1995 Mustang 3.8 questions...
Chuck Clark
Enjoyed reading all the great info on this group. I'm fixing to buy a
95 Mustang 3.8. I was wondering if you guys could answer a few
questions....
1) I've read the 3.8 heads are weak. My question is how weak? Will
they likely stand up if I don't do anything drastic to them such as a
big cam or supercharger?
2)The strut tower brace is purportedly worth the money. Will a stock
GT one fit?
3) How difficult are subframe connectors to install? I understand they
are a weld on only item. Are they worth the money?
4) What would be the first suspension item you would install to
improve handling with a strict budget in mind?
4.5) Would there be any parts from the GT that would help the base
coupe? Again, I'm student poor 8^( and a junkyard item might be more
affordable.
5)Would a stock MAF from a 5.0 work on the 3.8? I've seen conflicting
views. Would it be an easy install and would there be some computer
problems?
6) As with all base Mustangs I've looked at, I'm gonna need tires. I
haven't seen any positive comments about the stock tires--- only
negative. What would you guys buy for this car for street use only and
with, of course, a strict budget in mind?
7) Will all 95 and newer stock wheels (such as the stock GT and
Cobra-R wheels someone spoke here spoke of) fit on my car?
8) Has anyone upgraded to a 3.45 ring and pinion in the 3.8? If so,
has your highway driveability suffered and how much?
9) Computer chips. Worth it or not on this model?
10) Shift kits or valve body reprogramming kits. Worth it or not on
this model?
11) What exhaust change would you do to this car with (I'm sounding
like a broken record here) a budget in mind? Flowmasters? Cat back?
Thanks for any answers or any other helpful tips. I've worked on cars
for a few years, but I'm in no way a mechanic.
----
Chuck Clark SPT
cmcl...@homer.louisville.edu
University of Louisville, KY
Ronbo
Chuck Clark <cmcl...@homer.louisville.edu> wrote in article
<3347d3f3...@netnews.louisville.edu>...
> Enjoyed reading all the great info on this group. I'm fixing to buy a
> 95 Mustang 3.8. I was wondering if you guys could answer a few
> questions....
>
> 1) I've read the 3.8 heads are weak. My question is how weak? Will
> they likely stand up if I don't do anything drastic to them such as a
> big cam or supercharger?
>
> 2)The strut tower brace is purportedly worth the money. Will a stock
> GT one fit?
(buy an aftermarket unit)
>
> 3) How difficult are subframe connectors to install? I understand they
> are a weld on only item. Are they worth the money?
(there are bolt on connectors, however, welding is the preferred method of
installation. And yes, they are well worth the money. Even the late model
mustangs are prone to chassis flex despite the fact that they are more
rigid than their earlier siblings)
>
> 4) What would be the first suspension item you would install to
> improve handling with a strict budget in mind?
(Reinforce the body, change to better shocks and struts, lowering springs,
bigger front and rear anti-roll bars. And, in that order)
>
> 4.5) Would there be any parts from the GT that would help the base
> coupe? Again, I'm student poor 8^( and a junkyard item might be more
> affordable.
(Buy aftermarket stuff. After all, think for a moment, why do GT owners
buy aftermarket stuff to make their mustangs better?)
>
> 5)Would a stock MAF from a 5.0 work on the 3.8? I've seen conflicting
> views. Would it be an easy install and would there be some computer
> problems?
>
> 6) As with all base Mustangs I've looked at, I'm gonna need tires. I
> haven't seen any positive comments about the stock tires--- only
> negative. What would you guys buy for this car for street use only and
> with, of course, a strict budget in mind?
>
> 7) Will all 95 and newer stock wheels (such as the stock GT and
> Cobra-R wheels someone spoke here spoke of) fit on my car?
( For normal street use (no autocrossing,etc.) the tires that came on the
car are sufficient. However, after you have worn them out, you might
consider changing to a softer compound tire to improve handling. Warning,
people who are finicky about the tires they use are usually either road
racers or drag racers. Normal street drivers needn't be so picky.
