>

I think that distinctions like this are important because we live in a complex world, and simplifying them means that it's not always easy to understand how some parts of the world works.
What were the extradition terms that the Taliban offered?
Lotus beat them to it by about 20 years >

Another commenter alluded to this but I just want to say it explicitly: Corolla and Camry engines can be pretty damn powerful depending on how they're tuned, aspirated, etc. In a "supercar" body (one that's handling-focused, lightweight, only two seats) they can haul ass. Lotus has been building their cars with Toyota engines for almost two decades.
This will probably be a disaster, but it's not necessarily because of the engine running it. >

Right! The lotus Evora runs on a bored and tuned 2gr-fe, which is a Camry engine!
Edit: more specifically, my Camry runs a lotus engine >

The 1MZ-FE in some older Camry's had a TRD designed supercharger option.
ETA: if only I could bolt it onto my Lexus... >

You could turbo any engine.  I used to frequent a first gen Lexus ES forum (these have the 1mzfe) and someone asked if you could add a turbo. And everyone was like “sure you can but it would be too expensive”.  And then some guy pops in and shows how he diy-ed it and didn’t cost an arm and a leg. >

Doing it right will almost always cost an arm and a leg. You'll get limited benefits unless you change the compression ratio, get bigger injectors, intercoolers, need a new exhaust manifold and downpipe... At minimum a few grand to really see the full benefits. Of course, you could slap a turbo on and change nothing but downpipe and modify the intake if you want to run lean and blow up your engine and get another 40-50hp until that point... But that's usually not worth the trouble. >

Generally speaking, you can increase you horse power by about 50% maximum without needing to do major engine refitting( you are probably going to need a get a better air intercooler/ radiator and most likely better breaks) >

If the car didn't have a turbo it won't have an intercooler to start lol so a "better intercooler" is kinda funny to say... Also I don't think brakes have anything to do with it. >

The car wouldn’t be designed to have enough stopping power/ breaks will over heat for a car with 50% more horsepower than it was designed. You need to get better breaks to compensate for more horsepower >

That's just not factual for all cases... A naturally aspirated 300zx in the 1990s (222hp) and a 300zx twin turbo of the same generation (300hp) have the same 4 piston brake calipers, same pads and same rotors. Brakes aren't typically there just to brake from top speed, and how quickly you got up to that speed doesn't change the momentum of the car. I can tell you haven't actually done much work on cars, you talk about things in the theoretical sense like you read it somewhere once. >

In most case… yes…you need better breaks.
You know how break work right? It is use friction to slow the wheel down. With a car that accelerates at a faster rate, you should be able to get to high speed more quick and need to subsequently break at high speed to slow and for a longer duration/greater frequency. 
Basically, you are going use you breaks more and generally a more durable/powerful break. >

It is finally revealed that this was their goal all along: an Islamic state that builds fast cars to race around the 3,360km Afghan ring road. >

They have roads? >

Where else do you think they planted all those roadside bombs? >

Obviously they have roads - badly worded my comment.  I guess I meant roads you’d want to drive a low to the ground elite sports car on >

No worries. I interpreted it as a tongue-in-cheek reference, and responded with a similar one. >

I wanted to read this article but holy mother of god that website is awful. >

firefox reader view >

The title’s attempt to make Toyota engines out to be l trash offends me more than the Taliban. >

The most important question in Afghanistan: does it provide mounting points for one or more DShK 50 calibre machine guns? >

You need the one with the Hilux engine for that. >

I starting to think that's why they went with a Toyota motor.
If it's good enough to fight in then it must be good enough for "supercar". >

Ah, they’re angry porsche already took the 911 moniker >

You're mistaking the Taliban for Al Qaeda. A classic American mistake. >

No wonder they lost the war after 20 years, can’t even define the enemy. >

But pump money into them >

So they put a bodykit on a Corolla? Nice >

It’s basically a kit car and was designed and built by some Afghanistan engineer students and the Taliban are now claiming it’s theirs. >

what kit? what's the body? >

It’s all stand-alone and custom built (besides the engine). A kit car is just any car that’s not built by an official manufacturer. >

Afghanistan has unlocked the secret to reliable supercars, or at least supercar engines, even if it comes at the expense of being super. >

It's got all kinds of extra equipment. Cup holder, a Quran glued to the dashboard and a built in car bomb. >

Built in carbomb?! I didn’t know they had the IRA package there. >

It actually doesn't look as terrible as I expected. Sure it's a bit generic and probably very far from production (no interior shots, no stats) but at least it looks a lot better than Dubai's horrible supercar The Devel Sixteen.
However, it seems like the development started 5 years ago, which was pre-Taliban takeover so this car will likely be remembered for what could have been, rather than what Afghanistan will be. >

Which Corolla? Haha. They have a few notable fast engines…. >

they actually have the ability to make lots more power than you think. they’re just crazily de-tuned for better fuel economy. >

You don’t have to tell me twice! >

I however would like to know more >

Aren't they still terrorists? Or did I miss something? >

Technically they're in charge of the government now.
I don't know if the terrorist designation was ever super accurate, they had nothing to do with the 911 attacks, they were given that label after Bin Laden took asylum there and George Bush refused their pretty reasonable extradition terms on purpose. They were accused of harboring him, when they were pretty much ready to give him up. People tend for get what a shithead Bush was in basically making a whole bunch of unnecessary enemies on purpose.
I don't even know if you could really call them insurgents even historically except in relation to the reigning government the US military helped establish because they predate it and had a large amount of political control back then too. They're more of something akin to a militant islamic state political party slash militia. They've done a ton of fucked up things and they're certainly not that popular with a great deal of the people but they're not exactly a fringe group of terrorists.
Its probably splitting hairs to say all this and i don't approve of them at all, but i just think someone should mention it since the whole history behind it is far more complicated than just chocking them up to another Al Qaeda.