1fast97gsx
15+ Year Contributor
- 4,520
- 17
- Jul 6, 2003
-
Orland Park,
Illinois
GSGoinFast said:why was the previous owner a "ricer"?
Are you trying to start an arguement or are you seriously asking?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GSGoinFast said:why was the previous owner a "ricer"?
1fast97gsx said:Are you trying to start an arguement or are you seriously asking?
GSGoinFast said:no i'd like to know what made him a rice? did he have some crappy body kit? huge park bench wing? what was it?
1fast97gsx said:As far as visual rice the dead giveaway was the spray painted black hood to give it the "carbon fiber" effect from about 2 miles away. The car is dark green and the hood is black .... to make it worse 90% of the interior was painted white!!!! What is wrong with stock gray? Does white even match with green or even black?!? Gotta love the "jdm" no hubcap look. From a mile away it looks like black rims ... from 200 feet away it looks like someone took their hubcaps off. ... the center tail section was also "shaved" and painted green to give it the eclipse look when some eclipse guys do that to their center tail section. Does it look good on an eclipse? I think so ... on a talon? Nope. Oh and lets guess what kind of headlights this car had ... that's right pep boys blue. ( with matching blue turn signals )
Sometimes calling someone a ricer also pertains to their driving style .... such as revving the engine at a light for no reason or always trying to spin the tires.
I actually fixed all that stuff before I even took the car on the road though. Swapped the steelies for stock 97 gsx wheels ... painted the hood and painted the interior gray again.
Why did ricer need to be defined again?