Which GT Mustang is Better to get?? 94 5.0 or 96-up 4.6L?
Gerardo Ordonez
Well I'm looking in to buying a Mustang GT a 94-up. But I'm not really sure
which GT is better to get. Can someone help me out with my selection? I
would LOVE to get a SVT Cobra but it is out of my budget. (I'm 18 yrs old) .
Bye!
Go Topless
Without trying to start a long drawn out thread about 4.6 vs 5.0 I'll just say
that if you plan to modify and make it faster, then go for the 94/95 since the
5.0 has the aftermarket for it. That, and since they are older you'll probably
get one cheaper. Other than that, they're basically the same... Each one has
strengths and weaknesses but each a great buy.
-----------
94 Conv GT
3.55's, Home-made Filter charger,
Underdrive pulleys, 180 thermo,
Edelbrock Performer 5.0 uppr&lwr,
24lb injectors, Vortech 73mm MAF,
Terminator mufflers, flow-tech h-pipe
KF1ST
Personally, I would buy a 94 5.0L if you want the new body style. Since you are
only 18 years old(I don't know what type of budget you're on) the 94 should be
WAY cheaper than a '96 and it still has the 5.0 engine. As far as
modifications are concerned, the 5.0l engine will give you alot more "bang for
the buck" in products such as headers, heads, etc. anyways, my .02 .
Ken F.
92 gt
Ken F.
KF...@AOL.COM
Brock Blythe
Yes, the 5.0 has a slightly bigger aftermarket now, but what about in the
future????? Either way, the two cars are the same in both looks and performance.
However, I say go with the 4.6, since your not going to be able to find a 5.0 still
under warranty. I would never buy a used car without a factory warranty.
Brock Blythe
1997 Mustang Cobra #129
Go Topless
Yes 100x more. The aftermarket has had almost 12 years to develop mods for the EFI 5.0,
while only 2 years for the 4.6. There are more brands/styles of heads, intakes, TB's, MAFs,
Superchargers, camshafts, stroker kits, roller rockers, ignitions, etc.. available for the
5.0. Some over a dozen in each category. I could list hundreds, but to save myself time I
ask that you open up any copy of MM&FF or Super Ford and look at the ads. As far as 4.6 mods
being expensive, I was referrring to the SVO intake and heads for the sohc 4.6. I believe
they're the same heads Barry Shepard uses on his 4.6 and are upwards of $2000. The intake is
about twice as expensive as an aftermarket intake for a 5.0. Two thousand dollars *is*
expensive to me - maybe not to you since you can afford to own a Cobra :)
Brock Blythe wrote:
> Go Topless wrote:
>
> > brock Blythe wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, the 5.0 has a slightly bigger aftermarket now, but what about in the
> > > future????? Either way, the two cars are the same in both looks and performance.
> > > However, I say go with the 4.6, since your not going to be able to find a 5.0 still
> > > under warranty. I would never buy a used car without a factory warranty.
> >
> > *Slightly* bigger aftermarket?? Slightly?? I'd say there are at least 100x's more
> > aftermarket parts for 5.0s than the 4.6. And of what little 4.6 mods are out there
> > from SVO, are extremely expsensive. As far as the future, there are, and probably
> > always will be more 5.0 motors out there running around then there will be 4.6 SOHC
> > motors (for some reason I doubt ford will keep the sohc 4.6 for 16 years). As long as
> > there are more 5.0's, that's where the biggest aftermarket will be. If you want to
> > modify, buy the 5.0, period. Now and in the foreseeable future. If you are comftable
> > with 215 hp, buy the 4.6.
> >
>
> 100x's more mods???????? 100x's MORE?????? LIST AWAY!!!! I'd like to see this. The
> only mods out, are made by SVO????? Explain this one to me too!!!! The mods for a 4.6
> are "EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE"????? I don't see eye to eye with ya here either. I think the
> cost is the same, and if they are different, it's only by $10-$20 dollars. So, where are
> you getting, "EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE"!!! Is 10 Bucks expensive for you?????? Do you roll
> pennies????? J/K : ) !!!!
-----------
94 Conv GT - Deep Forest Green
- 3.55's, Home-made Filter charger,
- Underdrive pulleys, 180 thermo,
- Edelbrock Performer 5.0 uppr&lwr,
- 24lb injectors, Vortech 73mm MAF,
- Terminator mufflers, flow-tech h-pipe
Windshield Decal "GO TOPLESS"
Go Topless
brock Blythe wrote:
> Yes, the 5.0 has a slightly bigger aftermarket now, but what about in the
> future????? Either way, the two cars are the same in both looks and performance.
> However, I say go with the 4.6, since your not going to be able to find a 5.0 still
> under warranty. I would never buy a used car without a factory warranty.
*Slightly* bigger aftermarket?? Slightly?? I'd say there are at least 100x's more
aftermarket parts for 5.0s than the 4.6. And of what little 4.6 mods are out there
from SVO, are extremely expsensive. As far as the future, there are, and probably
always will be more 5.0 motors out there running around then there will be 4.6 SOHC
motors (for some reason I doubt ford will keep the sohc 4.6 for 16 years). As long as
there are more 5.0's, that's where the biggest aftermarket will be. If you want to
modify, buy the 5.0, period. Now and in the foreseeable future. If you are comftable
with 215 hp, buy the 4.6.
-----------
JCS
"Gerardo Ordonez" <jer...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Well I'm looking in to buying a Mustang GT a 94-up. But I'm not really sure
>which GT is better to get. Can someone help me out with my selection? I
>would LOVE to get a SVT Cobra but it is out of my budget. (I'm 18 yrs old) .
>Bye!
Personally, if you're buying used, I go for the 94 GT. I own both a
94 GT and 97 Cobra and have done some comparisons. In order to keep
the price down, Ford, like any other manufacturer, looks for things
that can be cut out to save money. For example, the sound deadening
insulation is not as good on my 97 as on my 94. Other little things
like the courtesy light package doesn't include as many little lights
in all the same places as on the 94. Granted, these are little
things. There are more mods to do on the 5.0 at the present time but
that will change in the future but by buying a 94, you'll have more
money to do those mods too. The body styles are the same and you can
make a 94 much nicer than any show room stock 96 up.
DOUGLAS S JANES
JCS <jac...@bright.net> wrote in article
<64r6qq$t4h$1...@cletus.bright.net>...
> If your looking for speed, go with the 94-95 5.0 over the 4.6. You can do
far more modifications to the 5.0, from miled to f--king wild. I have a 90
LX 5.0 that will stomp the hell out of any 4.6 cobra, camaro, or corvette,
and you can do the same to the 94-95 5.0s .
Jim Stoltz
Gary Henderson wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 1997 05:00:40 GMT, "DOUGLAS S JANES" <PONY...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> If your looking for speed, go with the 94-95 5.0 over the 4.6. You can do
> >far more modifications to the 5.0, from miled to f--king wild. I have a 90
> >LX 5.0 that will stomp the hell out of any 4.6 cobra, camaro, or corvette,
> >and you can do the same to the 94-95 5.0s .
>
> there. Somehow I really doubt your '90 LX beats any/all of them.
What gave it away is the "ANY 4.6 cobra, camaro, or corvette".....
If you haven't been beat, you haven't been racing enough.
Jim
--
1988 Mustang GT Convertible - Powerdyne Supercharged
1970 Monte Carlo - "402 big block", Muncie M20, 12-bolt
http://home.att.net/~jstoltz
Go Topless
Brock Blythe wrote:
> Easier and less expensive??? How much easier an less expensive??? There are plenty
> of mods for a 4.6. Every mod you have on your car is available for the same price
> or close to it for a 4.6. Except for the "GO TOPLESS" sticker. I'm not sure they
> have one of those for a 4.6 yet!!!!!! But...give them time : ) !!! What I'm
> getting at is: Every major mod that the average person, excluding competition drag
> racers, does to their car is available for the 4.6. So what if there aren't 10
> different super chargers for a 4.6. Can you put 10 superchargers in one car??? I
> think not!!! So what difference does it make.
Hmm.. Lots more people than just "competition drag racers" add better intakes, heads,
and cams to their engines, yet the 4.6 really really lacks in this area. And of what
are available, you're trying to tell me they're of comparable price? Hello? Earth to
Brock? you're fading away buddy. The only aftermarket heads available for the 4.6 are
over $2000 while you can get better flowing aluminum heads for 5.0s for under $1000. As
far as intakes, the same thing. The SVO intake for the 4.6 is around $1000 while you
can get a Cobra 5.0 intake for $350-400...Cams? Let's not even go there. And yes,
they're much easier to install on a 5.0. You can argue all you want to defend your 4.6
if it makes you feel better. The bottom line is this - it's easier and less expensive
to make the 5.0 go faster than the 4.6. Period. End of story.