However, if you have 15" wheels, go to 16" wheels, etc. Larger wheels with
lower profile tires benefit even street handling)
>
> 8) Has anyone upgraded to a 3.45 ring and pinion in the 3.8? If so,
> has your highway driveability suffered and how much?
>
> 9) Computer chips. Worth it or not on this model?
>
(I've seen dyno tests on computer chips and have seen this much said about
them- they aren't really worth the money. A cat back exhaust system is for
more effective.)
> 10) Shift kits or valve body reprogramming kits. Worth it or not on
> this model?
(They are worth it on any automatic if you want crisper shifts)
>
> 11) What exhaust change would you do to this car with (I'm sounding
> like a broken record here) a budget in mind? Flowmasters? Cat back?
(Yes to both.)
>
> Thanks for any answers or any other helpful tips. I've worked on cars
> for a few years, but I'm in no way a mechanic.
(if you've worked on cars and done each job right, and have not killed
yourself, then, you are mechanic. You just haven't raised yourself to the
level of race car fabricator yet. Hang in there, read plenty, learn a lot,
and you will one day be able to build cars without having to bog through
the confusion. I can tell you that from experience.)
Stuart Ing
>1) I've read the 3.8 heads are weak. My question is how weak? Will
>they likely stand up if I don't do anything drastic to them such as a
>big cam or supercharger?
I've heard the same thing, I don't think that the head itself is weak, I
think its more likely the head gasket always blows out. I've never heard
of another head that breaks from forced induction. Hell, if you can put
nos, I don't see why a small blower won't handle as long as you don't
start detonating and poping the head gasket. A bigger cam might work
depending on the stock flow capicity of the heads.
>2)The strut tower brace is purportedly worth the money. Will a stock
>GT one fit?
yes, it fits and it does work. Since you're on a budget, find someone
whose taking theirs off and buy it from them.
>3) How difficult are subframe connectors to install? I understand they
>are a weld on only item. Are they worth the money?
they are worth the money, and in essence it is a enasy weld in thing.
But you might want to have someone who does mustangs to weld it in or
maybe a body shop.
>4) What would be the first suspension item you would install to
>improve handling with a strict budget in mind?
tires
>4.5) Would there be any parts from the GT that would help the base
>coupe? Again, I'm student poor 8^( and a junkyard item might be more
>affordable.
the sway bars will swap over, they are slightly bigger. Again, find
someone who switched over to something bigger and buy it off of them.
front gt bars are 1 1/8" rear is 15/16. v6 ones are 1" and 7/8"
>5)Would a stock MAF from a 5.0 work on the 3.8? I've seen conflicting
>views. Would it be an easy install and would there be some computer
>problems?
yes, but thats not a real power gain. Even stepping up to a c&l meter
won't get you much power. See the 6 in a mustang page, Don has swaped
over to the c&l meter.
>6) As with all base Mustangs I've looked at, I'm gonna need tires. I
>haven't seen any positive comments about the stock tires--- only
>negative. What would you guys buy for this car for street use only and
>with, of course, a strict budget in mind?
anything besides those eagle ga hunks of shit. But seriously, buy any
good name brand tire designed for perfomance and it should be a huge step
up from stock.
>7) Will all 95 and newer stock wheels (such as the stock GT and
>Cobra-R wheels someone spoke here spoke of) fit on my car?
yes
>8) Has anyone upgraded to a 3.45 ring and pinion in the 3.8? If so,
>has your highway driveability suffered and how much?
again, see Don's page, he went to a 3.45 gear, its great, the 5th gear
rpm only goes up 200-300 rpm over the stock 2.73.
>9) Computer chips. Worth it or not on this model?
it takes out the speed governor. Its also good if you have an auto since
the aode is controled by the computer.
>10) Shift kits or valve body reprogramming kits. Worth it or not on
>this model?
an aode needs all the help it can get. I'm not sure how the aode
shifting is modified, I've seen shift kits and computer chips that modify
the shifting. Call a shift kit maker and ask them about it, they would
know best.
>11) What exhaust change would you do to this car with (I'm sounding
>like a broken record here) a budget in mind? Flowmasters? Cat back?
get a dual exhaust conversion or have a shop weld you up a dual exhaust.
