Engine enhancements for the 99 Cougar V6?
Husk
Mitsu Eclipse GS-T or the 99 Cougar V6, both manual. The Cougar is cheaper,
but the GS-T has alot more zip. The Cougar has enough zip though, but I would like
to know if anyone can inform me of some enhancements to give it more quickness..
I have heard of a 'supercharger' in the works, but someone said it was like 3k more?
The dealer mentiond a 'chip' that can easily be installed to add 30 hp, and that it was
under 1k. Anyone heard of that? Also said that adding dual exhaust will increase HP a little.
I would greatly appreciate any feedback, I am really laboring in trying to decide which car
to buy. The Cougar is cheaper, cheaper to insure, rides well, looks cool etc.. the Eclipse
looks cooler, is faster, is more expensive and sits too low to the ground. If I knew I could soup
up the engine in the Cougar I would get that..
Email or post, thanks.
Dennis
IS Manager
The eclipse has an entirely NEW look for 2000. So, if you buy an
eclipse now - and get the 99 model - you'll be driving around in the
"old style" ... Otherwise you are stuck waiting for Mitsu to start
selling the new 2K eclipse and when they first do - you won't get any
deals on them ... From a financial standpoint - the Cougar is the key
...
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 17:44:42 GMT, husk...@home.com (Husk) wrote:
:)I am in the market for a new sporty car. I have narrowed it down to the
:)Mitsu Eclipse GS-T or the 99 Cougar V6, both manual. The Cougar is cheaper,
:)but the GS-T has alot more zip. The Cougar has enough zip though, but I would like
:)to know if anyone can inform me of some enhancements to give it more quickness..
:)I have heard of a 'supercharger' in the works, but someone said it was like 3k more?
:)The dealer mentiond a 'chip' that can easily be installed to add 30 hp, and that it was
:)under 1k. Anyone heard of that? Also said that adding dual exhaust will increase HP a little.
:)I would greatly appreciate any feedback, I am really laboring in trying to decide which car
:)to buy. The Cougar is cheaper, cheaper to insure, rides well, looks cool etc.. the Eclipse
:)looks cooler, is faster, is more expensive and sits too low to the ground. If I knew I could soup
:)up the engine in the Cougar I would get that..
:)Email or post, thanks.
:)
:)Dennis
~~~~~~~~~~
IS Manager
Delete the -not to reply
Husk
I would rather have a 99 Cougar than the 2000 eclipse, and my local
dealer is already selling the 2000 eclipse. Heck, the 2000 Eclipse GT is
cheaper than the 99 Eclipse GS-T that I am looking at. If I could figure
out what I could do to enhance the engine in the Cougar and maybe lose
that stupid looking antenna in the middle of the roof on the cougar, I would
go down and buy one right now.
Scott D. Fraser
and that it was
There is no chip around that will make the 170 bhp 2.5L a
200 bhp engine. It would take way more than that to get
that kind of output from this engine.
Husk
sh...@my-deja.com
jennifer....@home.com (IS Manager) wrote:
> Just remember this - when you are making your decision ...
>
> The eclipse has an entirely NEW look for 2000. So, if you buy an
> eclipse now - and get the 99 model - you'll be driving around in the
> "old style" ... Otherwise you are stuck waiting for Mitsu to start
> selling the new 2K eclipse and when they first do - you won't get any
> deals on them ... From a financial standpoint - the Cougar is the key
> ...
Actually, the 2K Eclipse is selling right now in dealerships. No
waiting.
But there are still some 99s around. The 2G GSTs and GSXs are going
to get a boost in resale value now since the 2000 Eclipse has a less
powerful and less fun V6. I have no problem with this :-) heh
Hell, the 99 GSX was the only AWD sports coupe on the market.
Less depreciation is cool.
Josh Wingell
'97 Eclipse GSX - 13....@100.35mph / 1.874s 60ft
Best 60ft - 1.68s
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
BECKIQT5
Michael Jones
(www.borla.com) can easily boost horsepower by 10-20. Much less than $1000
as well.
M.
Frank Walton
local Ford Dealer. He can put you in a V8 Mustang for about the
price of the Cougar and blow the doors off of the Cougar and the Mitsu.
Insurance is much cheaper too because the Mustang is RWD.
--
Frank
Lemon Joke Kid
That's pure fantasy. Assume similarly equipped cars:
V6 Cougar, ABS, convenience group, sport group, destination charges -
$19,325 MSRP
V8 Mustang, convenience group, destination charges -
$22,040 MSRP
The Mustang is $2,715 more
Assume base model plus destination charges:
V6 Cougar $17,290
V8 Mustang $21,490
The Mustang is $4,200 more.
As for insurance, the Mustang, being classified as a high performance
car, could possibly cost twice as much to insure as the Cougar.
FWD or RWD means nothing to insurance companies.
Jeremy Bush
new cougar....i like the rwd and i like the body style of the mustang
much better than the eclipse wannabe look of the new cougar......my
2ข...
Tiny1877
Lemon Joke Kid
>new cougar....i like the rwd and i like the body style of the mustang
>much better than the eclipse wannabe look of the new cougar......my
>2ข...