Gary Henderson
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:51:53 GMT, Go Topless <top...@5.O.com> wrote:
>> Bullshit. Their are plenty of fast Cobras, Camaros, and Corvettes out
>> there. Somehow I really doubt your '90 LX beats any/all of them.
>
>I think what he was getting at, is the fact that it's easier and less expensive
>to make the 5.0 fast. As far as his lx being faster than everything listed, I'm
>sure he meant stock.. and I've seen quite a few street stangs that could make
>the same claim so he isn't necessarily exagerating
Agreed, but why are we comparing stock cars to a modified one? What
does that prove? What happens when the Cobra owner decided to get
serious about mods?
Brock Blythe
Go Topless wrote:
> Gary Henderson wrote:
>
> > On 20 Nov 1997 05:00:40 GMT, "DOUGLAS S JANES" <PONY...@prodigy.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> If your looking for speed, go with the 94-95 5.0 over the 4.6. You can do
> > >far more modifications to the 5.0, from miled to f--king wild. I have a 90
> > >LX 5.0 that will stomp the hell out of any 4.6 cobra, camaro, or corvette,
> > >and you can do the same to the 94-95 5.0s .
> >
> > Bullshit. Their are plenty of fast Cobras, Camaros, and Corvettes out
> > there. Somehow I really doubt your '90 LX beats any/all of them.
>
> I think what he was getting at, is the fact that it's easier and less expensive
> to make the 5.0 fast. As far as his lx being faster than everything listed, I'm
> sure he meant stock.. and I've seen quite a few street stangs that could make
> the same claim so he isn't necessarily exagerating
>
Easier and less expensive??? How much easier an less expensive??? There are plenty
of mods for a 4.6. Every mod you have on your car is available for the same price
or close to it for a 4.6. Except for the "GO TOPLESS" sticker. I'm not sure they
have one of those for a 4.6 yet!!!!!! But...give them time : ) !!! What I'm
getting at is: Every major mod that the average person, excluding competition drag
racers, does to their car is available for the 4.6. So what if there aren't 10
different super chargers for a 4.6. Can you put 10 superchargers in one car??? I
think not!!! So what difference does it make.
Brock Blythe
1997 Mustang Cobra #129
> -----------
Cool Guy
The 5.0's are way cheaper!
Go Topless wrote in message <3475E15D...@5.O.com>...
>Brock Blythe wrote:
>
>> Easier and less expensive??? How much easier an less expensive??? There
are plenty
>> of mods for a 4.6. Every mod you have on your car is available for the
same price
>> or close to it for a 4.6. Except for the "GO TOPLESS" sticker. I'm not
sure they
>> have one of those for a 4.6 yet!!!!!! But...give them time : ) !!! What
I'm
>> getting at is: Every major mod that the average person, excluding
competition drag
>> racers, does to their car is available for the 4.6. So what if there
aren't 10
>> different super chargers for a 4.6. Can you put 10 superchargers in one
car??? I
>> think not!!! So what difference does it make.
>
>Hmm.. Lots more people than just "competition drag racers" add better
intakes, heads,
>and cams to their engines, yet the 4.6 really really lacks in this area.
And of what
>are available, you're trying to tell me they're of comparable price?
Hello? Earth to
>Brock? you're fading away buddy. The only aftermarket heads available for
the 4.6 are
>over $2000 while you can get better flowing aluminum heads for 5.0s for
under $1000. As
>far as intakes, the same thing. The SVO intake for the 4.6 is around $1000
while you
>can get a Cobra 5.0 intake for $350-400...Cams? Let's not even go there.
And yes,
>they're much easier to install on a 5.0. You can argue all you want to
defend your 4.6
>if it makes you feel better. The bottom line is this - it's easier and
less expensive
>to make the 5.0 go faster than the 4.6. Period. End of story.
>
NoOption5L
>Easier and less expensive??? How much easier an less expensive??? There are
>plenty
>of mods for a 4.6. Every mod you have on your car is available for the same
>price
>or close to it for a 4.6.
Close to the same price as a 5L part? Yea, maybe if your name is Ted Turner,
Bill Gates or Ross Perrot.
Except for the "GO TOPLESS" sticker. I'm not sure
>they
>have one of those for a 4.6 yet!!!!!! But...give them time : ) !!! What I'm
>getting at is: Every major mod that the average person, excluding
>competition drag
>racers, does to their car is available for the 4.6. So what if there aren't
>10
>different super chargers for a 4.6. Can you put 10 superchargers in one
>car??? I
>think not!!! So what difference does it make.
>Brock Blythe
>1997 Mustang Cobra #129
>
NSI Inc
Oh YEAH?!
Well my 4.6 DOHC Cobra (STOCK) engine is faster than ANY 5.0 (STOCK) engine
EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
It always cracks me up how the 5.0 vs 4.6 civil wars always go in here. My
guess is that most 5.0 sided owners know very little about the 4.6...... and to
a lesser extent.... vice versa.
AR
'96 Mystic Mustang Cobra Coupe
#336 of 2000 MYSTC1
Go Topless
NSI Inc wrote:
> Oh YEAH?!
>
> Well my 4.6 DOHC Cobra (STOCK) engine is faster than ANY 5.0 (STOCK) engine
> EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
>
> It always cracks me up how the 5.0 vs 4.6 civil wars always go in here. My
> guess is that most 5.0 sided owners know very little about the 4.6...... and to
> a lesser extent.... vice versa.
Oh really? I've seen stock 93 Cobra 5.0's race stock 96 Cobra 4.6's and the 5.0
waxed the 4.6 each time. The extra hp the 4.6 had only made up for it's weight,
and it's lesser torque could not match the 5.0. I personally couldn't care less, I
just thought I'd add that to your comment :)
Steven Fisher
Yes, and it costs what, $6,000 more? Not to mention the insurance prices...
NSI Inc wrote in message <19971124182...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>Oh YEAH?!
>
>Well my 4.6 DOHC Cobra (STOCK) engine is faster than ANY 5.0 (STOCK)
engine
>EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
>
>
>It always cracks me up how the 5.0 vs 4.6 civil wars always go in here. My
>guess is that most 5.0 sided owners know very little about the 4.6......
and to
>a lesser extent.... vice versa.
>
Gary Henderson
On 24 Nov 1997 18:25:43 GMT, nsi...@aol.com (NSI Inc) wrote:
>Oh YEAH?!
>
>Well my 4.6 DOHC Cobra (STOCK) engine is faster than ANY 5.0 (STOCK) engine
>EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
MM&FF was able to get a 13.8 out of a '93 Cobra a few years back on
street tires. What did they get out of their project Cobra on street
tires? I know it went 13.5 w/ slicks, but I would suspect a '93 Cobra
could do just as well with slicks. Don't forget about those '93
Cobras.
Brock Blythe
Go Topless wrote:
> NSI Inc wrote:
>
> > Oh YEAH?!
> >
> > Well my 4.6 DOHC Cobra (STOCK) engine is faster than ANY 5.0 (STOCK) engine
> > EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
> >
> > It always cracks me up how the 5.0 vs 4.6 civil wars always go in here. My
> > guess is that most 5.0 sided owners know very little about the 4.6...... and to
> > a lesser extent.... vice versa.
>
> Oh really? I've seen stock 93 Cobra 5.0's race stock 96 Cobra 4.6's and the 5.0
> waxed the 4.6 each time. The extra hp the 4.6 had only made up for it's weight,
> and it's lesser torque could not match the 5.0. I personally couldn't care less, I
> just thought I'd add that to your comment :)
>
DO WHAT???? HA!!!!! Topless, you need to have your exhaust system checked out,
because the exhaust fumes are going to your head. That is the crazy. You definitely
fit the biased 5.0 owner description that the NSI guy wrote about above.
thns;jrhufgcdhyefhcsd6e OOOPS!!! I'm sorry, I'm having trouble typing, because I'm
still laughing so hard : ) !!!!!!! There isn't anything that I can't stand more than
when BIASED 5.0 owners constantly put down other Mustangs. Why can't we all just get
along??????? By the way, the 4.6 Cobra has more torque than the 5.0 Cobras. By the
way, isn't the 5.0 really a true 4.9???????
nos...@mdi.ca
In <3479E22E...@5.O.com>, on 11/24/97
>NSI Inc wrote:
>> Oh YEAH?!