Its very simple since the car is dual exhaust all the way to the y pipe.
Choose mufflers by what sounds good to you, I'm convinced that the hp
diffrence between aftermarket mufflers are minimal.
So, get dual exhaust and gears first to help your speed cravings, and get
tires and take off stuff from the gt to help in the handling.
Chris Shugg
Use the money you would spend on all the mods and by a 5.0 or 4.6 GT.
Then worry about modifiying it down the road. You could modify the 3.8
to death, but I doubt it will ever perform like a 5.0/4.6.
Firebrd 97
Chris Shugg <sh...@rtp.ericsson.se> Wrote
>Use the money you would spend on all the mods and by a 5.0 or 4.6 GT.
>Then worry about modifiying it down the road. You could modify the 3.8
>to death, but I doubt it will ever perform like a 5.0/4.6.
I think anyone with an I.Q. even remotely close to that of an earthworm
knows a V6 Mustang will never perform like a V8 Mustang GT.
It may not occur Important to you, but Insurance on V8s is OUTRAGEOUS. It
can get pretty hellacious on some of the less fortunate drivers with
tickets, accidents, and the like. I mean, Good God, Ins. on the V6 is bad
enough!!
I personally get sick of asking questions about my V6s and being told "Get
a V8". If you can't help somebody with thier V6, please don't respond to
thier thread with a post like this. Thanx,
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
Pontiac Firebird --- 30 Years of Damn High Insurance
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
Firebrd 9...@aol.com
_____________________________________________________
95 Firebird 3.4L, Loaded w/Ts, White w/Gray Int., CD, Keyless Entry, Viper Alarm, etc...
91 Firebird 3.1L, Loaded w/T-Tops, Red w/Gray cloth Interior, Automatic
Michael Bostian
>Enjoyed reading all the great info on this group. I'm fixing to buy a
>95 Mustang 3.8. I was wondering if you guys could answer a few
>questions....
>
>1) I've read the 3.8 heads are weak. My question is how weak? Will
>they likely stand up if I don't do anything drastic to them such as a
>big cam or supercharger?
>
well, i've got a '95 3.8 and am very happy with it! granted, it's
not the same as a 215HP V8 but, it does have enough power to burn the
tires at a stoplight, or pass on the highway with relative ease! i've
never had a bit of trouble out of mine and would buy another one in a
minute!
>2)The strut tower brace is purportedly worth the money. Will a stock
>GT one fit?
i believe it will, i would like to add one to my car if so!
>4.5) Would there be any parts from the GT that would help the base
>coupe? Again, I'm student poor 8^( and a junkyard item might be more
>affordable.
fog lights, spoiler, and the GT 5-spoke rims!
>
>6) As with all base Mustangs I've looked at, I'm gonna need tires. I
>haven't seen any positive comments about the stock tires--- only
>negative. What would you guys buy for this car for street use only and
>with, of course, a strict budget in mind?
the stock tires suck! they are the worst in the rain, but are
half-decent on dry pavement! i'd say find an all-season tire that is
Z-rated (if there is such a thing)
>
>
>11) What exhaust change would you do to this car with (I'm sounding
>like a broken record here) a budget in mind? Flowmasters? Cat back?
well, i'm getting ready to do a cat-back with Flowmasters, 2-chamber!
i've seen/heard the results and it sounds/looks good! really improves
the look of the stang!
>Thanks for any answers or any other helpful tips. I've worked on cars
>for a few years, but I'm in no way a mechanic.
good luck with your purchase!
Mike Bostian
Sanford, NC
'95 Mustang V6
PJ1987
>>6) As with all base Mustangs I've looked at, I'm gonna need tires. I
>>haven't seen any positive comments about the stock tires--- only
>>negative. What would you guys buy for this car for street use only and
>>with, of course, a strict budget in mind?