A matter of personal taste, I guess. I probably would have gotten the
Mustang if I didn't already have one. Even though it's FWD, the
Cougar is fun to drive.
Scott Lawrence
You know, I've never quite understood why people who don't like the Cougar
even bother with this NG. Perhaps you're a classic Cougar fan, fine. Stick
to the classic threads then. That's my two cents.
BTW, anybody compare handling in the Cougar vs. Mustang?
Jugger9
>new cougar....i like the rwd and i like the body style of the mustang
>much better than the eclipse wannabe look of the new cougar......my
>2ข...
The new Mustang is too boxy and dated looking.
When is Ford gonna produce a Mustang that doesn't get smoked by a Pony Car from
GM. ( Firebird and Camaro)
Even my 95 Toyota MR2 turbo is faster.
GEZ
It seems like you can't throw a rock without hitting three :)
GEZ
Peter Bowen
dealer and pick up a Firebird or Camaro.... Bang for the buck, it was
the Cougar for me :)
-Peter
Frank Walton wrote:
>
> Cougar or Eclipse? Drive a little further down the street to your
> local Ford Dealer. He can put you in a V8 Mustang for about the
> price of the Cougar and blow the doors off of the Cougar and the Mitsu.
> Insurance is much cheaper too because the Mustang is RWD.
>
> --
>
> Frank
--
Peter Bowen
Unix System Programmer
iMALL Inc.
bo...@imall.com
(801)226-5007
Barrett Crowe
So is the insurance statement. I pay $2700 a year for my V6 Cougar. The
Mustang would have been around $3100 a year. That's the main reason I
didn't even consider the Mustang.
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Lemon Joke Kid <d*****k...@megsinet.net> wrote in message
news:37a9017...@news.megsinet.net...
> >Cougar or Eclipse? Drive a little further down the street to your
> >local Ford Dealer. He can put you in a V8 Mustang for about the
> >price of the Cougar and blow the doors off of the Cougar and the Mitsu.
> >Insurance is much cheaper too because the Mustang is RWD.
>
>
billy
cougar with the same addons. A lot less car, but "nice easy payments".
I took a T/A for a test drive and couldn't believe it. The camero was
no longer in its class. It was only 28k.
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 22:42:26 GMT, Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net>
wrote:
Frank Walton
V8 here in Pa for about $20,500. I paid $24,600 for a loaded
GT convertible. My insurance is $195.40 for six months. My
wife's car, a 99 Escort SE, is $219.40 for six months. The agent
says it is because the Escort is FWD.
--
Frank
Frank Walton
No contest! FWD will never run with RWD. 'Road and Track'
lists results as follows.
Vehicle 0-60 1/4 miles ET 70-0 FT Road Holding
Mustang 5.5 sec 14.2/138MPH 170 85
Cougar 8.8 sec 16.4/133MPH 198 79
--
Frank
Barrett Crowe
comparing the V6 ATX Cougar(which is what that 8.8 sec. time must have come
from) to the V6 ATX Mustang...it's pretty close considering.
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:37AA0B8D...@ptdprolog.net...
Barrett Crowe
> V8 here in Pa for about $20,500.
You could get a fully loaded Cougar for that much.
>The agent says it is because the Escort is FWD.
V8 sports cars=high insurance regardless if it's FWD or RWD. The insurance
companies justify this as you're going to be going fast if you have a
V8...they don't care which wheels are gonna be spinning.
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:37AA0725...@ptdprolog.net...
Alen Koebel
newsgroup's troll - every newsgvroup has at least one, it seems.
He's interested only in baiting people with contentious statements
designed to draw emotional reactions. The more attention he gets
the better he likes it. Ignore him. He won't go away but he'll
have a whole lot less fun.
(C'mon, Frank, hit me. I know you can't resist.)
In article <7od34v$9j2$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Barrett Crowe" <btc...@spamkillsmindspring.com> wrote:
> Well come on now...is it really fair to compare a 2.5L V6 to a 4.6L
> V8? Try comparing the V6 ATX Cougar(which is what that 8.8 sec.
> time must have come from) to the V6 ATX Mustang...it's pretty close
> considering.
>
> Barrett
>
> --
> remove "spamkills" to reply
> Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
> news:37AA0B8D...@ptdprolog.net...
> > BTW, anybody compare handling in the Cougar vs. Mustang?
> >
> > No contest! FWD will never run with RWD. 'Road and Track'
> > lists results as follows.
> >
> > Vehicle 0-60 1/4 miles ET 70-0 FT Road Holding
> > Mustang 5.5 sec 14.2/138MPH 170 85
> > Cougar 8.8 sec 16.4/133MPH 198 79
> > --
> >
> > Frank
DonnaBGood
your wife may have, or maybe you have been driving longer, and rather than make
your wife feel bad about it he blamed it on the car she drove. Next time try
insuring the escort in your name and the mustang in her name and see what
happens. And while I am being so personal let me add this: let your wife have
the Mustang. I think it says so much when the husband let's the wife drive the
cooler/better car. :)
Donna
Shane Hathaway
presents itself. :)
BTW... related to this thread... I often wonder why it is that everyone
wants a faster car when laws prevent us from driving faster than 75 MPH.