>>
>> Well my 4.6 DOHC Cobra (STOCK) engine is faster than ANY 5.0 (STOCK) engine
>> EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
>>
>> It always cracks me up how the 5.0 vs 4.6 civil wars always go in here. My
>> guess is that most 5.0 sided owners know very little about the 4.6...... and to
>> a lesser extent.... vice versa.
>Oh really? I've seen stock 93 Cobra 5.0's race stock 96 Cobra 4.6's and
>the 5.0 waxed the 4.6 each time. The extra hp the 4.6 had only made up for
>it's weight, and it's lesser torque could not match the 5.0. I personally
>couldn't care less, I just thought I'd add that to your comment :)
What's the Torque rating for the 93 Cobra 5.0? the 4.6L DOHC is at 305
LB/ft... and higher revs will allow you to do less shifts, and save the time
that you car will spend on gliding when you shift gears... which usually
will be more than 0.3 seconds... so there...
===Proud Member of Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICENews Beta Tester===
===================And Bovine Team Warped Key Crucher====================
NUTS' Home Base
US Mirror http://www.cybermail.net/~davidwei
Taiwanese Mirror http://www.taconet.com.tw/~davidwei
光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 <<>> Hope_Net CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
nos...@mdi.ca
In <19971124182...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, on 11/24/97
>Oh YEAH?!
>Well my 4.6 DOHC Cobra (STOCK) engine is faster than ANY 5.0 (STOCK)
>engine EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
>It always cracks me up how the 5.0 vs 4.6 civil wars always go in here. My
>guess is that most 5.0 sided owners know very little about the 4.6......
>and to a lesser extent.... vice versa.
And funny that there are no civil wars between 3.8 and either of the V8...
:)
Gary Henderson
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:24:49 GMT, Go Topless <top...@5.O.com> wrote:
>> Well my 4.6 DOHC Cobra (STOCK) engine is faster than ANY 5.0 (STOCK) engine
>> EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
>>
>> It always cracks me up how the 5.0 vs 4.6 civil wars always go in here. My
>> guess is that most 5.0 sided owners know very little about the 4.6...... and to
>> a lesser extent.... vice versa.
>
>Oh really? I've seen stock 93 Cobra 5.0's race stock 96 Cobra 4.6's and the 5.0
>waxed the 4.6 each time. The extra hp the 4.6 had only made up for it's weight,
>and it's lesser torque could not match the 5.0. I personally couldn't care less, I
>just thought I'd add that to your comment :)
Exactly the point I made in an earlier post. People forget about the
'93 Cobras, they were bad cars! I have seen them run slicks and very
minor mods and be running high 12s.
********************************
94 White Firebird Formula
A4 3.23, K&N, Edlebrock Cat-Back
13.66 @ 100.56 MPH
SEEverist
Here is the original post that this argument has stemmed from:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Which GT Mustang is Better to get?? 94 5.0 or 96-up 4.6L?
From: "Gerardo Ordonez" <jer...@worldnet.att.net>
Date: 1997/11/13
Message-ID: <64g08v$g...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
[More Headers]
Well I'm looking in to buying a Mustang GT a 94-up. But I'm not really sure
which GT is better to get. Can someone help me out with my selection? I
would LOVE to get a SVT Cobra but it is out of my budget. (I'm 18 yrs old) .
Bye!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
First of all, Gerardo wasn't asking for a debate about the most powerful of
each vehicle. He stated that an SVT was out of his budget. (at 18, my budget
was a '72 Buick GS and I thought I was lucky).
Has anyone answered his question as originally posted, or was everyone looking
for a chance to argue the merits of their own personal choice in Mustang.
When looking at the difference between a '94 GT and a '96 GT, what should be
considered are the needs of the buyer. IMO the 5.0l versions have more
aftermarket parts, if that is what he plans on doing. But, if he plans on
keeping it stock, he should be considering longevity and gas mileage along with
engine noise and smoothness of the engine (Ford refers to as Noise, Vibration,
and Harshness). It is already a known fact that a stock version of either of
these cars will be eaten by the older 5.0's (remember, still talking non-cobra
versions). Also, the newer Camaros/Firebirds will also have them for lunch.
I would recommend the 5.0l version due to it's modification potential, cost for
parts, cheaper to buy/insure than the newer models (for god's sake, he's only
18, insurance will be like a second car payment) and it's ability to be
maximized in near-stock form.
Gerardo is asking for help from this NewsGroup, not looking for another month
long argument about which is better between the most powerful of each and which
has more torque, horsepower, or cams.......
Steve
The only substitute for cubic inches is cubic dollars
Smitty
> Well I'm looking in to buying a Mustang GT a 94-up. But I'm not
> really sure which GT is better to get. Can someone help me out
> with my selection? I would LOVE to get a SVT Cobra but it is out
> of my budget. (I'm 18 yrs old).
> Bye!
As we have already seen, this is a loaded question. The answer is - it
depends. Are you going to keep it mostly stock, or mod it up? The 5.0
will be easier to modify (ease and abundance of parts). If you are
going to keep it mostly stock, and just have fun driving it, then I
would recommend the 4.6. IMHO, it's a better daily driver.
I have had both, a '95 GT 5.0 and now a '98 GT 4.6. Personally, I like
the 4.6 better. Once I installed some 3.73's in my '98, it is a blast
to drive and as fast as the '95. The 4.6 is smoother, revvs easier, and
is just more fun to drive, especially with a 5-speed. The 3.73's make
up for the lack of torque down low, and really wake up the performance
overall (vs. 3.27's). The stock exhaust sounds just great as it is
(better than 3 chamber flows on the '95). Just add a shifter and a K&N
filter and you've got a fun daily driver.
Either way you can't go wrong.
Smitty
'98 Mustang GT Convertible
- Laser Red/Black/Black
- 3.73's, K&N w/o silencer, Pro-5.0 w/Steeda handle
csi
I think they switched to the 4.6 in 95?
What do you plan to do to it? There are alot of cheap kits and mods for the
ever-reliable 5.0 (fords greatest I think). So it may be more economical to
get started w/ a relatively low tech 5.0
I had a very similar converse w/ a motorsport tech who put it this way (in a
nutshell):
The 5.0 is a great engine and did wonderful things. In the 60s it was a
150+hp motor, in the 70s it grew to 200+ in the 80s Ford SVT techs were
getting 300+hp from it, after 30 years of tinkering. The 4.6, after only a
few years from conception to use began its life w/ (I believe) 32 valves,
thus better breathing&performance, putting out 250-350+hp and has already
been tested w/ as much as 400+ by ford SVT.
Soon the 302 will got the way of the 289 in sport applic. They are now
equiping the expeditions and explorers w/ the exact 302 that is in my '87. I
am a big fan of the 302 design, and parts are everwhere. If you blow that
new 4.6 from overkill or bad maint. you could probably turn around and buy
10 used, 5.0s.
Plus, for the price of a new 4.6, why not just go up to a supercharged 351,
and other bells/whistles. Saleen does this in their SR coupes and are
getting 510-700+ hp. for a relatively low$ mod. How much do you want to
spend? how fast is fast enough?
Smitty
csi wrote:
>
> I think they switched to the 4.6 in 95?
Nope, definitely 5.0 in '95 and 4.6 in '96
> What do you plan to do to it? There are alot of cheap kits and mods for the
> ever-reliable 5.0 (fords greatest I think). So it may be more economical to
> get started w/ a relatively low tech 5.0
> I had a very similar converse w/ a motorsport tech who put it this way (in a
> nutshell):
> The 5.0 is a great engine and did wonderful things. In the 60s it was a
> 150+hp motor, in the 70s it grew to 200+ in the 80s Ford SVT techs were
> getting 300+hp from it, after 30 years of tinkering. The 4.6, after only a
> few years from conception to use began its life w/ (I believe) 32 valves,
> thus better breathing&performance, putting out 250-350+hp and has already
> been tested w/ as much as 400+ by ford SVT.
> Soon the 302 will got the way of the 289 in sport applic. They are now
> equiping the expeditions and explorers w/ the exact 302 that is in my '87.
Nope again, the Explorer has the 5.0 (302) since '96, the 4.6 is slated
for the next generation Explorer. The Expedition comes with either the
4.6 or 5.4, not a 5.0.
> I am a big fan of the 302 design, and parts are everwhere. If you blow that
> new 4.6 from overkill or bad maint. you could probably turn around and buy
> 10 used, 5.0s.
> Plus, for the price of a new 4.6, why not just go up to a supercharged 351,
> and other bells/whistles. Saleen does this in their SR coupes and are
> getting 510-700+ hp. for a relatively low$ mod.