>the stock tires suck! they are the worst in the rain, but are
>half-decent on dry pavement! i'd say find an all-season tire that is
>Z-rated (if there is such a thing)
If you are a student with a strict budget then dont't listen to this
advice. The Stang GT doesnt even need Z rated tires let alone a V6. Save
your money by buying H or at max V rated tires, and put the savings to
better use.
Jim Kosinski
Hey there all!
I'd have to add in here that it's great for guys like myself that are
somewhat into performance, but kept in check by insurance costs/etc. to
have honest discussions over what can be done to make the most of the
vehicles we were able to buy into. I know as a student myself that
sometimes it's hard enough to make my rent, and then come the car mods...
Jim K.
In article <19970409122...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
STANG38
LISTEN, I OWN A 3.8L V6 AND I LOVE ITS PERFORMANCE.... I DO PLAN ON
PUTTING DUAL EXAUST ON IT BECAUSE I LOVE THE SOUND.. IF YOU WERE A REAL
MUSTANG ENTHUSIAST YOU WOULD APPRECIATE ALL MUSTANGS.. OLD, NEW, CRAPPY,
NON CRAPPY, BIG, OR LITTLE ENGINE.
WHEN I SEE A MUSTANG, ANY MUSTANG IT JUST MAKES ME HAPPY TO SEE THAT
ANOTHER PERSON IS DRIVING ONE PART OF AMERICAN PRIDE.. THAT IS WHAT A
MUSTANG IS, ISN'T IT?? WE SHOULD ALL STICK TOGETHER!! JOE
Sven Nathaneil Setterdahl
STANG38 (sta...@aol.com) wrote:
: LISTEN, I OWN A 3.8L V6 AND I LOVE ITS PERFORMANCE.... I DO PLAN ON
:
SSSSHHHHHHH, you are giving me a headache ;)
Sven
--
'95 Mustang Cobra (finally a car built just for me :)
'70 Mustang w/ 351C-4V (in pieces)
'68 F100 (running strong)
Bill Kiene
On 22 Apr 1997 18:23:29 GMT, sta...@aol.com (STANG38) wrote:
>LISTEN, I OWN A 3.8L V6 AND I LOVE ITS PERFORMANCE.... I DO PLAN ON
>PUTTING DUAL EXAUST ON IT BECAUSE I LOVE THE SOUND.. IF YOU WERE A REAL
>MUSTANG ENTHUSIAST YOU WOULD APPRECIATE ALL MUSTANGS.. OLD, NEW, CRAPPY,
>NON CRAPPY, BIG, OR LITTLE ENGINE.
>WHEN I SEE A MUSTANG, ANY MUSTANG IT JUST MAKES ME HAPPY TO SEE THAT
>ANOTHER PERSON IS DRIVING ONE PART OF AMERICAN PRIDE.. THAT IS WHAT A
>MUSTANG IS, ISN'T IT?? WE SHOULD ALL STICK TOGETHER!! JOE
>
I think that you can get new Mustang coupe with a 150hp V6, 5spd for just over
$15,000 that will get 30mpg on the freeway. This is probably a pretty snappy car
that is very good looking.
Bill Kiene
Kiene's Fly Shop
Sacramento,CA,USA
bki...@ns.net
800/4000FLY
PLlovet
>I think that you can get new Mustang coupe with a 150hp >V6, 5spd for
just over
>$15,000 that will get 30mpg on the freeway. This is >probably a pretty
snappy car
>that is very good looking.
>Bill Kiene
>Kiene's Fly Shop
I have driven one of these and my main complaint is
the lack of power. With my friend at the wheel
we clocked 0-60 in low 9's as i recall.
I have also driven one of the late model V6
firebirds with performance package.
With 200 + hp, it was quite a bit quicker.
Has anyone modified their V6 Mustang? Maybe
with a few bolt-ons it could do 0-60 in
the 7's.
Walt Amante
PLlovet wrote:
>
> I have driven one of these and my main complaint is
> the lack of power. With my friend at the wheel
> we clocked 0-60 in low 9's as i recall.
> I have also driven one of the late model V6
> firebirds with performance package.
> With 200 + hp, it was quite a bit quicker.