(Montana is now included!) I, for one, do not care that my car can go
137 MPH. I do like the fact that it can easily get up Parley's Canyon,
Utah, at full speed. It's a very long climb at 55-65 MPH. And I like
that I can take extra long trips without worrying the least about
overheating. And I can merge on the freeway without any trouble. Other
than that, I don't see why anyone would have a need for horsepower,
unless it's related to their... ahem... ego.
DonnaBGood wrote:
>
> ... And while I am being so personal let me add this: let your wife have
Frank Walton
fast if you have a V8...they don't care which wheels are gonna be
spinning.
Not true, a FWD car is much more likely to slide off the road,
decelerating in a turn on a wet road than a RWD. Further more a
collisions where the intrusion into the front of the vehicle
exceeds 18 inches will usually total a FWD car by taking out
the engine and the transaxle. On a RWD it only get to the
water pump. At least that's what an insurance adjusted told me.
I DO pay more for an Escort than a GT Mustang.
Frank
Frank Walton
than
your wife may have, or maybe you have been driving longer, and rather
than make
your wife feel bad about it he blamed it on the car she drove. Next
time try
insuring the escort in your name and the mustang in her name and see
what
wife have
the Mustang. I think it says so much when the husband let's the wife
drive the
cooler/better car. :)
Donna
Actually we have more cars and trucks then the two I mentioned. Her
primary driver is a big black Navigator, she likes to look down on
me *Grin* Our driving records are great, hence the low rates. If
you want to check the RWD/FWD theory, try this. Call your agent ask
for your PERSONAL rates on an Escort and a Grand Marquis. You will
be amazed to find the Grand Marquis is less, although it cast twice
the price!
--
Frank
Barrett Crowe
for your average driver. Why do you think most manufacturers are moving to
FWD? It's not because it's cheaper. I'm sure you've driven your Mustang in
the rain and possibly the snow...not very surefooted in those types of
conditions, is it?
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:37AB0A4A...@ptdprolog.net...
Frank Walton
FWD?
--
They are Not! The new Lincoln is RWD. Future Caddy will be RWD and
Chrysler is going to build a RWD Dodge. ALL the Luxury cars
are RWD Jag, BMW, Merc and Lexus all RWD. All Nascar racers are
RWD. You can dispute it all you want but Insurance companies charge
less for RWD than FWD.
Frank
Vic Brown
people out there own a separate set of winter tires? And for you
information a FWD car is far cheaper to manufacture than a RWD car, but much
more difficult to maintain and repair, which is another area where
manufacturers make gobs of money.
Barrett Crowe <btc...@spamkillsmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7of5en$dnt$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
> While RWD may be safer for an experience driver, it is far more dangerous
> for your average driver. Why do you think most manufacturers are moving
to
DonnaBGood
>for your PERSONAL rates on an Escort and a Grand Marquis. You will
>be amazed to find the Grand Marquis is less, although it cast twice
>the price!
>
>
>--
>
>Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
Frank the thing is I like you so it does hurt me to call you to task on this
RWD/FWD Insurance theroy you have...If the Grand Marquis is cheaper to insure
than the Escort (Even thought the Grand Marquis does cost more) it is only
because of the profile of the average driver of a Grand Marquis (sweet church
ladies who deliver casseroles to the homebound), not because one is RWD or FWD.
<g>
I say drive what you love, and the money will come to pay for the insurance,
and less than hoped for gas mileage.
Donna
Lemon Joke Kid
>wants a faster car when laws prevent us from driving faster than 75 MPH.
>(Montana is now included!) I, for one, do not care that my car can go
>137 MPH. I do like the fact that it can easily get up Parley's Canyon,
>Utah, at full speed. It's a very long climb at 55-65 MPH. And I like
>that I can take extra long trips without worrying the least about
>overheating. And I can merge on the freeway without any trouble. Other
>than that, I don't see why anyone would have a need for horsepower,
>unless it's related to their... ahem... ego.
Ego? No. Fun to drive, yes! I agree, though, that top speed isn't
terribly interesting to me. I've hit 120 in my Mustang (which felt
like 200 with the top down) but that's not something I have the desire
to do very often.
The real fun comes from torque and off-the-line acceleration. Merging
is also easier. There's a road by me that has the on ramp closed for
construction. The detour takes you to another on ramp with a stop
sign at the end. Speed limit is 55 and, depending on the time of day,
traffic goes 55 to 70.
To merge into fast traffic from a dead stop either requires a long
wait for a hole or a car that can get you up to speed quickly.
Frank Walton
more difficult to maintain and repair,
Not true! It cost almost $1,400 more to produce a Sable than a
Grand Marquis but the Sable retails for $2,500 less. An Escort
cost more to produce then for the price it is sold to the dealer.
It all has to do with CAFE.
Frank
Shane Hathaway
rates for other reasons and the difference incurred by FWD vs. RWD is
relatively insignificant. Or so it would seem.
Frank Walton wrote:
>
> ... You can dispute it all you want but Insurance companies charge
Frank Walton
thought the Grand Marquis does cost more) it is only because of
the profile of the average driver of a Grand Marquis (sweet church
ladies who deliver casseroles to the homebound), not because one
is RWD or FWD.