Nope for the third time. A Saleen S351 is about $50,000 with a
supercharged 351. You could buy two nice Cobras for that. How is that
relatively low?
> How much do you want to spend? how fast is fast enough?
How do you get off giving advice? Next time, try to get at least some
of your facts staight...
Smitty
'98 Mustang GT Convertible
- Laser Red/Black/Black
- 3.73's, K&N, Pro-5.0
'96 Explorer XLT V8 2WD
- Black/Saddle
David A. Lyons
NSI Inc wrote:
>
> Oh YEAH?!
>
> engine EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
Don't be so hasty there, Cowboy. Ever heard of "production variances"?
That means that of all the 302s that come out of the plant, some will be
better than others. There could be a handful of *really* good ones,
too. Given that the *average* 302 is capable of propelling a '87-'93
5-speed Mustang body throught the quarter-mile at 96-97 mph, don't you
think that there are some above and below average? And don't you think
there are a few that are really above and really below average?
What happens when you put one of those "really below" average DOHC 281s
up against one of those "really above" average 302s?
And how about the '93 Cobra 302s? What do they run off the showroom
floor? Close to 100mph in the 1/4-mile. Gee, don't the DOHC 281s run a
tad bit faster than that? Now what about an above average '93 Cobra
302? Surely it'll run 100 or better.
NEVER say "My ___ is faster/better/quicker/<insert favorite adjective
here> than ANY ___". That's stupid; Satan-boy does that all the time.
You don't want to be a mental midget like Satan-boy, do you?
--
David A. Lyons
0to60
nos...@mdi.ca wrote:
> What's the Torque rating for the 93 Cobra 5.0? the 4.6L DOHC is at 305
> LB/ft... and higher revs will allow you to do less shifts, and save the time
> that you car will spend on gliding when you shift gears... which usually
> will be more than 0.3 seconds... so there...
I thought the same thing. The DOHC Cobra finishes the quarter at the
top of third gear. That's one less shift. But, my car still runs a
13.87. I would have thought that the extra shift would have saved me
more time.
0to60
"Gerardo Ordonez" <jer...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Well I'm looking in to buying a Mustang GT a 94-up. But I'm not really sure
> which GT is better to get. Can someone help me out with my selection? I
> would LOVE to get a SVT Cobra but it is out of my budget. (I'm 18 yrs old) .
> Bye!
Depends on what you want. A newer GT is gonna cost a lot more for
insurance. Any 18 year old kid has a lot of better things to spend
money on than car insurance (save for a house, save for school, save
period).
If you want speed for cheap, you can't beat a LX 5.0.
0to60
Gary Henderson wrote:
> MM&FF was able to get a 13.8 out of a '93 Cobra a few years back on
> street tires. What did they get out of their project Cobra on street
> tires? I know it went 13.5 w/ slicks, but I would suspect a '93 Cobra
> could do just as well with slicks. Don't forget about those '93
> Cobras.
MM&FF tries VERY HARD to get good times out of their cars. I wouldn't
count on getting their DOHC Cobra numbers out of my DOHC Cobra. I
question their honesty.
NoOption5L
>> I am a big fan of the 302 design, and parts are everwhere. If you blow
>that
>> new 4.6 from overkill or bad maint. you could probably turn around and buy
>> 10 used, 5.0s.
>> Plus, for the price of a new 4.6, why not just go up to a supercharged 351,
>> and other bells/whistles. Saleen does this in their SR coupes and are
>> getting 510-700+ hp. for a relatively low$ mod.
>
>Nope for the third time. A Saleen S351 is about $50,000 with a
>supercharged 351. You could buy two nice Cobras for that. How is that
>relatively low?
Maybe he was talking about buying a crate 351 and adding a S/C then installing
it in a Mustang body.
Patrick
David A. Lyons
Gary Henderson wrote:
>
> MM&FF was able to get a 13.8 out of a '93 Cobra a few years back on
> street tires. What did they get out of their project Cobra on street
> tires? I know it went 13.5 w/ slicks, but I would suspect a '93 Cobra
> could do just as well with slicks. Don't forget about those '93
> Cobras.
You will find that article here: http://g50mc.org/shootout/mmff9307.html
in annotated form.
Althought the traps speeds look realistic, those ETs must be the result
of some damn good driving. It does mention that they got a 1.97 60'
time out of the Camaro. So traction must've been decent.
--
David A. Lyons
nos...@mdi.ca
nos...@mdi.ca
In <19971126231...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, on 11/26/97
>>> I am a big fan of the 302 design, and parts are everwhere. If you blow
>>that
>>> new 4.6 from overkill or bad maint. you could probably turn around and buy
>>> 10 used, 5.0s.
>>> Plus, for the price of a new 4.6, why not just go up to a supercharged 351,
>>> and other bells/whistles. Saleen does this in their SR coupes and are
>>> getting 510-700+ hp. for a relatively low$ mod.
>>
>>Nope for the third time. A Saleen S351 is about $50,000 with a
>>supercharged 351. You could buy two nice Cobras for that. How is that
>>relatively low?
>Maybe he was talking about buying a crate 351 and adding a S/C then
>installing it in a Mustang body.
Yeah, that'd be nice... get that 4 bolt block... shoule enable you to make
well over 1000 HP... :) After that, you should really consider engine
company like GE and Pratt & Whitney for a turbine engine designed for
choppers... :) or maybe two engines... :)
Henry
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:05:47 -0500, "David A. Lyons" <lyo...@mindspring.org>
wrote:
>NSI Inc wrote:
>> Well my 4.6 DOHC Cobra (STOCK) engine is faster than ANY 5.0 (STOCK)
>> engine EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
Actually I believe that the 93 Cobra IS faster than the 96 Cobra! Let
compare apples to apples. According to Motor Trend.
http://www.motortrend.com
96 Mustang Cobra 4.6L 0 - 60 in 5.5 14.0 @101.7 1/4 mile.
95 Mustang Cobra 5.0L (R) 0 - 60 in 5.2 13.8 @ 102.0 1/4 mile.
94 Mustang Cobra 5.0L Couldn't find my stats on this one. :(
Hell... My 94 GT is faster than any GEO Storm out there. Except them ones
they feed steroids to. :)
csi
WOW, didn't realize I was gonna stir up so much hoopla here!
In reply to smitty...
I get off on writing about info I have come across. Am I to research all
Ford tech books, sales brochures, literature, etc.? NO... I have a life.
If the guy
You are probably right about most of the stuff, gee sorry I offended your
purist view of this board. Perhaps we all need ASE certifications before
commenting.
I adimit Iam going on some heresay,
I did not know they were going w/ a complete extinction of the 5.0 so soon.
I do believe that there was a production crossover in 95 or 96, that the 5.0
was available only in the first part of the year ('95) I believe, and that
only in '94 were solely 5.0. I thought I read this in MM&FF when the 4.6
first arrived, as I was reluctant at the time to see the 5.0 go but knew it
was inevitable. I will not absolutely swear by this so don't go to bed with
your panties in a wad if I'm wrong.
Yes, the s351 is the designation, for the motor that was put into the higher
end saleen (SR). but that alone did not justify the cost of $50K. Go check
out how much Saleen reworks the new ponies outside the engine mods. which by
the way some deallers are selling for about $60k. The bottom end Saleen
(s281)car is around $30-35k with the lightly massaged 4.6; about the same as
a cobra ($35k @2= $70k mathboy) and a hell of a lot lower production, thus
much higher collectability, and resale value. Though maybe not as quick, I
know this car and any Saleen could drive circles around any production
mustang w/ stock suspension, GT,Cobra, I don't care.
My intent was to take a look at upgrading a stock 5.0 to a 351, and pump IT
up, sell the 5.0, and still come in a few $$ cheeper than a newer GT.
How much did you pay for that new GT? 25?-30? how much it not gonna be worth
in 1 year when you get bored of it, or did you lease it?(make it 3 years)
Le'me guess, the explorer is for the wife to haul the kids around to soccer
games, while you beef up that GT on the weekends right? or do you stick to
oil changes and EFI wipedowns. How many new Z's have you taken off the line
his week? Car not fast enough? what do ya figure it would cost, on top of
your $350/mo. payment and $150/mo. Ins. to get 300 hp out of that motor.
Oh, insurance not that much, perhaps it's your commuter car, the big red
penile substitute that never gets over 80mph. and only 6500 rpms' when you
first jump on the hiway in the morn.
for about $1000, I could easily get my 5.0 from bout 240 to 290+hp range.
for another grand I could get that closer to 350hp. you're gonna have to
wait till your warrantee expires. which is another factor in the cost of
the S351, the entire car still is covered by the factory and Saleen.
