Message for all you Ford Haters!
Herb Stansberry
GM offer a better "out-of-the-box" performance package. I had a 93 GT and
now own a 94 Cobra, but I'm not expecting to beat the F-bodies with no mods
(14.38 1/4 mile in the Cobra stock, 12.30 1/4 mile in the GT w/Vortech
etc.). I consider the F-body as a car for somebody without the mechanical
or performance aptitude to realy tune them (on average - I know of MANY
tuner GMs). I see the Mustang (although moreso in the 5.0 era) as a
foundation to work from. I mean - think about it. The F-body has more
cubes (which we get around with strockers), better heads (aluminum with
larger valves than even the GT40 heads), a six speed, better aerodynamics,
etc. But look at the aftermarket - where do you find your tuner parts?
Price a new intake system for the Mustang vs. the F-Body. The factory
Mustang is, was, and always will be, a starting point for a personalized
monster.
Just my thoughts,
Herb
Blue Oval Pony93 wrote in message
<20000219223259...@ng-xe1.aol.com>...
>I am a Ford fan all the way. All the unintelligent acronyms are redundant
and
>vapid. If that is all you can do is sit around all day trying to think up
some
>acronyms that go with (Ford) because you got beat the other day by one then
>that's cool. But you don't need to brag about a Ford beating you. It
happens
>everyday! All Chevy can do is drop a 350 in for performance. They don't
know
>how to make low displacement blocks make more horsepower. I guess that is
>because they aren't to smart with the technology. How does it feel to be
beat
>by a 281? That is close to a 6 cylinder. Does it make you sad and want to
go
>out and think of your Ford acronyms, or does it make you want to build an
>(Anti-Ford) website and attempt to insult Ford owners? If Ford really sucks
>that bad, then why is the Mustang still around? Oh, I guess because the
sales
>are sky high. All the "SMART" people are buying them up! If you would like
to
>try to bash me like any other Chevy or other sorry owner then go ahead.
Tell me
>what you have to say! I would love to read it.
>
>
>
>
TFrog93
(NoOption5L) writes:
>In article <20000219223259...@ng-xe1.aol.com>,
>blueova...@aol.com (Blue Oval Pony93) writes:
>
>What post inspired you write this... crap? Because this is about the
>dumbest arguement there is.
I wasn't going to touch this. Our new friend BlueOvalPony93 writes as if he'd
just stepped out of an AOL chat room.
He's got to learn that there's a huge difference between "Car Chat" and
internet newsgroups. (Of course, he's also got to learn about "quoting text".)
It sounded like he'd been insulted and then chose the wrong forum to respond.
dwight
(By the way, FORD SUCKS.)
Edward S. Clark IV
with you. If you really want to start something post this in the
Camaro.firebird group, but I really would not recommend that either.
Better yet, just build the hell out of your car and waste them at track,
then find your self a Calvin Peeing on a Red Bowtie sticker for your
back window.
Ed
JD Adams
>
> I am a Ford fan all the way. All the unintelligent acronyms are redundant and
> vapid. If that is all you can do is sit around all day trying to think up some
> acronyms that go with (Ford) because you got beat the other day by one then
> that's cool. But you don't need to brag about a Ford beating you. It happens
> everyday! All Chevy can do is drop a 350 in for performance. They don't know
> how to make low displacement blocks make more horsepower. I guess that is
> because they aren't to smart with the technology. How does it feel to be beat
> by a 281? That is close to a 6 cylinder. Does it make you sad and want to go
> out and think of your Ford acronyms, or does it make you want to build an
> (Anti-Ford) website and attempt to insult Ford owners? If Ford really sucks
> that bad, then why is the Mustang still around? Oh, I guess because the sales
> are sky high. All the "SMART" people are buying them up! If you would like to
> try to bash me like any other Chevy or other sorry owner then go ahead. Tell me
> what you have to say! I would love to read it.
Interesting. This is nearly word-for-word what I hear from Riceboys.
And frankly, a Camaro with a 350 would dust me in a Heartbeat. (no pun
intended.) I admire the Camaro and Corvette 350 ci. powerplant, and
only wish Ford would match the performance by making a 351 V-8 standard
in all GT's. Now that Chevy is pulling the plug, it will never happen,
wish saddens me.
Kindly keep it FORD Country!
-JD
Lodi, Calfornia
'98 Laser Red Mustang GT
17x8 Meats/8.8" 3.27 locker
Custom T303 2.75" dual exhaust
w/high flow cats & 2ch Flowmasters
GW subs w/seat bracing
Steeda TriAx Shifter
Leather/Mach460/T-45
Synthetics everywhere
No K&N/Platinums/stickers
No MAF bug screen.
RWD - the way it should be.