Donna
--
Donna
Your argument has merit. However you can make the comparison between
the larger Bucks and the Grand Marquis, who have similar drivers, and
the result is the same. Even more telling is the Town Card RWD and
the Continental FWD. Town Car is a bigger vehicle but less expensive
to insure. By the way Lincoln will be discontinuing the FWD
Continental shortly.
Frank
Shane Hathaway
Lemon Joke Kid wrote:
> The real fun comes from torque and off-the-line acceleration. Merging
> is also easier. There's a road by me that has the on ramp closed for
> construction. The detour takes you to another on ramp with a stop
> sign at the end. Speed limit is 55 and, depending on the time of day,
> traffic goes 55 to 70.
>
> To merge into fast traffic from a dead stop either requires a long
> wait for a hole or a car that can get you up to speed quickly.
You know, that's true. It is very fun to drive the Cougar. Merging is a
lot easier than it was in my Mitsu truck. And I like to drive in areas
where nobody's around, and with a little acceleration I can turn *any*
road into a temporarily empty road. :) There's also a downside,
though... if I were a cop and I saw a nice car take off from the line
and immediately cross two lanes, I would get on its tail. :)
Shane
Frank Walton
rates for other reasons and the difference incurred by FWD vs. RWD is
relatively insignificant. Or so it would seem.
--
Of course your correct. Your personal driving record, convictions,
suspensions accident ratio all effect insurance rates. So does
the area in which you reside. The fact remains everything else being
equal you can save money if you select a RWD over FWD.
Frank
Barrett Crowe
many
> people out there own a separate set of winter tires?
That's kinda my point. Most people don't have multiple tires for different
seasons or weather conditions.
>And for you information a FWD car is far cheaper to manufacture than a RWD
car...
Where'd you get that from?
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Vic Brown <vbr...@ubmail.ubalt.edu> wrote in message
news:AOLq3.57$H83...@news.rdc1.md.home.com...
> With the right tires you can be as safe footed as anyone else. But how
many
> people out there own a separate set of winter tires? And for you
> information a FWD car is far cheaper to manufacture than a RWD car, but
much
Barrett Crowe
just more efficient to drive a huge car by the rear wheels. That's one
reason why all(that I can think of)trucks and sport-utes are RWD(or AWD).
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:37AB7293...@ptdprolog.net...
> Why do you think most manufacturers are moving to
> FWD?
>
>
> --
>
> They are Not! The new Lincoln is RWD. Future Caddy will be RWD and
> Chrysler is going to build a RWD Dodge. ALL the Luxury cars
> are RWD Jag, BMW, Merc and Lexus all RWD. All Nascar racers are
> RWD. You can dispute it all you want but Insurance companies charge
Barrett Crowe
determine this. You can't really compare like cars that are RWD and FWD.
Most RWD vehicles are full size which means better safety which means lower
insurance. A few exceptions to this would be the compact roadsters like the
miata and the z3 but I'll guarantee that insurance on those cars is high.
Lemon Joke Kid
>many
>> people out there own a separate set of winter tires?
>
>That's kinda my point. Most people don't have multiple tires for different
>seasons or weather conditions.
I know people that drive Mustangs all winter without swapping tires.
A friend used BF Goodrich Radial T/A's. They were pretty good in
snow, but took a little away from the handling of the car on dry
roads. For the AVERAGE driver, though, they are great.
>>And for you information a FWD car is far cheaper to manufacture than a RWD
>car...
>
>Where'd you get that from?
I can't quote a source, but I've heard the manufacturing process is
simpler so it's cheaper. Also, the engine compartment can be made
smaller, allowing the same size car to have more interior room.
Bilgeman
->>I can't quote a source, but I've heard the manufacturing process is simpler
so it's cheaper. Also, the engine compartment can be made smaller, allowing
the same size car to have more interior room.<<-
Bilge- Of course it's cheaper to assemble a FWD car. Several benefits accrue to
this arrangement, from the manufacturer's POV.
1) a more compact drivetrain means less space used in shipping the drivetrain
from it's production plant to the assembly plant.
I'm a seaman, believe me when I tell ya that more compact stowage=big money
savings.
2) the entire chassis and the passenger cabin can be assembled, rolled to the
drivetrain station, and the drivetrain bolted in, then the front clip
assembled. As opposed to building the car "ground up"
-chassis-drivetrain-sheetmetal. They do "modular" down in Mexico, y'know.
The downside of FWD for the driver is quite simply, having to design the drive
axles to also be able to steer...with the attendant intricacies of camber and
caster, toe in and toe out and suspension is requiring a lot of work from a
limited number of parts.
It makes for shorter lifespan, higher repair costs, and to my mind, a "nose
heavy" vehicle. I don't buy the supposed "handling benefits" of FWD.
This is "foc'sle scutlebutt", but I heard that GM outfitted a Corvette back
in the '70's to test FWD, RWD, and AWD. Allegedly, they found that with an
experienced driver, the RWD held the road better and was faster than any of the
other arrangements.
BTW, the engine in my ship is a 7 cylinder twin turbocharged Sulzer slow
speed diesel which develops 17,500 bhp.