DSP
'87 convertible Saleen#93 (5.0)
'88 GT convertible (5.0)
'79 F250 4wd supercab (400)
'67 Cougar (289)
'58 Dodge coronet (325)(I'm really a dodge man, Love them hemi's)
and I used to own an '85 XR4Ti with heated seats and rear view mirrors!
that enough cars for ya? who cares.
Gary Henderson
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:47:59 -0600, 0to60 <0t...@megsinet.net> wrote:
>Gary Henderson wrote:
>> MM&FF was able to get a 13.8 out of a '93 Cobra a few years back on
>> street tires. What did they get out of their project Cobra on street
>> tires? I know it went 13.5 w/ slicks, but I would suspect a '93 Cobra
>> could do just as well with slicks. Don't forget about those '93
>> Cobras.
>
>MM&FF tries VERY HARD to get good times out of their cars. I wouldn't
>count on getting their DOHC Cobra numbers out of my DOHC Cobra. I
>question their honesty.
You question everything that you don't see in person, and I can
understand that. MM&FF goes to Englishtown and I have seen them test
cars there. Project Stocker was there on opening day in February,
though I don't remember what it ran.
Go Topless
> Actually I believe that the 93 Cobra IS faster than the 96 Cobra! Let
> compare apples to apples. According to Motor Trend.
> http://www.motortrend.com
>
> 96 Mustang Cobra 4.6L 0 - 60 in 5.5 14.0 @101.7 1/4 mile.
> 95 Mustang Cobra 5.0L (R) 0 - 60 in 5.2 13.8 @ 102.0 1/4 mile.
That is incorrect. That 95 Cobra R is a 5.7 litre, not a 5.0.
Go Topless
Paul Postal wrote:
> I'd get a GT like my '85, nice 351 crate motor pullin' 400 horse.
> Bring on yer late model modular or whatever, I'll have BIG FUN watchin
> ya fade in my rearview, and then laugh as I count my bank balance!
Then on hot summer days I'll turn on my AC and blast my 460 watt stereo
and pass laughing at your sweating ass while you're at the pump putting
gas into your 12mpg race engine. Or maybe I'll put the top down and
breeze through the twisties while you cautiously break for each turn in
your only-fast-when-going-straight stone aged machine. Naw.. I think
I'll just slap in a CD and sit in the comfort of my leather while you sit
in your cloth seats which reak the smell of mold realizing that while you
have a fast car, it is absolutely no comfort to drive.. $#$*#*#!! thing
ate the damn tape again.. Sorry dear, I can't pick up the kids
today...blew another head gasket... :)
To each his own.. But for a practical person, I'd hardly put a 351-ed
400-horse 85 GT in the same class as an SN95.
Jim Stoltz
Go Topless wrote:
>
> > Actually I believe that the 93 Cobra IS faster than the 96 Cobra! Let
> > compare apples to apples. According to Motor Trend.
> > http://www.motortrend.com
> >
> > 96 Mustang Cobra 4.6L 0 - 60 in 5.5 14.0 @101.7 1/4 mile.
> > 95 Mustang Cobra 5.0L (R) 0 - 60 in 5.2 13.8 @ 102.0 1/4 mile.
>
> That is incorrect. That 95 Cobra R is a 5.7 litre, not a 5.0.
>
> 94 Conv GT - Deep Forest Green
> - 3.55's, Home-made Filter charger,
> - Underdrive pulleys, 180 thermo,
> - Edelbrock Performer 5.0 uppr&lwr,
> - 24lb injectors, Vortech 73mm MAF,
> - Terminator mufflers, flow-tech h-pipe
> Windshield Decal "GO TOPLESS"
It's actually a 5.8. And that's a Cobra R.
The "regular" Cobra in '95 was a GT40 5.0.
Jim
--
1988 Mustang GT Convertible - Powerdyne Supercharged
1970 Monte Carlo - "402 big block", Muncie M20, 12-bolt
http://home.att.net/~jstoltz
Gary Henderson
On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 07:19:08 GMT, Go Topless <top...@5.O.com> wrote:
>> Actually I believe that the 93 Cobra IS faster than the 96 Cobra! Let
>> compare apples to apples. According to Motor Trend.
>> http://www.motortrend.com
>>
>> 96 Mustang Cobra 4.6L 0 - 60 in 5.5 14.0 @101.7 1/4 mile.
>> 95 Mustang Cobra 5.0L (R) 0 - 60 in 5.2 13.8 @ 102.0 1/4 mile.
>
>That is incorrect. That 95 Cobra R is a 5.7 litre, not a 5.0.
No, its a 351 which is a 5.8.
nos...@mdi.ca
In <3487afa9...@news1.wolfenet.com>, on 11/27/97
>Actually I believe that the 93 Cobra IS faster than the 96 Cobra! Let
>compare apples to apples. According to Motor Trend.
>http://www.motortrend.com
>96 Mustang Cobra 4.6L 0 - 60 in 5.5 14.0 @101.7 1/4 mile.
>95 Mustang Cobra 5.0L (R) 0 - 60 in 5.2 13.8 @ 102.0 1/4 mile.
>94 Mustang Cobra 5.0L Couldn't find my stats on this one. :(
Where is the info on 93 Cobra???
>Hell... My 94 GT is faster than any GEO Storm out there. Except them ones
>they feed steroids to. :)
Heck, a Toyota Camry V-6 loaded with people and cargo will still be faster
than that itty bitty GEO Storm... :)
NoOption5L
>You are only arguing intakes, heads, and cams. They are more expensive now,
>because not to
>many people with new cars make these types of major mods. That is also the
>reason why there
>are so few of them. So how do the manufactures of these parts make up for
>the low demand?
>They increase the price. After all, if you just spent close to $30,000 on a
>new Cobra,
>would you make a mod like this. You would probably wait a couple, or maybe
>3-4 years. The
>usual mods that new car owners make (gears, exhaust, pulleys, air filters,
>MAF's, ram air,
>headers, H-pipes, traction bars, NOS(because it's simple) and sometimes SC's,
>ect...ect....)
>are all the same price, or close to it. After 4.6 owners cars age, they will
>be willing to
>start making major changes. This will increase demand, which will allow
>manufactures to
>decrease the price. Simple : )!!!!
If sales of the Mustang don't start increasing soon (all ponycar sales are
falling) the prices of aftermaket parts for the 4.6L may never come down.
Patrick
Jonas
nos...@mdi.ca wrote:
>
> In <3487afa9...@news1.wolfenet.com>, on 11/27/97
> at 05:59 PM, hhe...@wolfenet.com (Henry) said:
>
> >Actually I believe that the 93 Cobra IS faster than the 96 Cobra! Let
> >compare apples to apples. According to Motor Trend.
> >http://www.motortrend.com
>
> >96 Mustang Cobra 4.6L 0 - 60 in 5.5 14.0 @101.7 1/4 mile.
> >95 Mustang Cobra 5.0L (R) 0 - 60 in 5.2 13.8 @ 102.0 1/4 mile.
> >94 Mustang Cobra 5.0L Couldn't find my stats on this one. :(
>
> Where is the info on 93 Cobra???
>
> >Hell... My 94 GT is faster than any GEO Storm out there. Except them ones
> >they feed steroids to. :)
>
> Heck, a Toyota Camry V-6 loaded with people and cargo will still be faster
> than that itty bitty GEO Storm... :)
>
got me some nike running shoes, thats all i need to smoke a geo heh heh
0to60
I do try shift fast. T45 have long throw. Make fast shift hard to do.
nos...@mdi.ca
In <348324...@megsinet.net>, on 12/01/97
Well... I was sorta half joking... :) BTW, I heard that problems with
shifting too hard on the T45, any problem with that?
Steven Fisher
Go Topless wrote in message <347E7635...@5.O.com>...
>Paul Postal wrote:
>
>> I'd get a GT like my '85, nice 351 crate motor pullin' 400 horse.
>> Bring on yer late model modular or whatever, I'll have BIG FUN watchin
>> ya fade in my rearview, and then laugh as I count my bank balance!
>
>Then on hot summer days I'll turn on my AC and blast my 460 watt stereo
>and pass laughing at your sweating ass while you're at the pump putting
>gas into your 12mpg race engine. Or maybe I'll put the top down and
>breeze through the twisties while you cautiously break for each turn in
>your only-fast-when-going-straight stone aged machine. Naw.. I think
>I'll just slap in a CD and sit in the comfort of my leather while you sit
>in your cloth seats which reak the smell of mold realizing that while you
>have a fast car, it is absolutely no comfort to drive.. $#$*#*#!! thing
>ate the damn tape again.. Sorry dear, I can't pick up the kids
>today...blew another head gasket... :)
All this, coming from a person with a slow, heavy converable? You'd never
be able to gloat, by the time you knew what happened the above gentleman
would be a mile ahead of you.
