Mustang Miss » Ford Mustang Racing » Please no more fairtales.
Please no more fairtales.
Question:
You act as if you are driving a doge viper.
Sorry I meant "dodge" viper. Rick 87 gt
Response:
Why *does* GM have to go to bigger displacement engines to beat their Ford counterparts, anyway? Why are you making excuses?
What I was thinking was the 3rd-gen Mustang & F-bods with 302s and 305s, respectively. Is that GMs fault that many of Ford’s models have become slower in the past 6-7 years.
No. In fact, I’m glad they’ve decided to invest in "big" inch pushrod V8s. [snip] I’m done rambling, truth is I was Ford guy but I hate the direction they are going. They are catering to the masses.
I know how you feel. And this certainly isn’t GM’s problem. There’s really no need to bash GM for Ford’s "shortcomings" (I’m not accusing you of bashing GM, btw). It *could* make more power quite easily. Ford knows that a good number of guys that buy these cars will buy SVO parts to make them faster. Have you seen what happens to the 4.6L SOHC engine when you bolt on a SVO intake and heads? It’ll *probably* spank the newest F-bodies with ease. Yes, but have you checked the prices on that stuff? Yikes!
Perhaps Ford figured that given the success of the 3rd-gen 302s, those guys will be faithful and continue to buy Mustangs. Perhaps they reasoned that the gearheads would not sit still for getting beat by their GM counterparts and would invest money (like they did with the 3rd-gen 302s) to make them faster. The problem is the price. First of all, if I want a "slow" car that I can build myself, I want it cheap. Secondly, I want it fairly easy to modify. It seems Ford is going in the wrong direction on both counts. The new Mustangs aren’t cheap (although they’re well-engineered and well built), and they’re not easy to modify. I’ve never worked on a OHC engine, but I can imagine that pulling the heads off one will be a lot more complicated. I think Ford forgot what made the 3rd-gen a success: bang for the buck. I think they have incorrectly concluded that people will pay a lot of money for a "fast" Mustang (including Cobra and GT with SVO parts). So leave the fairtales to Disney. Better yet, leave them to alt.autos.camaro.firebird Both NGs have their stupid posts. This thread has been fairly well thought out up to this point. We should all ignore the ‘Brand X rules, Brand Y sucks’ posts.
I know, but as you know on the F-body group, there’s a bunch of bullshitters over there talking about how fast their V6 and RS Camaros are and how they can beat 5.0 Mustangs. I just think it’s funny how Bryan Lee accuses people in *this* newsgroup of spouting off "fairy tales" with guys like MBarth666 over on the other NG. It’s not the cars, it’s the people. There seems to be a lot more turd-burglers on a.a.c.f. than on this NG. — David Lyons http://www.mindspring.com/~lyonsd
Response:
Why *does* GM have to go to bigger displacement engines to beat their Ford counterparts, anyway? Why are you making excuses? What I was thinking was the 3rd-gen Mustang & F-bods with 302s and 305s, respectively.
If GM was only offering a 305 that would be a valid arguement. But they aren’t, they realized the 305 was taking them no where and brought he LT1s in the FBodies, then made them available with a 6 speed. I know how you feel. And this certainly isn’t GM’s problem. There’s really no need to bash GM for Ford’s "shortcomings" (I’m not accusing you of bashing GM, btw).
Is it really that friggin’ hard to build fast cars that are built well, that don’t cost a bundle? I’m talking about the total package, power, handling, looks, braking, sound system, and build quality. The Cobra fits the bill but its expensive….I really hope Ford conitinues to kick the FBodies ass in sales, which will force GM to increase the level of quality on the FBodies. At the same time, hopefully lagging Mustang sales will force Ford into adding another 60+ horsepower to the GT. Perhaps Ford figured that given the success of the 3rd-gen 302s, those guys will be faithful and continue to buy Mustangs. Perhaps they reasoned that the gearheads would not sit still for getting beat by their GM counterparts and would invest money (like they did with the 3rd-gen 302s) to make them faster.
Most guys I see in SN95s aren’t gear heads though. The problem is the price. First of all, if I want a "slow" car that I can build myself, I want it cheap. Secondly, I want it fairly easy to modify. It seems Ford is going in the wrong direction on both counts. The new Mustangs aren’t cheap (although they’re well-engineered and well built), and they’re not easy to modify. I’ve never worked on a OHC engine, but I can imagine that pulling the heads off one will be a lot more complicated.