(gas mileage sucks).
Cheers,
"Mutiny is a Management Tool".
"Select your Tattoo while you're Sober".
Peter Bowen
-Peter
--
Peter Bowen
Unix System Programmer
iMALL Inc.
bo...@imall.com
(801)226-5007
Barrett Crowe
FWD? It's definitely not because of cost. Volvo has never been a company
to save a few dollars at the expense of safety.
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:37AB0CB2...@ptdprolog.net...
> Frank personally I think it is because yu have a better driving record
> than
> your wife may have, or maybe you have been driving longer, and rather
> than make
> your wife feel bad about it he blamed it on the car she drove. Next
> time try
> insuring the escort in your name and the mustang in her name and see
> what
> happens. And while I am being so personal let me add this: let your
> wife have
> the Mustang. I think it says so much when the husband let's the wife
> drive the
> cooler/better car. :)
>
> Donna
>
> Actually we have more cars and trucks then the two I mentioned. Her
> primary driver is a big black Navigator, she likes to look down on
> me *Grin* Our driving records are great, hence the low rates. If
> you want to check the RWD/FWD theory, try this. Call your agent ask
Frank Walton
Why would most Volvos, a company whose whole selling point is safety, be
FWD? It's definitely not because of cost. Volvo has never been a
company
to save a few dollars at the expense of safety.
Barrett
--
I say;
Barrett first check your facts then go take a look at the price
of a Volvo. The build cost has nothing to do with the selling
price of a particular vehicle. It depends mostly on economies
of scale and CAFE. Ford sells Escorts to the dealer below the
cost of building them! By the way have you noticed how Volvo
quality ratings have increased since they are owned by Ford?
Frank
Barrett Crowe
having something to do with selling price. I was just pointing out the fact
that most Volvo cars are FWD(and the ones that aren't are AWD), thus backing
up my previous statement that FWD cars are inherently safer than RWD cars in
the hands of an inexperienced motorist.
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:37BB6028...@ptdprolog.net...
Jeff Seeger
>
>.If the Grand Marquis is cheaper to insure
> than the Escort (Even thought the Grand Marquis does cost more) it is only
> because of the profile of the average driver of a Grand Marquis (sweet church
> ladies who deliver casseroles to the homebound), not because one is RWD or FWD.
May I suggest that the relative insurance costs could be
partly due to the sterling crash-worthiness of the CV/GM?
Wow, 5 star rating front 4 star rating side...
It also appears to me that RWD is easier to fix.
--
Jeff
Frank Walton
backing up my previous statement that FWD cars are inherently
safer than RWD cars in the hands of an inexperienced motorist.
I say;
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but that doesn't
make it factual. If you will check insurance rates as suggested,
your insurance company will tell you your statement is NOT factual.
They charge higher rated for FWD Vis a V RWD.
It is precisely the INexperienced driver that goes into a spin by
simply taking his/her foot of the throttle. They have no idea what
decompression braking is, let alone how to over come its effect.
They apply the brakes and end up in a ditch. Why do you think
they make FWD cars with a shift lever that can be bumped into
neutral without pressing a button? RWD cars do not have that
feature.
Frank
Barrett Crowe
and they all tell me that it makes no difference. Maybe it's just your
particular insurance co. or maybe it has something to do with what state you
live in..
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:37BC5213...@ptdprolog.net...
phor...@my-deja.com
me wrote:
> >Cougar or Eclipse? Drive a little further down the street to your
> >local Ford Dealer. He can put you in a V8 Mustang for about the
> >price of the Cougar and blow the doors off of the Cougar and the
Mitsu.
> >Insurance is much cheaper too because the Mustang is RWD.
Not true. I called my agent and checked insurance prices. I asked about
the V6 Mustang and the V6 Cougar. The Mustang was $750 more per year.
The Cougar has no history and was actually cheaper than the 2000 Neon!
>
> That's pure fantasy. Assume similarly equipped cars:
>
> V6 Cougar, ABS, convenience group, sport group, destination charges -
> $19,325 MSRP
>
> V8 Mustang, convenience group, destination charges -
> $22,040 MSRP
>
Again let's assume similarly equipped cars:
V6 Cougar vs V6 Mustang
Here in Canada, The fully equipped Cougar goes for ~$25000, while the
fully equipped V6 Mustang is ~$22000. The V6 Mustang lacks leather, but
picks up 20HP over the Cougar. The V8 Mustang is closer to $31000 with
a boost of 85HP over the Cougar.
> The Mustang is $2,715 more
>
> Assume base model plus destination charges:
>
> V6 Cougar $17,290
> V8 Mustang $21,490
>
> The Mustang is $4,200 more.
>
> As for insurance, the Mustang, being classified as a high performance
> car, could possibly cost twice as much to insure as the Cougar.
>
> FWD or RWD means nothing to insurance companies.
>
No doubt.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Peter Bowen
>
> You said;
> backing up my previous statement that FWD cars are inherently
> safer than RWD cars in the hands of an inexperienced motorist.
> --
>
> I say;
>
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion but that doesn't
> make it factual. If you will check insurance rates as suggested,
> your insurance company will tell you your statement is NOT factual.