I wouldn't gloat about the seats, everyone knows how worthless the SN95
seats are. :)
>To each his own.. But for a practical person, I'd hardly put a 351-ed
>400-horse 85 GT in the same class as an SN95.
>
Matt Tiemeyer
Okay, friends and neighbors. The resto on my '66 coupe
has begun. We've torn out the interior (with the dash
being an exception), and removed the rear bumper/guards,
taillights, and all the hardware in the trunk. That's
as far as we got.
Then I looked at a California Mustang catalog, and tallied
up all the stuff I know I need so far (including weather-
stripping, trim, some panels, a whole new floor, etc.).
The total was a whopping $3200, and we're barely started.
I think this can be done more cheaply. Also, Cal. Mustang
doesn't have Ford parts for everything on the car; for
some they only have reproduction stuff available.
Questions:
1) Does anyone know where I could get a pristine Mustang
body for a '66 (probably from the Southwest)? If so, any
estimate on cost?
2) If I can't get an entire body, is there a definitive
source for FORD panels? In particular, I'm concerned
about the rear fenders, since I assume they would
originally have been part of the whole body. They're in
dire need of attention. Cal. Mustang has several patch
panel sizes, but nothing from Ford, at least for a '66.
3) While we're at it, is there a listing of what Ford parts
are available for the car in general? Interior, exterior,
trim, etc.?
4) Who knows of a good Mustang consultant in the Kansas City
area? I live in Wichita, KS, but I'm assuming that nothing
much will be in Wichita. Or maybe, Tulsa? Topeka? Omaha/
Council Bluffs? Anyone I can talk to would be good. It
would be great to have someone look at it and be able to
give me good advice on trying to start over or work with
what I have.
Posts are fine, but I would also like to receive e-mail
on this. I'm at mtie...@helios.ks.symbios.com, or
matt.t...@symbios.com. Thanks much. Oh, and don't
even dream of putting my e-mail addresses on any mailing
lists! Thanks much.... :)
Matt T.
P.S. Vitals on the car: 289 2V, emberglo in color, with
emberglo/parchment pony interior. Hit from behind before
garaged, and has been hit before I bought it on its right
side (damage noted in engine bay area but invisible with
hood closed).
NSI Inc
>NSI Inc wrote:
>>
>> Oh YEAH?!
>>
>> engine EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
>
>That means that of all the 302s that come out of the plant, some will be
>better than others. There could be a handful of *really* good ones,
>too. Given that the *average* 302 is capable of propelling a '87-'93
>5-speed Mustang body throught the quarter-mile at 96-97 mph, don't you
>think that there are some above and below average? And don't you think
>there are a few that are really above and really below average?
>
>What happens when you put one of those "really below" average DOHC 281s
>up against one of those "really above" average 302s?
>
>And how about the '93 Cobra 302s? What do they run off the showroom
>floor? Close to 100mph in the 1/4-mile. Gee, don't the DOHC 281s run a
>tad bit faster than that? Now what about an above average '93 Cobra
>302? Surely it'll run 100 or better.
>
>NEVER say "My ___ is faster/better/quicker/<insert favorite adjective
>here> than ANY ___". That's stupid; Satan-boy does that all the time.
>You don't want to be a mental midget like Satan-boy, do you?
>
>--
>David A. Lyons
>
>
Sorry for the misunderstanding...... My intentions for this post included
sarcasm.
NSI Inc
+>Subject: Re: Which GT Mustang is Better to get?? 94 5.0 or 96-up 4.6L?
>From: hhe...@wolfenet.com (Henry)
>Date: Thu, Nov 27, 1997 12:59 EST
>Message-id: <3487afa9...@news1.wolfenet.com>
>
>On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:05:47 -0500, "David A. Lyons" <lyo...@mindspring.org>
>wrote:
>
>>NSI Inc wrote:
>>> engine EVER made. SO THERE! NA NA NA NA NA!
>
>compare apples to apples. According to Motor Trend.
>http://www.motortrend.com
>
>96 Mustang Cobra 4.6L 0 - 60 in 5.5 14.0 @101.7 1/4 mile.
>95 Mustang Cobra 5.0L (R) 0 - 60 in 5.2 13.8 @ 102.0 1/4 mile.
>94 Mustang Cobra 5.0L Couldn't find my stats on this one. :(
>
>they feed steroids to. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Why sure..... I would guess that most cars with 60 less horsepower would kick
the crap out of cars with 60 more HP. (Note the sarcasm for those who need it)
And before all the flame..... I know I know.....there's more to the equation
than HP...... torque.....weight.... traction..... gears..... redline.... et.c
Go Topless
Steven Fisher wrote:
> All this, coming from a person with a slow, heavy converable? You'd never
> be able to gloat, by the time you knew what happened the above gentleman
> would be a mile ahead of you.
>
> I wouldn't gloat about the seats, everyone knows how worthless the SN95
> seats are. :)
My point was that the person with the original post was looking for something
different than an old worn out looking race car. What do you drive, Mr.
Fisher? You're quick to call me slow but I doubt your *daily driver* is any
faster than my *daily driver*. Before I blew my timing chain sending chunks
of block into the intake, I actually got an 1/8 mile that would've been close
to a 13.5 in the 1/4. Not too bad for a 3650# SN95 convertible 5.0. Now
that my engine is gone, I myself am looking to put a 351 in my car - I'm
already negotiating on a 351 block that came out of a totalled Ford SVT
Lightening. And with this I know they'll be trade offs with the
driveability. As far as the seats being worthless in the SN95, I think you're
confusing them with the Camaro leather seats. Everytime someone sits in my
car for the first time they are surprised by the comfort of the seats and the
leather.
Steven Fisher
Go Topless wrote in message <3484697E...@5.O.com>...
>My point was that the person with the original post was looking for
something
>different than an old worn out looking race car. What do you drive, Mr.
>Fisher? You're quick to call me slow but I doubt your *daily driver* is
any
A 1997 GT. A relatively-lightweight coupe, at that. ;) Of course I'm quick
to call you slow, as you ream someone when you still have very minor mods
with a heavy body (and I don't beleive the 13.5 for a second).
>faster than my *daily driver*. Before I blew my timing chain sending
chunks
Never said mine is faster. Probably close though, waiting to do mods until
spring.
>driveability. As far as the seats being worthless in the SN95, I think
you're
>confusing them with the Camaro leather seats. Everytime someone sits in my
>car for the first time they are surprised by the comfort of the seats and
the
>leather.
I'm talking not only comfort (of which they aren't all that comfortable),
but their ability to hold in turns -- of which they have none (far worse
than <94 seats). That's probably why every Cobra owner I know that does
even the most mild racing has Sparco or Recaro seats (or are getting them
next spring). I'm thinking about leather FloFits personally.
Go Topless
Steven Fisher wrote:
> A 1997 GT. A relatively-lightweight coupe, at that. ;) Of course I'm quick
> to call you slow, as you ream someone when you still have very minor mods
> with a heavy body (and I don't beleive the 13.5 for a second).
Umm.. Obviously you don't know the first thing about the mods, or how to achieve
quick times at a track. I'd expect this from you. Because what's so hard to
believe about a 13 sec 1/4? My car only weights 125# more than a coupe, you're
acting like that'll take 1 second off my 1/4 mile. MM&FF got a SN95 5.0 to run
14.7 *stock* and w/ short belt and slicks a 14.0. What's so unbelievable about
a 13.5 w/ my mods and a short belt? Perhaps because I made a point which called
you out for your ridiculous attitude and you're now trying to save face. I mean
hey, you're stuck with a worthless SOHC 4.6 that'll always be slow, unless
you're willing to put major $$$$ into it... I understand your frustration, it's
okay. You'll never ever see a 13.5. Maybe therapy will help, instead of
taking your anger out on others.
> Never said mine is faster. Probably close though, waiting to do mods until
> spring.
Hmm.. Close? Let's see, you have a stock 97 GT 4.6. They do the 1/4 mile in
about 15 flat at 92mph. How is this "close" to to mine? Hell, I can show you
timeslips of 14.1@99, and 14.2's that I ran before some of my mods and the short
belt and I was still a whole second faster than you in the quarter. So please,
tell me how your stock 97 GT is "almost" as fast as mine? "Gee, I *almost*
still see your spec in the rearview mirror" after slaughtering you in a race. I
guess when I have a 351 lightening block running 14psi of intercooled boost and
I'm running low 11's this summer, you'll think that is slow too? I find it
quite humerous that someone that owns a stock 4.6 GT is going to tell me that
*I'm* slow. bahahaha Go race a Pontiac Grand Prix tough guy... LOL!