Agreed. If I got a 2V 4.6 GT I’d throw a Vortech on immediately, then go from there. I think Ford forgot what made the 3rd-gen a success: bang for the buck. I think they have incorrectly concluded that people will pay a lot of money for a "fast" Mustang (including Cobra and GT with SVO parts).
Exactly. Both NGs have their stupid posts. This thread has been fairly well thought out up to this point. We should all ignore the ‘Brand X rules, Brand Y sucks’ posts. I know, but as you know on the F-body group, there’s a bunch of bullshitters over there talking about how fast their V6 and RS Camaros are and how they can beat 5.0 Mustangs. I just think it’s funny how Bryan Lee accuses people in *this* newsgroup of spouting off "fairy tales" with guys like MBarth666 over on the other NG. It’s not the cars, it’s the people. There seems to be a lot more turd-burglers on a.a.c.f. than on this NG.
Yes. Half of the time I just skip over 3/4 of those messages. I wish we could screen the posters somehow…..
Response:
I know how you feel. And this certainly isn’t GM’s problem. There’s really no need to bash GM for Ford’s "shortcomings" (I’m not accusing you of bashing GM, btw). Is it really that friggin’ hard to build fast cars that are built well, that don’t cost a bundle? I’m talking about the total package, power, handling, looks, braking, sound system, and build quality. The Cobra fits the bill but its expensive….I really hope Ford conitinues to kick the FBodies ass in sales, which will force GM to increase the level of quality on the FBodies. At the same time, hopefully lagging Mustang sales will force Ford into adding another 60+ horsepower to the GT.
Actually, all this will do is make GM drop the Camarobird as we know it, in favour of a front wheel drive "sports car" (puke) ,using the same name, that would outsell both the Camaro and the Bird, and possibly even the stang!! — Remove the obvious from my return address above if you want to mail
Response:
Why do you think the GM cars are pure garbage? You soud like some of these Mustang guys that say this sort of thing because its all they can think of when they want to bash F-bodys. You see Ford isn’t in the performance mode right now and some Mustang guys like to rag on the F-bodys quality,craftmenship etc because their stock GT is getting its ass kicked by everything from Pontiac GTPs(front wheel drive) to being humbled by the local Lt1 and Ls1 F-bodys. Ford guys used to talk about ( 86-92) how slow,overweight, and ugly the F-bods were and now since performance numbers of all of Fords cars has gone down they like to make shit up about F-body quality. I could care less whether you like Ford over GM but I can tell you that the F-bodys are not garbage and are just as reliable as anything from Ford or Chrysler.
Actually, Ford guys have a valid argument in the "quality issue". You see, it’s usually the F-body guys who start the arguments (notice, for example, who started this thread), saying how slow Mustangs are and how much they suck yada yada yada. Well, facts are facts. Mustang guys can’t win the bang-for-the-buck argument with regards to the 4th-gen cars. Their only defense, or counter argument is to bring in the quality issue. See, everybody buys a particular car for a reason. It would seem that people who want to go fast in a new car will buy an F-body. People who aren’t as concerend with speed, but want a good quality car will opt for the Mustang. It’s just personal preference. Anybody who’s willing to put brand-name (blind) loyalty aside will recognize that the Mustangs are better engineered, better built, and have better fit & finish than the F-bodies. That’s why they’re more expensive. Persoanlly, I wouldn’t have either a new Mustang or an F-body. The new Mustangs don’t offer the bang for the buck they used to, and I don’t want to have to haul my F-body back to the dealer for repairs over and over again, like Nick and Patman. My ‘88 Mustang, the "Coffin", has the best of the new Mustangs & F-bodies. Bang for the buck *and* reliability. I’m quite pleased with it. 135000+ abusive miles and going strong. — David Lyons http://www.mindspring.com/~lyonsd
Response:
m.edu Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology: Distribution:
: It is perfectly possible to drive such that you’d never notice it, : depending on your habits. I never said it wasn’t. It was very possible for *me* to drive in a way where I didn’t notice it. : Assuming it "lowers the mileage" to disable it, do the "Cheap mods that : let a 4.6 Mustang blow the doors off a Z" really help the gas mileage? : That diff ratio swap must keep mileage strictly where the EPA found it, : eh? Huh? What does this have to do with the "skip-shift" feature. Personally, I care less about gas mileage. If I wanted a gas miser I would have bought a Metro. -Edward Kim - -Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 – -1996 Mustang GT 5-speed White/black interior - -SVO 3.55s, SVO subframes, K&N w/o intake silencer, March pulleys-
Response:
: Assuming it "lowers the mileage" to disable it, do the "Cheap mods that : let a 4.6 Mustang blow the doors off a Z" really help the gas mileage? : That diff ratio swap must keep mileage strictly where the EPA found it, : eh? Huh? What does this have to do with the "skip-shift" feature. Personally, I care less about gas mileage. If I wanted a gas miser I would have bought a Metro.