> They charge higher rated for FWD Vis a V RWD.
>
> It is precisely the INexperienced driver that goes into a spin by
> simply taking his/her foot of the throttle. They have no idea what
> decompression braking is, let alone how to over come its effect.
> They apply the brakes and end up in a ditch. Why do you think
> they make FWD cars with a shift lever that can be bumped into
> neutral without pressing a button? RWD cars do not have that
> feature.
>
> Frank
I've gained a bit of respect for you reading the general Ford
newsgroup, but every now and then you go out on a limb - and it breaks.
There is a V8 RWD car that in the automatic form WILL shift from drive
to neutral and back again without requiring the button to be pushed. In
fact I owned two of them. They were:
1. 1967 Ford Mustang (289 cid)
2. 1988 Pontiac Firebird Formula (350 cid)
The Mustang was a project car (My mother was the original owner), and
the Firebird was bought new. I thought it was a feature that you could
drop the tranny into first gear, and with a push on the stick, it would
shift when you wanted it to. Not that it really helped because the
Firebird tranny did a better job than I did :)
Also the Firebird was classified as a sedan in the same class as the
Grand Am. The Trans Am was in the same class as the Mustang and other
"Sport Coupes" but the Formula 350 was a sedan. See if you can figure
that logic out ;) BTW it was faster than the TA that year becuase the
TA had a "T" top and had to be detuned to prevent the car from twisting
itself apart. 300ish punds lighter is good too :)
I would be interested to know if any other cars with automatic shifters
on the floor will do this (I suspect so). However the 78' Granada
(302cid) had a column shift, and so I never tried shifting in and out of
drive without pulling the shift lever while I moved it. (BTW the new
Cougar is faster and handles better than the Mustang and Granada - The
Firebird is another story :)
-Peter
Frank Walton
Of course you are correct, there are always exceptions.
Some RWD my have that feature as well but my 99 GT requires
the button be pushed. BUT the fact remains ALL FWD cars
have this feature, for the reasons stated
You also said;
(BTW the new Cougar is faster and handles better than the
Mustang and Granada - The Firebird is another story :)
---
I say;
You are entitled to your opinion but would you like to bring
your 99 FWD Cougar and your title and run my 97 RWD T-Bird or
my 99 RWD Mustang? I'll even see you a $100 for your troubles.
I have owned at least ten Cougars but I switched to a Mustang
when they started to sell the Probe as a Cougar.
Frank
Frank Walton
Here in Canada, The fully equipped Cougar goes for ~$25000, while the
:)fully equipped V6 Mustang is ~$22000. The V6 Mustang lacks leather,
but
:)picks up 20HP over the Cougar. The V8 Mustang is closer to $31000 with
:)a boost of 85HP over the Cougar.
:)
:)> The Mustang is $2,715 more
--
You need to start buy you cars in the states. My 99 Mustang GT
Convertible had a sticker of $27,050. I paid $24,600 it has
ever option except 17" wheels (NO snow tires available for
the 17's) and the big speakers. You can get the V8 coupe
just like it for $20,100. My insurance is $195.40 for six
months. My wife's 99 Escort is $229.40 for six months (FWD)
My '00 Lincoln LS V8 is $224.40 (RWD) Her 99 Navigator is
244.80 (AWD)
Frank
Barrett Crowe
parts with the Probe and looks nothing like it. Because the new Cougar was
meant as a replacement for the Probe does not make it one. A more
appropriate name for it would be a Contique coupe. Besides...Cougars have
always been based on another platform but it's always been a Cougar, hasn't
it? BTW...don't tell me you owned one of those Cougar station wagons.
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:37BDE260...@ptdprolog.net...
Barrett Crowe
Ford does. Just because you don't like the new design and it doesn't fit
your view of what a Cougar should be doesn't make it any less of a Cougar.
When Ford used the Mustang platform, did that make it a Mustang? Likewise
with the Thunderbird chassis.
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:37BDF821...@ptdprolog.net...
> You said:
> Why do you insist on calling the Cougar a Probe? It shares absolutely
> NO
> parts with the Probe and looks nothing like it. Because the new Cougar
> was
> meant as a replacement for the Probe does not make it one. A more
> appropriate name for it would be a Contique coupe. Besides...Cougars
> have
> always been based on another platform but it's always been a Cougar,
> hasn't
> it? BTW...don't tell me you owned one of those Cougar station wagons.
>
> Barrett
>
>
> --
> Barrett
>
> You are a little tuff. Lets me explain it to you one more time.
> The design of an automobile is usually set about 3 years before
> they build the first one. The car they sell as the 1999 Cougar
> was originally to be sold as the 1998 Ford Probe. The change
> from the Mazda Chassis to the Mondeo chassis was part of the
> change. Probe sales bottomed in 1996. In 1997 sales were
> still off on the Probe even though we increased standard
> equipment by $300 and a reduced the MSRP by $1,100. The
> decision was made to drop the Probe in 1998 once the available
> Mazda Chassis where used up. The 1998 Probe was renamed the
> 1999 Cougar so that the Mercury dealers would not lose a vehicle
> in there line as the Ford dealers did with no 1999 T-Bird. The
> car they sell in the states as a Mercury is sold in Europe (I
> think in Canada as well in 2000) is called a FORD Cougar, the
> Probe name is dead. Do you understand now????