Well, to be fair, we need to remember that when the current
Firebird was introduced in 1993 (I think), the V6 base
version was powered by a slow 3.4 liter V6. This was
the V6 until sometime into the 1995 model year.
Ford, on the other hand, put a larger and faster 3.8
liter V6 into the 1994 Mustang.
The only "problem" is that GM up'ed the size of the V6
used in the Firebird and Ford has yet to respond.
Anyway, saying that, I will note that one should compare
a 1995 V6 (3.8l) Mustang to a 1995 V6 (3.4l) Firebird.
lo...@my.sig
In article <335F7D...@early.com>, Walt Amante <Wa...@early.com> wrote:
>Well, to be fair, we need to remember that when the current
>Firebird was introduced in 1993 (I think), the V6 base
>version was powered by a slow 3.4 liter V6. This was
>the V6 until sometime into the 1995 model year.
>Ford, on the other hand, put a larger and faster 3.8
>liter V6 into the 1994 Mustang.
From '93-mid '95 (start of 4th gen Camaro-mid '95) the
3.4L engine was used, and it put out 160HP, which is
still more than the V6 Mustang. The F-body might have been
slower due to the extra weight, but power output was higher.
>The only "problem" is that GM up'ed the size of the V6
>used in the Firebird and Ford has yet to respond.
I think they're responding with the 4.6 SOHC. :)
>Anyway, saying that, I will note that one should compare
>a 1995 V6 (3.8l) Mustang to a 1995 V6 (3.4l) Firebird.
Well, like I said, the 3800 WAS available in 1995...
Why is it GM can get 200HP (and more) from their 3.8 liter,
while Ford is sitting on its ass with only 150 HP in its 3.8?
That's only 10 more than what GM had in its smaller 3.1 in
the 3rd-gen F-bodies!
--
Dennis Brown -- Carrboro, NC 1995 Trans Am Green Conv. 5.7 V8/6-spd
brownde @ cs.unc.edu 1995 Mustang GT Red Coupe 5.0 V8/5-spd
Gary Henderson
>Well, to be fair, we need to remember that when the current
>Firebird was introduced in 1993 (I think), the V6 base
>version was powered by a slow 3.4 liter V6. This was
>the V6 until sometime into the 1995 model year.
>
Correct. The 160 horsepower 3.4 V6 was standard in '93 and '94. In
'95 it was still standard but the 200 hp 3.8 became an option late in
the model year. In '96 all V6 FBodies have the 200 hp 3.8.
>Ford, on the other hand, put a larger and faster 3.8
>liter V6 into the 1994 Mustang.
Actually the 3.8 V6 in the Mustang has 145-150 hp while even the older
3.4 in the Firebirds had 160.
>The only "problem" is that GM up'ed the size of the V6
>used in the Firebird and Ford has yet to respond.
>
>Anyway, saying that, I will note that one should compare
>a 1995 V6 (3.8l) Mustang to a 1995 V6 (3.4l) Firebird.
Thats fine. I'm not sure which is faster, the Firebird should be by a
tick though....In '96 of course its not close.
lo...@my.sig
In article <335FD9...@early.com>, Walt Amante <Wa...@early.com> wrote:
>lo...@my.sig (aka bro...@cs.unc.edu) wrote:
>> Why is it GM can get 200HP (and more) from their 3.8 liter,
>> while Ford is sitting on its ass with only 150 HP in its 3.8?
>
>while GM (F-body) is sitting on its butt with only 285 HP
>still in its 5.7l for 1997?
Ok ok, good point about resource allocation and all. But it
seems that no matter how much people think Ford is setting
up the GT to be a poser car, the V6 (no offense meant to
V6 'stang owners) must be the _ultimate_ poser car. I guess
if they tweaked out their 3.8L engine to 200HP, no one
would buy the GT!
Heck, the new Escort ZX2 blows the V6 Mustang away and
approaches the GT's performance, at least, on roads with curves. :)
>Even if one believes the hype about next year (isn't there
>always a next year that is better?), GM will only match Ford
>at 305 HP, but needing a whooping 5.7 liters to do it!