That’s where this branch of the argument started, efficiency/mileage. — Remove the obvious from my return address above if you want to mail
Response:
sounds like you should have checked out a 94 gt convertible with leather, 5spd, low miles and a mach 460. But in your case it seems like a good comparison. only because the formula handels better stock. You could have just gotten a set of springs and urethane bushings for the stang(which are cheap but very effective) and handeled just as well, if not better than a stock f-body. Plus if you ever did get the urge to add on, oyu would have the huge aftermarket of the 5.0 to search. But different strokes for different folks.
I love the SN95 converibles. If I could have afforded one, I would have probably gotten one. They are very rigid, I saw a test which showed the SN95 was one of the most rigid convertible chassis sold in America. They did a series of tests including running it through power car-washes a number of times. The Corvette, a $40,000+ car leaked after the 3rd or 4th one, while the Mustang was still dry after 10! But, the insurance would have been sky high for me (21 yrs old, 4 points, my own policy in NJ, highest rates in the country.) Also, I didn’t want to have to spend much money to go high 13s/low 14s. Their is a ton of stuff for the ‘Stangs, but their is also quite a bit for the LT1s too. A few years down the road, when I have more money to work with I’d love to get a Cobra convertible….
Response:
In comparing manual transmissions, Z28 to Mustang. Hmm, the Z28 is more powerful. Oh, that’s right, they use that little "high-tech" engine to save gas and be "efficient" (what some seem to call it when a little engine makes more hp/ci). They’re both rated 27 highway, 18 city.
GM’s little 2-6th (or whatever it is) force shift is why. I wonder how well that big engine can accelerate in super overdrive 6th gear. Please get your facts stright before posting, its all well known stuff…
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In comparing manual transmissions, Z28 to Mustang. Hmm, the Z28 is more powerful. Oh, that’s right, they use that little "high-tech" engine to save gas and be "efficient" (what some seem to call it when a little engine makes more hp/ci). They’re both rated 27 highway, 18 city. GM’s little 2-6th (or whatever it is) force shift is why. I wonder how well that big engine can accelerate in super overdrive 6th gear. Please get your facts stright before posting, its all well known stuff…
It’s 2-4th. As for you getting cranky over facts not being straight, did the original post claim that there wasn’t a skip-shift? I believe a Mustang in 5th gear at 60 also would not accelerate optimally. I believe that a driver in a Camaro in 6th gear and a Mustang driver in 5th gear would select another gear to get full acceleration. Nonetheless, the "efficiency" does clearly seem to be in Ford’s pocketbook, not in your gas bill. — Remove the obvious from my return address above if you want to mail
Response:
It’s 2-4th.
I remember it jumping at least two gears… oh well so much for a foggy memory on f-bodies.. As for you getting cranky over facts not being straight, did the original post claim that there wasn’t a skip-shift?
Ignored it entirely, which considering the subject matter is wrong. There are ways around the EPA tests which were my point. Although for cars in this class its not a concern for most drivers but odds are the Mustang’s numbers for EPA ratings and real life are closer than for the F-bodies. I believe a Mustang in 5th gear at 60 also would not accelerate optimally. I believe that a driver in a Camaro in 6th gear and a Mustang driver in 5th gear would select another gear to get full acceleration.
Point was the car uses less gas skipping the gears than not skipping them. That is why it is there in the fbodies. EPA tests and all are not done the way most people drive the car. Which is the point. Do you think most people skip gears? Accelerate slower, use less fuel. In other words if you backed off the the Mustang to same degree the F-bodies are backed off with the skip shift the F-body would fall behind in mpg most likely. Need to see what the acceration rates are for both cars in the EPA test cycle. My ed-u-ma-cated 
guess is that the Mustang was quicker than the f-bodies in the EPA test cycle. Nonetheless, the "efficiency" does clearly seem to be in Ford’s pocketbook, not in your gas bill.
Well lets see considering the way I drive I shouldnt get the 18-19 mpg city in my ‘97 GT but somehow I still do.