>
> Never had a Cougar wagon only convertibles or 2dr HT V8's.
> Wish I still had my 68 <Grin>
>
> Frank
Barrett Crowe
Frank Walton
Lemon Joke Kid
>your 99 FWD Cougar and your title and run my 97 RWD T-Bird or
>my 99 RWD Mustang? I'll even see you a $100 for your troubles.
>I have owned at least ten Cougars but I switched to a Mustang
>when they started to sell the Probe as a Cougar.
Do you have any performance numbers on the T-Bird?
Frank Walton
Do you have any performance numbers on the T-Bird?
--
I say
About 2 second quicker in the quarter than your Cougar
and about 12 MPH faster. Skidpad about 0.86.
Frank
Frank Walton
You are REAllY tuff. The point is the car was never designed
to be sold as a Mercury Cougar it was designed to be sold as
a Ford Probe. The only change was a business decision and
the only change to the vehicle was the name plate in the US.
--
Frank
Eric
classified as a HatchBack (big plus) or coupe
IS Manager wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:57:24 GMT, phor...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> :)In article <37a9017...@news.megsinet.net>,
> :) me wrote:
>
> :)Not true. I called my agent and checked insurance prices. I asked about
> :)the V6 Mustang and the V6 Cougar. The Mustang was $750 more per year.
> :)The Cougar has no history and was actually cheaper than the 2000 Neon!
> :)
>
> That is because the Cougar is catorgorized by insurance companies as a
> Sedan ... It hasn't been reclassified as a 2 door sports coupe yet ...
>
> The eclipse is more expensive on insurance as it is classified as a 2
> door sports coupe.
>
> And the Mustang is more expensive as it is classified as a 2 door
> sports car. The V8 makes it even more expensive on insurance.
>
> My 99 cougar is cheaper to insure than my old 4cylinder, 4 door toyota
> corolla. (by $2 every 6 months)
>
> When I priced out insurance on cars - the Cougar, Alero, grandam and
> grand prix - as they are all in the same catorgy.
>
> The others are strictly sports coupes - so the rates go up ...
>
> :)> V6 Cougar, ABS, convenience group, sport group, destination charges -
> :)> $19,325 MSRP
>
> here the MSRP is $21K ...
> :)>
> :)> V8 Mustang, convenience group, destination charges -
> :)> $22,040 MSRP
> :)>
> :)
> :)Again let's assume similarly equipped cars:
> :)V6 Cougar vs V6 Mustang
> :)Here in Canada, The fully equipped Cougar goes for ~$25000, while the
> :)fully equipped V6 Mustang is ~$22000. The V6 Mustang lacks leather, but
> :)picks up 20HP over the Cougar. The V8 Mustang is closer to $31000 with
> :)a boost of 85HP over the Cougar.
> :)
> :)> The Mustang is $2,715 more
> :)>
> :)> Assume base model plus destination charges:
> :)>
> :)> V6 Cougar $17,290
> :)> V8 Mustang $21,490
> :)>
> :)> The Mustang is $4,200 more.
> :)>
> :)> As for insurance, the Mustang, being classified as a high performance
> :)> car, could possibly cost twice as much to insure as the Cougar.
> :)>
> :)> FWD or RWD means nothing to insurance companies.
> :)>
> :)No doubt.
> :)
> :)
> :)Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> :)Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> IS Manager
> Delete the "not.at." to reply
>
> Dogbert: "From now on I will not try to reason with
> the idiots I encounter. I will dismiss them by waving
> my paw and saying, "BAH.""
TT
much faster off the line (based on my one week of field testing ;-)
As far as tangs go, you'll have to be a better driver go against a v-6 and
with the v8, uh, forget about it. ( I usually just rev up and let them
squawk away, maybe they'll get a ticket hehe!)
Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:37BECC70...@ptdprolog.net...
Lemon Joke Kid
> --
>
> I say
>
> About 2 second quicker in the quarter than your Cougar
> and about 12 MPH faster. Skidpad about 0.86.
>
> Frank
The Cougar does the quarter in 16.0 seconds. You're telling me a '97
T-Bird will do about 14.0? Not in a million years if it's stock. If
it isn't than the comparison is pointless.
Frank Walton
The Cougar does the quarter in 16.0 seconds. You're telling me a '97
T-Bird will do about 14.0? Not in a million years if it's stock. If
it isn't than the comparison is pointless.
--
I say;
Actually it's 16.4 for the Cougar and 14.6 for the T-Bird. So
like I said bring your title, or be quiet.
Frank
Barrett Crowe
you're quoting
a time you read from an article on the Cougar. You should know there are
many variables in producing accurate times. Unless you've raced both of
them side by side, YOU be quiet.
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:37C1CC4B...@ptdprolog.net...
Frank Walton
You're probably quoting a time you got yourself in the
Thunderbird yet you're quoting a time you read from an
article on the Cougar. You should know there are many
variables in producing accurate times. Unless you've
raced both of them side by side, YOU be quiet.
