot more fun and weighted correctly with a 2.3L getting about 21psi from a T3 Some routine intake/exhaust porting, FMIC, $100 fuel pump and nice exhaust gets you in the 300hp neighborhood. Similar motors in a 3400lb TC can run sub 14's and do about 150.
I'm going to use it as a truck, though. I'd rather have the 5.0 and get the low end torque and reliability out of it. Nothing against a turbo 2.3L, just not my preference for this application. Gas mileage of a 5.0L is pretty similar to a turbo 2.3L as well, you can crack 25mpg out of a 5.0L in a Ranger.