Response:
: I remember it jumping at least two gears… oh well : so much for a foggy memory on f-bodies.. It skips from 1st to 4th under light acceleration. I really didn’t notice the feature when I had my ‘94 Z28. The feature was put in so that the Z28s, TAs, Formulas, and Corvettes would exempt the gas guzzler tax.
It is perfectly possible to drive such that you’d never notice it, depending on your habits. Assuming it "lowers the mileage" to disable it, do the "Cheap mods that let a 4.6 Mustang blow the doors off a Z" really help the gas mileage? That diff ratio swap must keep mileage strictly where the EPA found it, eh? — Remove the obvious from my return address above if you want to mail
Response:
Why do you think the GM cars are pure garbage? You soud like some of these Mustang guys that say this sort of thing because its all they can think of when they want to bash F-bodys. You see Ford isn’t in the performance mode right now and some Mustang guys like to rag on the F-bodys quality,craftmenship etc because their stock GT is getting its ass kicked by everything from Pontiac GTPs(front wheel drive) to being humbled by the local Lt1 and Ls1 F-bodys. Ford guys used to talk about ( 86-92) how slow,overweight, and ugly the F-bods were and now since performance numbers of all of Fords cars has gone down they like to make shit up about F-body quality. I could care less whether you like Ford over GM but I can tell you that the F-bodys are not garbage and are just as reliable as anything from Ford or Chrysler.
Response:
Exaust, headers, and gears for under $700??????? Mustangs are cheap to modify but get realistic here.
Response:
This is true. I own an 88 GT. I am disappointed in ford. They dropped the ball again and let GM jump ahead. You’ve got to add a supercharger to equal things out. And the cars cost basically the same stock. So now you’ve got to spend an extra $4K to keep up. What a crock by ford. Sorry ass fuckers. daarksun
Excuse me, you are bashing Ford and talking about GM. I think you need to find the Firebird/Camaro news group and "take your crap there". Hehehe… — 89 5.0 LX HB K&N Pro 5.0 Flow Master Mac 73 Charger 340Wedge New Process 4spd Chrysler 8.75/w 4.10 SureGrip 65 Thunderbird Town Landau FE390 63 Dodge Dart 413 Max Wedge 8bbl short ram It is unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited commercial email per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I assess a US $500 charge for reviewing & deleting each unsolicited commercial email. Sending unsolicited commercial email to my email address denotes acceptance of these terms. My posting messages to UseNet neither grants consent to receiving nor is intended to solicit commercial email. To Reply, remove the NOSPAM and send.
Response:
sounds like you should have checked out a 94 gt convertible with leather, 5spd, low miles and a mach 460. But in your case it seems like a good comparison. only because the formula handels better stock. You could have just gotten a set of springs and urethane bushings for the stang(which are cheap but very effective) and handeled just as well, if not better than a stock f-body. Plus if you ever did get the urge to add on, oyu would have the huge aftermarket of the 5.0 to search. But different strokes for different folks. Rick
Response:
I never seem to come up along side a modified camaro. And I am sure even if I did I would still beat him. Sure I dont have the fastest car out there, but havent lost a stoplight race with a camaro, or firebird, yet.
It is strange that more guys don’t mod their f-bodies….you never see a ’stang w/o an exhaust at least. I love playin with mine…..just http://www.f-body.org The home of the F-body http://www.venomous.com
Response:
Let me put it this way: given two different cars close in weight and drivetrain losses, the one with the 305 hp has a much better probability of winning against the one with 225 hp. The key word there is "probability". That does not mean that in every single race any place at any time is going to have the same outcome. It means that the F-body will *probably* win since it has such an advantage. But there are things called "exceptions". Put a good driver in a Mustang and a shitty driver in a F-body and the *probability* that the F-body will win has been decreased. There are also variances in cars. Of all the Mustangs, there will be some that are exceptionally fast, and some that are exceptionally slow. Same with F-bodies. If one of these exceptionally fast Mustangs happens to be racing an exceptionally slow F-body, then the *probability* that the F-body will win is less.
Agreed completely Just like all the "I beat 5.0 Mustangs with my stock V6 Camaro" messages in the F-body newsgroup?
We ( the regular normal guys) know that. I was the one who said I had driven a 3.4 and their was no way it was anything close to any late model Mustang. I also said the chances of a V6 3.8 FBody beating a 5.0 is very slim. You race stock cars with upgraded mustangs and call it a fair race. Why not? All’s fair in love and war. Run watchya brung and hope ya brung enough.