Yes, but at least that will be in the model which competes
(in price) with the GT. If you want an F-body in the Cobra
price range, go for a Camaro SS or Firebird WS6... Ford
seriously needs to do some leap-frogging if they want to
get ahead, and it doesn't seem they want to.
>Actually, it is really just a matter of where one puts its
>limited engine development resources. GM does it one way,
>and Ford another.
Yes, but Ford's way (sell all the trucks we can and
ride the Mustang's name recognition for all it's worth) stinks!
At least there is a healthy aftermarket for both platforms,
so for serious racers (not me, yet) it's a moot point anyway.
Walt Amante
lo...@my.sig (aka bro...@cs.unc.edu) wrote:
>
> Why is it GM can get 200HP (and more) from their 3.8 liter,
> while Ford is sitting on its ass with only 150 HP in its 3.8?
>
Why is it that Ford can get 305 HP from their 4.6 liter,
while GM (F-body) is sitting on its butt with only 285 HP
still in its 5.7l for 1997?
Even if one believes the hype about next year (isn't there
always a next year that is better?), GM will only match Ford
at 305 HP, but needing a whooping 5.7 liters to do it!
Actually, it is really just a matter of where one puts its
Arch Stanton
lo...@my.sig wrote:
> snip ...
> Why is it GM can get 200HP (and more) from their 3.8 liter,
> while Ford is sitting on its ass with only 150 HP in its 3.8?
Does it have to do with CAFE regulations? Maybe the 150hp version
yields a bit more fuel economy. Just guessing though. Doesn't Ford
have a +/-200 hp version 3.8 V6 in their Windstar mini-van?
>
> That's only 10 more than what GM had in its smaller 3.1 in
> the 3rd-gen F-bodies!
>
Rex
Arch Stanton wrote:
> lo...@my.sig wrote:
> > snip ...
> > Why is it GM can get 200HP (and more) from their 3.8 liter,
> > while Ford is sitting on its ass with only 150 HP in its 3.8?
>
> Does it have to do with CAFE regulations? Maybe the 150hp version
> yields a bit more fuel economy. Just guessing though. Doesn't Ford
> have a +/-200 hp version 3.8 V6 in their Windstar mini-van?
My 96 Sable squeezes 200 hp out of 3.0 liters...
And it's quite a bit more comfortable to drive than a Camaro.
NoOption5L
Walt,
The Camaro SS 5.7 liter is making 305HP THIS year. The 285HP model your
talking about (the basic Z-28), compete's with the basic GT Mustang that
is getting smoked because it only has 215HP. Next year the basic Z-28 will
have high dollar Cobra matched at 305 while the top Z-28 will have roughly
315/320 Cobra killing HP. You need to compare the right models, basic Z-28
(285HP) vs basic GT Mustang (215HP). Cobra (305) VS Z-28 SS (305HP).
Who cares how many cubic inches GM uses? I for one, am more concerned with
the engine weight and size, how easy and cheap it is to work on,
durability, and the numbers at the end of a run!
In my book, saying you lost because your competing with less cubic inches,
is saying you lost.
Patrick
Walt
In article <19970427050...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
noopt...@aol.com says...
>
>Walt,
>The Camaro SS 5.7 liter is making 305HP THIS year. The 285HP model your
>talking about (the basic Z-28), compete's with the basic GT Mustang that
>is getting smoked because it only has 215HP. Next year the basic Z-28 will
>have high dollar Cobra matched at 305 while the top Z-28 will have roughly
>315/320 Cobra killing HP. You need to compare the right models, basic Z-28
>(285HP) vs basic GT Mustang (215HP). Cobra (305) VS Z-28 SS (305HP).
HP version (from the Corvette?) until '98. Maybe it did come out
last September.
However, Ford has already announced the their supercharger for the
4.6l. I am sure that the Cobra will have a *lot* more HP once
supercharged by SVO.
>Who cares how many cubic inches GM uses? I for one, am more concerned with
>the engine weight and size, how easy and cheap it is to work on,
>durability, and the numbers at the end of a run!