Edward S. Clark IV
>
> Blue Oval Pony93 wrote:
> >
> > I am a Ford fan all the way. All the unintelligent acronyms are redundant and
> > vapid. If that is all you can do is sit around all day trying to think up some
> > acronyms that go with (Ford) because you got beat the other day by one then
> > that's cool. But you don't need to brag about a Ford beating you. It happens
> > everyday! All Chevy can do is drop a 350 in for performance. They don't know
> > how to make low displacement blocks make more horsepower. I guess that is
> > because they aren't to smart with the technology. How does it feel to be beat
> > by a 281? That is close to a 6 cylinder. Does it make you sad and want to go
> > out and think of your Ford acronyms, or does it make you want to build an
> > (Anti-Ford) website and attempt to insult Ford owners? If Ford really sucks
> > that bad, then why is the Mustang still around? Oh, I guess because the sales
> > are sky high. All the "SMART" people are buying them up! If you would like to
> > try to bash me like any other Chevy or other sorry owner then go ahead. Tell me
> > what you have to say! I would love to read it.
>
> Interesting. This is nearly word-for-word what I hear from Riceboys.
>
> And frankly, a Camaro with a 350 would dust me in a Heartbeat. (no pun
> intended.) I admire the Camaro and Corvette 350 ci. powerplant, and
> only wish Ford would match the performance by making a 351 V-8 standard
> in all GT's. Now that Chevy is pulling the plug, it will never happen,
> wish saddens me.
They are a good standard to shoot for when setting of on mod'ing a
stang.
Ed
MustangGT460
written but...Im currently bulding my pony with the fat block 460 simply
because a 5.0 or a 5.8 with out power adders wont do. A friend of mine has a
'99 SS ( thats a LS1 350) and he ran a 12.72 last week at Rockingham. He has
very mild mods and no power adders..did I mention he has less than 20 runs on a
track? Every time I go to the Rock I see folks with their near stock 5.0's and
5.8's spraying the giggle juice so they can smoke the GM guys...Relax and enjoy
your car......then...Drive it like you hate it ( sorry had to steal that one)
and like the man said you posted this in the wrong group
Rob
NoOption5L
<he...@texas.net> writes:
>I'm a Ford guy all the way, but if your looking for a turn-key package, the
>GM offer a better "out-of-the-box" performance package.
I agree up to here.
> I had a 93 GT and
>now own a 94 Cobra, but I'm not expecting to beat the F-bodies with no mods
>(14.38 1/4 mile in the Cobra stock, 12.30 1/4 mile in the GT w/Vortech
>etc.). I consider the F-body as a car for somebody without the mechanical
>or performance aptitude to realy tune them
There are many LT1 and LS1 owners tuning their own cars.
>(on average - I know of MANY
>tuner GMs). I see the Mustang (although moreso in the 5.0 era) as a
>foundation to work from. I mean - think about it. The F-body has more
>cubes (which we get around with strockers), better heads (aluminum with
>larger valves than even the GT40 heads), a six speed, better aerodynamics,
>etc. But look at the aftermarket - where do you find your tuner parts?
I'll bet there's as many LS1 aftermarket parts as there is modular parts.
Plus, GM has an improved LS1 called the LS6 (rumoured to have well over 400 hp)
due out soon and all of the LS6's parts are rumoured to bolt on to LS1s.
>Price a new intake system for the Mustang vs. the F-Body.
Yea, maybe the older 5-liter parts, but the modular aftermarket bolt-ons are
not cheap.
>The factory
>Mustang is, was, and always will be, a starting point for a personalized
>monster.
If you only go back to the 90s. During the 60's, 70's, and 80's the small
block Chevy was king of the aftermarket.
Patrick
'93 Cobra - 13.70 @ 103.23
Former original owner - '87 5-liter, 5-speed LX
14.2 @ 98 stock - 13.8 @ 101 lightly modded
Best street tire 60 footer - 1.93
I'm not brand loyal. If it's fast, I like it.
Schmegma
> 1000 cubes, of course this is relagated to farm equipment and such...but
> whatever
Yea, like a Waukesha VHP3521GSI that is 3521 cubes and makes
1100 BHP at only 1200 RPM!!!
Jim Sayre
99GT
Musashi™
wrote:
>I am a Ford fan all the way.
Bully for you. I like Ford, own an Oldsmobile, a Chevy, and a
Suzuki. The slowest one runs high 11's, and it's the bike.
>All the unintelligent acronyms are redundant and
>vapid.
Someone is pulling words out of his word of the day vocabulary
builder without thinking through just how incongruous his adjectives
really are.
> If that is all you can do is sit around all day trying to think up some
>acronyms that go with (Ford) because you got beat the other day by one then
>that's cool.
Actually it's pretty sad.