I have no problem with that mentality at all. I guess I’m just not a hard core street racer afterall, I don’t get all pissed off and frustrated when I get killed. It happened last week on the highway to a newish Supra Twin Turbo. I didn’t go home cursing my car, calling Summit & spending $$ to try and go faster. I told a few people, told some friends, and was pretty amazed at how strong those Supras run. That was it. If say by next year I had the money to supercharged my car, and happened to beat one, I would go around saying how slow Supra Turbos are, and how they are a waste of money. ’slow’ and ‘fast’ are such relative terms… Then you say you say you only have a 302(now a 4.6L{280 CID} when you lose,thats your fault. Why *does* GM have to go to bigger displacement engines to beat their Ford counterparts, anyway?
Why are you making excuses? Is that GMs fault that many of Ford’s models have become slower in the past 6-7 years. The older Probe GTs were a tad quicker then the newer ones, the older TBird SCs would have killed the top of the line TBird LX now, the older Fox 5.0s were a touch faster then the SN95s, the older Tauras SHOs are quicker then the newer ones, the older supercharged Cougar XR7s were quicker then any of the new ones. Of course they have now dropped the Probe, TBird/Cougar, and the only thing new they have built lately that is exciting is the Contour SVT. Ford could have easily slipped a de-tuned 4.6 4v into the TBird/Cougar high-end models. They also should have seen the DSMs (Talon/Eclipse) coming. Those cars have 30 horsepower on the Probe GT, and AWD, they hurt their sales tremendously. Ford introduced the newer Probes in ‘93 w/ 164 horsepower. In 4 years they couldn’t manage anything more then 164 horsepower? I’ve been in the newer Probes, they are great cars. They seem to be built well, handle very very well, and the chassis seems well balanced. With another 25 horsepower they would be a real blast to drive for most enthusiasts. I’m done rambling, truth is I was Ford guy but I hate the direction they are going. They are catering to the masses. And it’ll *probably* outrun the V6 F-bodies as well. Not to mention the Mustang outsells the F-body. So as all us Mustang guys sit here and whine about the Mustang "losing" the pony-car war, Ford is laughing all the way to the bank saying "We’re winning the pony-car war!!"
This is completely true. I’d be an idiot if I sat here and said my Formula is built better then an SN95. But, how many more Mustangs would be sold if they had more power in the GT? I’m guessing alot. Lets just say V8 Camaros/Firebird sales are 40,000 combined, and Mustang GT sales are 60,000. I would bet it Ford upped the GT’s power to say 280 horsepower, they would sell atleast 90,000 Mustang GTs and FBody sales would decline a bit. It *could* make more power quite easily. Ford knows that a good number of guys that buy these cars will buy SVO parts to make them faster. Have you seen what happens to the 4.6L SOHC engine when you bolt on a SVO intake and heads? It’ll *probably* spank the newest F-bodies with ease.
Yes, but have you checked the prices on that stuff? Yikes! So leave the fairtales to Disney. Better yet, leave them to alt.autos.camaro.firebird
Both NGs have their stupid posts. This thread has been fairly well thought out up to this point. We should all ignore the ‘Brand X rules, Brand Y sucks’ posts.
Response:
Can we all just face the truth, Mustangs are not faster than GM f-bodies. How can you say a car with (now)225hp can beat a car with 305 hp(SS 320hp). It has more torque at lower rpms, a better tranny, better brakes, better handling, and a better price. All of these I beat a F-bodies are crap. You race stock cars with upgraded mustangs and call it a fair race. Then you say you say you only have a 302(now a 4.6L{280 CID} when you lose,thats your fault. I dont know about you, but when I buy a sports car I want power and performance. The new mustang is junk , it has no point to be made. In preformace it can only compete with the base V-6 f-bodies that cost about $17,000. I was a Ford person for along time(‘69 mustang w/351C and 4 spd, ‘69 mustang 390 w/ C6, ‘56 F-100 w/327, and I even put a Ford 2.8L in a ‘70 VW bug{when I get a scanner I will post pics}). But ford keeps putting out "HI-TECH" engines that have no reason to be made. If the 4.6l made more power or something it would have made sense, but it does’nt It makes the car slower. The reason they changed is to save them money, not you. Now one engine takes the place of all the v-8s they make, they stroke it to make the 5.4L and add 2 pistons and make the 6.8L V-10. And you pay more for what cost them less to make. Have you seen the nov 97 Car and Driver? They show the new Hurst Firebird,350 CID w/ 350hp and 375 torque, 0-60 in 4.7 sec. and 1/4 mi in engine(wait till they use the engine that starts at 345hp), all on motor, no supercharger and etc… It will out run any steeda,saleen, and etc.. that cost as much and more than the firebirds $44,000. So leave the fairtales to Disney.