> I'm talking not only comfort (of which they aren't all that comfortable),
> but their ability to hold in turns -- of which they have none (far worse
> than <94 seats). That's probably why every Cobra owner I know that does
> even the most mild racing has Sparco or Recaro seats (or are getting them
> next spring). I'm thinking about leather FloFits personally.
Well when an ass is three feet wide, of course the seat is going to have a hard
time keeping it in. Don't blame it on Ford, pal.
David A. Lyons
nos...@mdi.ca wrote:
>
> In <348324...@megsinet.net>, on 12/01/97
> at 02:56 PM, 0to60 <0t...@megsinet.net> said:
>
> >nos...@mdi.ca wrote:
> >> Hey, try shift faster... <G>
>
> >I do try shift fast. T45 have long throw. Make fast shift hard to
> >do.
>
> Well... I was sorta half joking... :)
What kind of percentage can be assigned to "sorta"? Let's arbitrarily
make "sorta" mean "50%". So if your were "sorta half joking", then you
were actually "quarter joking".
--
David A. Lyons
Steven Fisher
>Umm.. Obviously you don't know the first thing about the mods, or how to
achieve
>quick times at a track. I'd expect this from you. Because what's so hard
to
>believe about a 13 sec 1/4? My car only weights 125# more than a coupe,
you're
>acting like that'll take 1 second off my 1/4 mile. MM&FF got a SN95 5.0 to
run
>14.7 *stock* and w/ short belt and slicks a 14.0. What's so unbelievable
about
>a 13.5 w/ my mods and a short belt? Perhaps because I made a point which
called
1.2 seconds is quite a difference to me, especially when you consider that
separates Corvettes and Camaros from >$100,000 cars (or thereabouts). All
of the mods you listed are relatively minor. When I think about 1/4 times,
I'm talking about stock -- i.e., driveable on the street and useful in a
real race.
>you out for your ridiculous attitude and you're now trying to save face. I
mean
>hey, you're stuck with a worthless SOHC 4.6 that'll always be slow, unless
>you're willing to put major $$$$ into it... I understand your frustration,
it's
>okay. You'll never ever see a 13.5. Maybe therapy will help, instead of
>taking your anger out on others.
I wasn't taking any anger out, which is exactly what you are doing right
now. I was offering my opinion, not knocking you (which I may as well have
done). The SOHC isn't a whole lot more expensive to modify than the 5.0
unless you're getting into major modifications. Keep in mind the SVO parts
from Ford include a lot more than they do with 5.0 parts (i.e., the $1,000
intake includes an MAF, chip, etc). Superchargers are about the same price
as well (Cobra chargers are rather expensive however).
You're the one flaming, so please don't tell me about therapy.
>still see your spec in the rearview mirror" after slaughtering you in a
race. I
>guess when I have a 351 lightening block running 14psi of intercooled boost
and
>I'm running low 11's this summer, you'll think that is slow too? I find it
>quite humerous that someone that owns a stock 4.6 GT is going to tell me
that
>*I'm* slow. bahahaha Go race a Pontiac Grand Prix tough guy... LOL!
Judging from how you act, it looks as if your parents will be purchasing all
those toys for you -- how lucky, I have to pay for everything I have and do.
Read below. Go buy a Camaro and leave this group to the grownups. There is
enough flaming from the Camaro people in here, we don't need assholes like
you making it even worse. What do you want to do to this group, make it a
war between 4.6's and 5.0's?
>Well when an ass is three feet wide, of course the seat is going to have a
hard
>time keeping it in. Don't blame it on Ford, pal.
Actually I'm a very small person, and all racers will tell you that the
seats suck -- of which you obviously aren't a racer if you like the stock
seats.
Next, be more diplimatic in your response or I may get upset. Your childish
actions only make Mustangs look like Camaro owners. If you want to continue
acting like this, go buy an automatic Camaro. I beg.
0to60
nos...@mdi.ca wrote:
> Well... I was sorta half joking... :) BTW, I heard that problems with
> shifting too hard on the T45, any problem with that?
I haven't had any problems. The T45 has a very notchy, nostalgic feel
to it. Each shift has a very satisfying "notchyness" to it, kind of
like when the chiropractor cracks your back. However, it isn't a very
quick shift. Its nice feeling when you are tooling around town, but its
not really set up for drag racing. The clutch take up is too long, the
shifter throws are too long (like rowing a boat) and the shifts are
notchy. These traits don't make for very fast shifting. I think a
shorter clutch takeup and a racier gearbox alone would knock one or two
tenths off my ET's.
Go Topless
Steven Fisher wrote:
> 1.2 seconds is quite a difference to me, especially when you consider that
> separates Corvettes and Camaros from >$100,000 cars (or thereabouts). All
> of the mods you listed are relatively minor. When I think about 1/4 times,
> I'm talking about stock -- i.e., driveable on the street and useful in a
> real race.
Every mod I have is driveable and useful in a street race - other than the short
belt. Yes, they're all reletively minor (except for the intake) but they all
reletively *add up*. :)
> I wasn't taking any anger out, which is exactly what you are doing right
> now. I was offering my opinion, not knocking you (which I may as well have
> done). The SOHC isn't a whole lot more expensive to modify than the 5.0
> unless you're getting into major modifications. Keep in mind the SVO parts
> from Ford include a lot more than they do with 5.0 parts (i.e., the $1,000
> intake includes an MAF, chip, etc). Superchargers are about the same price
> as well (Cobra chargers are rather expensive however).
>
> You're the one flaming, so please don't tell me about therapy.
I'd say calling my car a "slow heavy converitible with shitty seats" is a
flame. Now, put it in slightly different words and context and you could pass
it off as an opinion.
> Judging from how you act, it looks as if your parents will be purchasing all
> those toys for you -- how lucky, I have to pay for everything I have and do.
Judging by the way *you* act, you spent all of your money on a 4.6 GT and now
regret how slow it is. Trust me, I'm sure I grew up in a lot worse environment
and was not better off than you my friend. Can you handle it that I'm young and
can afford my own car without a dime from my parents? I guess not.
> Read below. Go buy a Camaro and leave this group to the grownups. There is
> enough flaming from the Camaro people in here, we don't need assholes like
> you making it even worse. What do you want to do to this group, make it a
> war between 4.6's and 5.0's?
I've said in the past that I have nothing against 4.6's. It's when pots like
you with a 4.6 start calling the kettle black, I feel the need to point it out.
> Actually I'm a very small person, and all racers will tell you that the
> seats suck -- of which you obviously aren't a racer if you like the stock
> seats.
How do you define "racer"? If you're accusing me of not being in the SCCA and
on team Saleen, you got me - I'm not a racer.
> Next, be more diplimatic in your response or I may get upset. Your childish
> actions only make Mustangs look like Camaro owners. If you want to continue
> acting like this, go buy an automatic Camaro. I beg.
Is this a threat, Steven? And you call me childish? Hmm.. and that's quite a
generalization you made about "Camaro owners".. Again, childish. Which leads
me to my orginal point. Maybe *you* are the one who should leave this
newsgroup, and join alt.pot.kettle.black.
-----------
94 Conv GT - Deep Forest Green
- Tempararily a 0.0 litre 0hp yard ornament
Windshield Decal "GO TOPLESS"
Brock Blythe
TOPLESS, is just having a hard time realizing that the 5.0(really 4.9) is the same,
performance wise, as the 4.6. I hear if you put a gaudy GO TOPLESS sticker on your
windshield, you can shave 1 second off your 1/4 mile : ) !!!! Unfortunately though,
this sticker is not available for the 4.6's yet. Hopefully the performance parts
manufactures will get off their #$%!^ and make us a sticker too. Only time will
tell. J/K!!!! Untill then, why can't us Mustang owners just get along! Aren't we
supposed to be friends??????
Matt Tiemeyer
350 posts over the past day and not a single person
is interested in helping me out here? I'm rather surprised.
I got one e-mail, but I thought we'd have more early
Pony fans present then the response to my post below
would indicate...
Matt
LeAnne Davis
Matt Tiemeyer wrote:
>
> Okay, friends and neighbors. The resto on my '66 coupe
> has begun. We've torn out the interior (with the dash
> being an exception), and removed the rear bumper/guards,
> taillights, and all the hardware in the trunk. That's
> as far as we got.
snip...