> But you don't need to brag about a Ford beating you. It happens
>everyday!
lol!! Cash the reality check we're sending you IMMEDIATELY!!!!
Chevy is currently the king of the hill in performance.
> All Chevy can do is drop a 350 in for performance.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I've noticed that ricers
say the same thing. I also notice that ricers are losers, too. Hmmm,
you're not a ricer in disguise, are you?
>They don't know
>how to make low displacement blocks make more horsepower.
>I guess that is
>because they aren't to smart with the technology.
Cough cough, GNX, cough. Also, it would seem that Ford can't
make a large displacement block pass EPA and CAFE restrictions. That
would make Ford "not too smart with the technology."
> How does it feel to be beat
>by a 281?
I wouldn't know. How does it feel to get beat by a 350? If
you've been to the strip you would know. Pushrod technology and all.
>That is close to a 6 cylinder.
Chevy made a 292 6 cylinder, so it's actually less than a 6, but
that might hurt your fragile ego to think of it.
> Does it make you sad and want to go
>out and think of your Ford acronyms, or does it make you want to build an
>(Anti-Ford) website and attempt to insult Ford owners?
Not really. Why, do you feel betrayed by the blue oval and feel
that need?
> If Ford really sucks that bad, then why is the Mustang still around?
lmao!!! What a stupid argument!! I guess this makes the Civic a
real gem, too? It's "still around" after all.
>Oh, I guess because the sales
>are sky high. All the "SMART" people are buying them up!
SMART people are buying base model 6's, not the 8's, so what does
that have to do with anything? SMARTER people buy Accords, anyway.
It _is_ a better seller than the Mustang, and sales determine
performance, right?
>If you would like to
>try to bash me like any other Chevy or other sorry owner then go ahead.
Thanks, but I'd do it with or without your permission.
>Tell me what you have to say! I would love to read it.
I'd doubt it, I use that tricky "logic" stuff a lot. You
wouldn't like it too much.
----
In the arms of the angels, fly away from here.
From this dark, cold, hotel room, and the endlessness that you fear.
You are pulled from the wreckage of your silent reveries,
you're in the arms of the angels, may you find some comfort here.
Edward S. Clark IV
This is a no shitter. Building a cost effective 302 20 years ago was a
challenge. Heads, what heads? Not without giving up your first born.
Best you could do cheap is try to hunt down some 70 302 4 BBl heads and
work from there or take a stab at putting together a Boss. The only
people making any kind of cam and intake combo was Edelbrock and at
first it was only the Performer series. You could get manifolds and
cams from other manufacturers but matching them was your guess. 4 bolt
blocks and strokers, never heard of them. If they were around and they
may have been, I did not hear of them. Remember there was no internet
to share this info. If you did not hang out at a track you probably
were left out. But for the small Chevy's parts were cheap and falling
off the back of trucks and trees. Most parts where in stock at most
autoparts dealers, and this was before Autozone and Pepboys and the
like.
Ed
Edward S. Clark IV
development in the existing 350 was a waste time. So the motor was
simply redesigned from scratch. Good move for GM. Ford made a similar
move but was stupid because they selected the wrong motor. 4.6 vs 5.4.
But the fact remains, the Mustang out sells the Camaro for several
reasons, Perceived quality, insurance costs, daily derivability and
comfort.
I have posted this a bzillion times, I wanted to buy a 99 Z28 or SS, but
back to back test drives and short of a little less power the stang
"felt" simply more fun and responsive and comfortable. My test drive
was in the environment that I was going to use the car in, around town.
Not at the racetrack. If that was really important to me I would not
have bought an new car at all. I would buy a car and drop 20k into it.
The new Camaro's are very quick cars. No argument there. I don't care
how they do it. The argument I think the original poster missed is why
are many Camaro owners such assholes? If we Mustangers are nothing to
worry about then why spend so much time and energy attempting to bad
mouth and insult us? We all had the opportunity to buy a Camaro and
decided for what ever reason not to. Does that make us all drunken,
rednecks? Personally I am not offended by much of that crap. It is kind
of funny in a sad way, but I can see how others might be offended by it.
Ed
JD Adams
The diesel in my work truck is a 6-banger: all 670 cubic inches of it.
(Cummins ISM-series) Only 470 hp on top end, but nearly 3,000 ft./lb. of
torque, at 1250 rpm! Makes my job of pulling a 40-ton rig pretty easy.
I've pulled the Grapevine at over 50 mph. before, which even impresses
ME.
Musashi™
<edcl...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
>The new Camaro's are very quick cars. No argument there. I don't care
>how they do it. The argument I think the original poster missed is why
>are many Camaro owners such assholes?