Response:
Can we all just face the truth, Mustangs are not faster than GM f-bodies. How can you say a car with (now)225hp can beat a car with 305 hp(SS 320hp). It has more torque at lower rpms, a better tranny, better brakes, better handling, and a better price. All of these I beat a F-bodies are crap. You race stock cars with upgraded mustangs and call it a fair race. Then you say you say you only have a 302(now a 4.6L{280 CID} when you lose,thats your fault. I dont know about you, but when I buy a sports car I want power and performance. The new mustang is junk , it has no point to be made. In preformace it can only compete with the base V-6 f-bodies that cost about $17,000.
What, other than cheapness, do they get out of putting that engine in the Mustang GT? In comparing manual transmissions, Z28 to Mustang. Hmm, the Z28 is more powerful. Oh, that’s right, they use that little "high-tech" engine to save gas and be "efficient" (what some seem to call it when a little engine makes more hp/ci). They’re both rated 27 highway, 18 city. Says something for the penalty of "draggin around" those "big evil extra cubes" and that "inconsequential 80 HP advantage". I realize the mileage is the car, not just the engine. But what does that mean, the Mustang is heavier or has worse aerodynamics? It’s just gotta be the work of the bean-counters.
Response:
Run what you brung and hope you brung enough.
Response:
<SNIP let me seee…….oh yea it was a MUSTANG! Thats no fairy tale! Etremely proud of Tommy Kendal! He is the man!
Ummn, I don’t think that was a production Mustang. I think the closest that car ever got to a production Mustang was when a Mustang passed the hauler on the freeway. Not to take anything away from Tommy Kendall, but when Ford is the only manufacturer in the race, you can bet that their cars are going to dominate. When Chevy dropped out, the writing was on the wall. I don’t see Ford being in this class too much longer.
Response:
This is true. I own an 88 GT. I am disappointed in ford. They dropped the ball again and let GM jump ahead. You’ve got to add a supercharger to equal things out. And the cars cost basically the same stock. So now you’ve got to spend an extra $4K to keep up. What a crock by ford. Sorry ass fuckers. daarksun
You werent talking stock either. You said mustangs had to add a SC to even things up while spending $4K. I was simply stating that you can spend under a fourth of that an do the same. And after spending the extra money than GT owners, stock camaro owners dont seem to have the guts to dump anything into their cars. I never seem to come up along side a modified camaro. And I am sure even if I did I would still beat him. Sure I dont have the fastest car out there, but havent lost a stoplight race with a camaro, or firebird, yet. And the truth doesnt hurt me, but I am sure it does hurt the STOCK mustang owners. And to them I say what the probe commercials do. Live a little, have some fun. Modify your stang. You will enjoy it even MORE than you allready do. Rick 87 gt
Response:
You do’nt get the point. If you add all that stuff to a mustang it’s not stock! how are you going to compare that to a stock f-body? If that’s all that it needed, why did’nt the mustang come with that from the FACTORY? Put all that stuff on a f-body and THE MUSTANG WILL LOSE? What name calling? If the truth hurts say ouch! you’ve got to spend an extra $4K to keep up. What a crock by ford. Sorry ass fuckers. What are you talking about. a mustang doesnt need a SC to keep up. To keep up is a set of 3.55 or 3.73 gears,and exhaust, and/or K&.N,and/or Headers, and/or underdrive pullies,….I could go on and on and you would still be under $700. What are you talking about $4,000. And whats all the name calling for?
Grow up
Response:
This is true. I own an 88 GT. I am disappointed in ford. They dropped the ball again and let GM jump ahead. You’ve got to add a supercharger to equal things out. And the cars cost basically the same stock. So now you’ve got to spend an extra $4K to keep up. What a crock by ford. Sorry ass fuckers. daarksun
Yesterday at Englishtown I met a guy who has a 4.6GT w/ Vortech. The car should run mid/high 13s, looks great, and by all accounts should be very reliable. He got the Vortech real cheap, something like $2500 if I remember right, and did it himself. The interior on those SN95s is quite nice, much nicer then my ‘94 Formula. Now with the added vortech power, he is a tad ahead of the stock LT1s. When you think about the SN95s better build quality, and better resale value, I think this guy has a pretty good car on his hands.