Interesting. You reminded me of when GM started to re-offer the 5.7l
in the Firebirds. GM's hype and marketing was able to sell a lot
of Firebirds with the 5.7l even though it was slower than the still
available 5.0l Firebirds. GM customers just didn't care of true
performance and just wanted the size. The 5.7l had more HP, but
not enough to overcome its extra weight.
>In my book, saying you lost because your competing with less cubic inches,
>is saying you lost.
Well, for 1996, GM only sold 66,876 Camaros. For 1996, Ford sold a
whooping 122,674!! It seems as to when people vote with their
dollars, the Mustang continues to win almost 2 to 1. Ford must be
making the right decisions to more people's way of thinking.
Walt
Matt Kennel (Remove 'nospam' to reply)
On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 08:31:34 -0500, Arch Stanton <ar...@usa.net> wrote:
:lo...@my.sig wrote:
:> snip ...
:> Why is it GM can get 200HP (and more) from their 3.8 liter,
:> while Ford is sitting on its ass with only 150 HP in its 3.8?
:
:Does it have to do with CAFE regulations? Maybe the 150hp version
:yields a bit more fuel economy. Just guessing though. Doesn't Ford
:have a +/-200 hp version 3.8 V6 in their Windstar mini-van?
And a 240 hp in the belated supercoupe.
--
Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD/
Don't blame me, I voted for Emperor Mollari.
Gary Henderson
>>In my book, saying you lost because your competing with less cubic inches,
>>is saying you lost.
>
>Well, for 1996, GM only sold 66,876 Camaros. For 1996, Ford sold a
>whooping 122,674!! It seems as to when people vote with their
>dollars, the Mustang continues to win almost 2 to 1. Ford must be
>making the right decisions to more people's way of thinking.
>
>Walt
>
The Mustang is the better car for the masses, but I don't think we are
'the masses' on here. Toyota sells lots of Camrys, that doesn't mean
they wouldn't sell even more if they made a high performance sporty
Camry. The Mustang sells well now, and would sell even better if it
was quicker.
Gary Henderson
>:Does it have to do with CAFE regulations? Maybe the 150hp version
>:yields a bit more fuel economy. Just guessing though. Doesn't Ford
>:have a +/-200 hp version 3.8 V6 in their Windstar mini-van?
>
>And a 240 hp in the belated supercoupe.
>
The Super Coupe had 230 hp and 330 lb/ft of torque. It stopped in
'95. It was a 3.8 with a roots type super charger....
PLlovet
>GM's hype and marketing was able to sell a lot
>of Firebirds with the 5.7l even though it was slower than >the still
>available 5.0l Firebirds.
How much HP did the Camaro/Firebird V8's have in the
late 80's - early 90's? A friend of mine had a
'90 Camaro/auto/V8, not Z28, which was anemic compared to a Mustang GT.
From the acceleration I thought
it was a V6.
>Well, for 1996, GM only sold 66,876 Camaros. For 1996, >Ford sold a
>whooping 122,674!!
Don't forget the Firebird. Most everybody I know is
getting the Firebird as opposed to the Camaro.
The Viper has struck again!!!
>Well, for 1996, GM only sold 66,876 Camaros. For 1996, Ford sold a
>dollars, the Mustang continues to win almost 2 to 1. Ford must be
>making the right decisions to more people's way of thinking.
>
>Walt
hey walt....the camaro is only half of the 'camarobird'
what were the combined sales of the firebird/camaro?
They are the same car....
I wish I could see just the V-8 #'s...I don't care who sold more
V-6's
Brent Lindon 95Z A4 13.8@99(2.06 60ft.)
Gary Henderson
On 28 Apr 1997 12:46:16 GMT, pll...@aol.com (PLlovet) wrote:
>>GM's hype and marketing was able to sell a lot
>>of Firebirds with the 5.7l even though it was slower than >the still
>>available 5.0l Firebirds.
The reason why the 5.0 Firebirds used to be decently quick was because
you could get them with a 5 speed and the 5.7 was only with an auto.
>How much HP did the Camaro/Firebird V8's have in the
>late 80's - early 90's? A friend of mine had a
>'90 Camaro/auto/V8, not Z28, which was anemic compared to a Mustang GT.