Barrett
--
I say;
Naw Barrett, it was me and the guy that owns the local FLM
dealership running the cars at Maple Grove. We both drove
EACH of the cars. I had a better time, by .3, in the Cougar
than he did. On a windy mountain road the Bird was miles
ahead of the Cougar in a 12 mile run through the Poconos.
By the way he doesn't like the NEW Cougar either. He told
me the Mercury Dealer Council expects to get a Cougar off
the LS after Ford gets the T-Bird. The current Cougar will
only be built as long as the Contour lasts, a year or two.
Frank
Peter Bowen
>
> I say;
>
> You are entitled to your opinion but would you like to bring
> your 99 FWD Cougar and your title and run my 97 RWD T-Bird or
> my 99 RWD Mustang? I'll even see you a $100 for your troubles.
> I have owned at least ten Cougars but I switched to a Mustang
> when they started to sell the Probe as a Cougar.
>
LOL :) Why not put me up against a NASCAR racer or a NHRA Dragster :)
Of course the 97 Tbird and 99 Mustang are different cars than the
Cougar. The other funny thing is that I owned an older Cougar too - It
was just called a Granada :P Oh yeah, and the other Cougar was a
Mustang. Get over the Probe thing. LOL
How about if I bring a Firebird (or an RX-7) and really embarass you
:) Too bad that I can't drive more than one car LOL :)
-Peter
PS I'm not clueless enough to think that an RX is in the same class as
the Firebird or Mustang as far as reliability is concerned :)
Sean Deuby
I just stumbled across this newsgroup, and thread. I'm seriously considering
a 99/2K Cougar, Z-plan. A drawback is that it's a bit underpowered
(V-6/standard). This thread says it's about engine enhancements - was there
ever actually anything IN the thread about engine enhancements? :-)
Regards,
Sean
Barrett Crowe <btc...@spamkillsmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7penks$n4s$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> Why would most Volvos, a company whose whole selling point is safety, be
> FWD? It's definitely not because of cost. Volvo has never been a company
> to save a few dollars at the expense of safety.
>
> Barrett
>
> --
> remove "spamkills" to reply
> Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
> news:37AB0CB2...@ptdprolog.net...
> > Frank personally I think it is because yu have a better driving record
> > than
Anthony Festino
Anthony Festino
Barrett Crowe <btc...@spamkillsmindspring.com> wrote in article
<7q9dn1$4tc$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> I don't think there was any specific enhancements listed but if you check
> out www.neco.org, you'll find a bunch there.
>
> Barrett
>
> --
> remove "spamkills" to reply
> Sean Deuby <sean....@technologist.com> wrote in message
> news:LGTx3.130$vN6...@news.flash.net...
Barrett Crowe
Barrett Crowe
information about Ellis Island Medals of Honor? ;)
Barrett
--
remove "spamkills" to reply
Anthony Festino <fest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:01bef18c$fd53de00$86747bd1@newmicronpc...
> That would be www.newcougar.org
>
> Anthony Festino
>
> Barrett Crowe <btc...@spamkillsmindspring.com> wrote in article
> <7q9dn1$4tc$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
Ryan Marrs
207,000 miles. Doing the first engine work on it as we speak. (Blew a head
gasket [ real pain ].) Other than that, it's a beast. I've taken anything
from T-Birds, to Monte Carlos in that beast. And I agree. I've only lost 4
races, 2 of them were to a Ford Lightning (same truck both times) and once
to a crotch rocket (I had that coming). I'm proud of that car. Everyone
tells me to bury it because it's done. I'm pushing for 500,000 miles before
I'll even CONSIDER trading it in. It's the most beautiful car I've ever
seen. I used to be a Mustang lover 'til I got my Cougar. I've been in
about 35 races since I got it 6 months ago. I've raced T-birds, Firebirds,
Mustangs, Cobras, Crown Vics Monte's, F150s, even a D.A.R.E. Dodge Viper
(The 4th loss). I wouldn't trade that Cougar for anything. While we've got
it torn apart, we slapped a turbo chip in there. I'm just waiting to see
how much peelage I can take off the tires with that =).
Ryan Marrs
Barrett Crowe <btc...@spamkillsmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7pkq9e$7hq$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Why do you insist on calling the Cougar a Probe? It shares absolutely NO
> parts with the Probe and looks nothing like it. Because the new Cougar
was
> meant as a replacement for the Probe does not make it one. A more
> appropriate name for it would be a Contique coupe. Besides...Cougars have
> always been based on another platform but it's always been a Cougar,
hasn't
> it? BTW...don't tell me you owned one of those Cougar station wagons.
>
> Barrett
>
> --
> remove "spamkills" to reply
> Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
> news:37BDE260...@ptdprolog.net...
> > Peter
> >
> > Of course you are correct, there are always exceptions.
> > Some RWD my have that feature as well but my 99 GT requires
> > the button be pushed. BUT the fact remains ALL FWD cars
> > have this feature, for the reasons stated
> >
> > You also said;
> >
> > (BTW the new Cougar is faster and handles better than the
> > Mustang and Granada - The Firebird is another story :)
> >