> Posts are fine, but I would also like to receive e-mail
> on this. I'm at mtie...@helios.ks.symbios.com, or
> matt.t...@symbios.com. Thanks much. Oh, and don't
> even dream of putting my e-mail addresses on any mailing
> lists! Thanks much.... :)
well, I wouldn't subscribe you to anything, but if you're referring to
SPAMmers, some SPAMbot has likely already picked up your e-mail addy
since you've posted to USENET...Sad, but true...As for other mailing
lists, I would suggest you subscribe yourself to the classic mustang
mailing list. I have 2 1965 Ponies & more classic pony fans (including
some who have 1966 ponies) are on the mailing list than here in the
newsgroup.
To get subscription info...go to
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/1105/clasmust.html
and just follow the instructions. See ya there...
L
--
LeAnne Davis mailto:LeAnne...@ti.com
Configuration Management 972-952-5386
Raytheon TI Systems
Std Disclaimer: These are my opinions, get your own....
http://www.geocities.com/~fannincounty/haden.html
Please do not send me unsolicited e-mail trying to sell me anything...I
live in an old house - I HAVE NO MONEY & you (and possibly your domain)
will be added to my e-mail filter....my hit list
http://www.geocities.com/~fannincounty/netscape-mail-filter.html
Go Topless
Brock Blythe wrote:
Gee, maybe that would've been funny if I hadn't heard that already from someone else.
Maybe you should start writing your own material :)
Keller, Michael
Matt Tiemeyer wrote:
>
> whining snipped>>
> > has begun. We've torn out the interior (with the dash
> > being an exception), and removed the rear bumper/guards,
> > taillights, and all the hardware in the trunk. That's
> > as far as we got.
> >
> > up all the stuff I know I need so far (including weather-
> > stripping, trim, some panels, a whole new floor, etc.).
> > The total was a whopping $3200, and we're barely started.
Many other Mustang parts vendors are out there. Shop around for the
best parts and restorations costs or pick up a '66 coupe already done.
For about $5000-$8000 dollars you should be able to find a nice '66
coupe driver, ready for the road. From the way you describe your car,
you might have more than that into it by the time its done....maybe.
> >
> > I think this can be done more cheaply.
Don't bank on that one. Restoration costs almost always run higher than
expected. Even professional shops misjudge the condition of some of the
incoming cars. You may have an idea what the car needs but you *really*
don't know what you have to work with until the car is completly
disassembled, inventoried, cataloged, and the body stripped and
underside and engine compartment sandblasted. THEN you'll really know
how good the body is, how many parts you'll need and where you stand.
> > Also, Cal. Mustang doesn't have Ford parts for everything on the
car; for some they only have reproduction stuff available.
> >
You'll find that NOS parts are available for these cars, but at a
premium. If you think $3200 is whopping, then NOS parts are not in your
budget. Check other Mustang parts vendors for parts availabiity and
pricing.
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > 1) Does anyone know where I could get a pristine Mustang
> > body for a '66 (probably from the Southwest)? If so, any
> > estimate on cost?
For $1500-2000 dollars you should be able to locate a complete roller
with a descent body, you'll have to pick it up. Absolutely pristine
body??? -look to spend $3500-5000 or more for a complete rolling body
needing nothing but assembly. A while back there was a company
advertizing in the GTO section of Hemming's that would deliver a rolling
body (no interior, no drive train, just a bare rolling shell) from the
southwest for $2000. Shop around. You should be able to find a good
coupe body, but most likely will not find one that needs no work at all.
> >
> > 2) If I can't get an entire body, is there a definitive
> > source for FORD panels? In particular, I'm concerned
> > about the rear fenders, since I assume they would
> > originally have been part of the whole body. They're in
> > dire need of attention. Cal. Mustang has several patch
> > panel sizes, but nothing from Ford, at least for a '66.
As I stated earlier, NOS panels are around. You need to shop around and
be prepared to spend some long green. Aftermarket quarter panel skins
and outer wheel houses are available from many parts vendors and, when
done correctly by a reputable shop, are just as good and undectable as
OEM quarters. Look to spend about a 450-1000 per NOS quarter and then
another 500-750 per side to install and body work the quarters. OR spend
less on the aftermarket quarters and drop a 600-1200 per side to have
the quarters repaired and body worked.
> >
> > 3) While we're at it, is there a listing of what Ford parts
> > are available for the car in general? Interior, exterior,
> > trim, etc.?
Thumbing through my new Mustangs and Fords rag, I seen an ad for a
cataloge/book of parts, parts listings, part numbers, availability and
from which vendors they are available. If you send me an E-mail,
reminding me I'll look the company up and send you the info for the
books.
> >
> > 4) Who knows of a good Mustang consultant in the Kansas City
> > area? I live in Wichita, KS, but I'm assuming that nothing
> > much will be in Wichita. Or maybe, Tulsa? Topeka? Omaha/
> > Council Bluffs? Anyone I can talk to would be good. It
> > would be great to have someone look at it and be able to
> > give me good advice on trying to start over or work with
> > what I have.
Can't help you on the local consulting stuff. If you are not worried
about recovering all of your investment, then (If I were you) then I'd
just fix the car to my liking and drive the wheels off of it. If your
money conscience, then you need to determine the cost of the investment
up until now, add in all parts and restoration costs required to bring
the car up to your standards. Total these figures and add about 50
percent. This is about what it will cost to restore the car
(realistically). Determine the market value of the car at that the
intended restoration level. IF the total costs out weigh the market
value of the car, then is doesn't make smart money sense to restore the
car if profit/investment protection are your primary goals.
FYI, more times than not, it pays to buy a realisticaly priced,
restored, ready to go car than to buy a beater and try to restore it.
The parts and restoration costs will usually out weigh the value of the
car, especially on non-specialty type Mustangs. Examples of specialty
Mustangs are V-8 convertables, K-codes, Shelbys, big block cars, Bosses,
ect. The restoration costs can many times exceed the market value of the
specialty Mustangs too.
Basically, you should buy the best car you can afford to begin with and
always have a final restoration/quality level in mind right from the
begining of your Mustang search to avoid spending too much on the
initial investment.
> >
> > P.S. Vitals on the car: 289 2V, emberglo in color, with
> > emberglo/parchment pony interior. Hit from behind before
> > garaged, and has been hit before I bought it on its right
> > side (damage noted in engine bay area but invisible with
> > hood closed).
> >
> >
> > Matt T.
> >
Good luck with it. -Mike.
Go Topless
Paul Postal wrote:
> Our blown-up convertible drivin' buddy certainly doesn't know much
> about mods either as far as I'm concerned.
ok. Let me explain this for you two, since you're mathematically impaired.
It's common knowledge that a 3200lb Mustang LX w/ intake, pulleys, exhaust, short
belt, MAF, etc.. can run a 13.0 - 13.2 on street radials. My car weights
approximately 350lbs more than that LX, with the same mods. Three hundred fifty
pounds = .5 tenths loss in the 1/4. 13.5 - 13.8 1/4 mile. Just because the SN95 has
a reputation of being slow, the 5.0 SN95's still work the same way as the older
ones. You just need to account for the weight difference.
> BaHahaha, OK, topless, please tell us your plans concerning the
> modification of the 351 Lightning junkyard block you bought. I would
> LOVE to be enlightened on how you intend to prep this stock item to
> sustain 14PSI boost over the long term.
The compression ratio of the 351 block I (may) be getting is favorable of 14lbs of
(intercooled) boost. With Fel-pro loc wire gaskets I intend to make sure it I have
no problems with blowing head gaskets. What's so complicated about this?
> This from the same guy who flamed me hard regarding my 351 mustang,
> said it wasn't "practical"
I made that statement in the point of view of the original poster, who was looking
for a daily driver. I've already written my car off as a cruiser/strip car so I am
not looking for practicality. Hello, reading comprehension? I've already explained
this to you.
> Big talk, blown-up car w/bald tires! After buyin' the block and the
> blower, probly STILL be ridin' on baldies! hell, they might get better
> traction on the strip, you know, the strip in your dreams.
yeah.. and you'll still be riding in your bondoed scrap machine resembling a car
which should be sitting in a junk yard. But at least it has a kewl victor jr and a
Barry Gant!
> '87 lx 5.0 (roadrace ready)
> '85 gt 351W conversion (bye bye bowtie)
> '76 Lincoln Town Coupe (wanna go to the prom baby!)
I can just imagine what your home looks like. I imagine this trailer, with all these
cars sitting outside, 12 dogs and 4 broken lawnmowers.