>From the acceleration I thought
>it was a V6.
Your friend probably has a RS which has 170 horsepower I think, and
should go 16.2 or so.
>>Well, for 1996, GM only sold 66,876 Camaros. For 1996, >Ford sold a
>>whooping 122,674!!
>
>Don't forget the Firebird. Most everybody I know is
>getting the Firebird as opposed to the Camaro.
GM sells more Camaros then Firebirds.
C. Barry
Walt wrote:
>
> In article <19970427050...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> noopt...@aol.com says...
> >Who cares how many cubic inches GM uses? I for one, am more concerned > >with the engine weight and size, how easy and cheap it is to work on,
> >durability, and the numbers at the end of a run!
>
> Interesting. You reminded me of when GM started to re-offer the 5.7l
> in the Firebirds. GM's hype and marketing was able to sell a lot
> of Firebirds with the 5.7l even though it was slower than the still
> available 5.0l Firebirds. GM customers just didn't care of true
> performance and just wanted the size. The 5.7l had more HP, but
> not enough to overcome its extra weight.
>
> Walt
Please tell us...what exactly is the unsurmountable extra weight
difference between a 5.0L small block and a 5.7L small block.
--
'92 F150 Flareside 4x4: 5.8L/E4OD, 3.73, 6" lift, 33x14.5R15's.
'94 Mustang GT: 5.0L/AOD, 3.08, Susp. Techniques/Konis, 255/40 BFG ZRs.
'95 Vette Roadster: 5.7L/6 spd., 3.45, FX3 susp., 275/40 GSCs.
Walt Amante
C. Barry wrote:
>
> Please tell us...what exactly is the unsurmountable extra weight
> difference between a 5.0L small block and a 5.7L small block.
like that. However, if you are really interested, just look through
any of the car mags of the time. I do remember all of them having
a chuckle over it after they got to do their first testing of it.
The Viper has struck again!!!
On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 07:43:05 -0700, Walt Amante <Wa...@early.com>
wrote:
I thought it had to do with the fact that you could only get the auto
trans with the 5.7 not the weight of the 350 being signifigantly
heavier
PLlovet
Well, in my opinion the Chevy 350 sounds
really cool with the right exhaust. I
liked the deep tone from the 350
in my truck. I have a feeling the
exhaust note may have convinced some buyers.
Yeah, the 5.0 Firebird may have been quicker
but 5.7 should sound better.
The sound of a car has definitely influenced
my buying decisions.
I'd have thought about getting a used Porsche except
the only Porsche with a V8 is the expensive
928. Ok, there is the 914-8 but only 2
were ever made.
Yeah, the 944 is fun but it sounds
like a Toyota. By the way, the Lambourghini V12
has got to be the most unearthly sound I
have ever heard.
> >Who cares how many cubic inches GM uses?
> Interesting. You reminded me of when GM started to re-offer the 5.7l
> in the Firebirds. GM's hype and marketing was able to sell a lot
> of Firebirds with the 5.7l even though it was slower than the still
> available 5.0l Firebirds. GM customers just didn't care of true
> performance and just wanted the size.
pll...@aol.com
"My brother is an excellent wheelman."
HERBAVOR
In article <19970504020...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, pll...@aol.com
spewed forth from his/her keyboard...
>The sound of a car has definitely influenced
>my buying decisions.
>I'd have thought about getting a used Porsche except
>the only Porsche with a V8 is the expensive
>928. Ok, there is the 914-8 but only 2
>were ever made.
>Yeah, the 944 is fun but it sounds
>like a Toyota. By the way, the Lambourghini V12
>has got to be the most unearthly sound I
>have ever heard.
The 914-8 is called the 918. Also, you can buy a 914 or 911 with a small
block Chevy or Buick GN engine conversion or do the conversion yourself.
There are several shops that specalize in this type of conversion. The car
doesn't corner as well as it does with the 4 or 6 cylinder stock engines
because of the weight, but they have impressive acceleration numbers.
'Bavor