I've seen just as many asses in Mustangs as I have in Camaros. I
think the reason the Camaros are more likely to pick on a Mustang is
that the Camaro owners know they have a quicker car, just as the old
5.0's would try and pick on the IROC-Z's of the 80's. The Mustangers
know that all else being equal, they will lose the race, so why bother
to start one? Driving a car that neither camp sees as a friend or all
that quick, they both want to race me, and GT's are every bit as
foolish as the Cobra's and Z's and TA's in wanting to pick on me. The
only thing they all have in common is that they all think they have a
chance against an old, harmless Cutlass. I've gotten to the point
where most of the time I don't even bother racing them. Personally,
<and I believe this is due to the fact there are just more Mustangs on
the road> I've noticed that more Mustangers are apt to try and
instigate a race and act like a fool when I wave them off.
>If we Mustangers are nothing to
>worry about then why spend so much time and energy attempting to bad
>mouth and insult us?
Why the IROC acronyms? Why the Firechicken jokes in when they were
slower than the 5.0's? It's part of the Camaro/Mustang rivalry. The
difference is that now the Mustangs are on the losing end of it and
can't simply say "see you on the track" like the old 5.0's could when
an IROC owner called them a "five point slow."
> We all had the opportunity to buy a Camaro and
>decided for what ever reason not to. Does that make us all drunken,
>rednecks? Personally I am not offended by much of that crap. It is kind
>of funny in a sad way, but I can see how others might be offended by it.
The people who are offended are the ones that really don't
believe that they bought a car to be user-friendly. It's pretty well
known that I'm considernig a GT in a year instead of an F-body, and I
am doing that because I think the Mustang is a better _car_ than the
F-bodies. I really won't care if I get beat in it because I know very
well that it is a compromise car. The ones that get mad at being in
second really wanted the fastest car they could get and are ticked
that they were forced for whatever reason away from the Camaro
<inability to live with the crappy build quality counting as a reason
they were forced out>. It just irks them that their car isn't
recognized as the best.
Herb Stansberry
what I'm running). Actually, the SBC is still the king of the aftermarket -
just in the older style (pre '87) before the EFI motors.
Herb
NoOption5L wrote in message
<20000220234709...@nso-fg.aol.com>...
NoOption5L
writes:
>>The new Camaro's are very quick cars. No argument there. I don't care
>>how they do it. The argument I think the original poster missed is why
>>are many Camaro owners such assholes?
> I've seen just as many asses in Mustangs as I have in Camaros. I
>think the reason the Camaros are more likely to pick on a Mustang is
>that the Camaro owners know they have a quicker car, just as the old
>5.0's would try and pick on the IROC-Z's of the 80's. The Mustangers
>know that all else being equal, they will lose the race, so why bother
>to start one?
Well said. Back then the GNs were the ones to go after.
>Driving a car that neither camp sees as a friend or all
>that quick, they both want to race me, and GT's are every bit as
>foolish as the Cobra's and Z's and TA's in wanting to pick on me. The
>only thing they all have in common is that they all think they have a
>chance against an old, harmless Cutlass.
That is a great feeling.
>I've gotten to the point
>where most of the time I don't even bother racing them. Personally,
><and I believe this is due to the fact there are just more Mustangs on
>the road>
> I've noticed that more Mustangers are apt to try and instigate a race and act
like >a fool when I wave them off.
I hate people like that. When I'm interested in racing someone, I'm subtle
about it. Cruise up next to them in one gear lower than I should be in, a
little downshift next to them as we both approach a light, or maybe just creap
forward a bit as the light is getting ready to turn green. If they don't
respond to one of these, I don't mess with them.
>>If we Mustangers are nothing to
>>worry about then why spend so much time and energy attempting to bad
>>mouth and insult us?
> Why the IROC acronyms? Why the Firechicken jokes in when they were
>slower than the 5.0's? It's part of the Camaro/Mustang rivalry. The
>difference is that now the Mustangs are on the losing end of it and
>can't simply say "see you on the track" like the old 5.0's could when
>an IROC owner called them a "five point slow."
Yep, all true.
>> We all had the opportunity to buy a Camaro and
>>decided for what ever reason not to. Does that make us all drunken,
>>rednecks? Personally I am not offended by much of that crap. It is kind
>>of funny in a sad way, but I can see how others might be offended by it.
> The people who are offended are the ones that really don't
>believe that they bought a car to be user-friendly. It's pretty well
>known that I'm considernig a GT in a year instead of an F-body, and I
>am doing that because I think the Mustang is a better _car_ than the
>F-bodies.
What year GT?
>I really won't care if I get beat in it because I know very
>well that it is a compromise car. The ones that get mad at being in
>second really wanted the fastest car they could get and are ticked
>that they were forced for whatever reason away from the Camaro
><inability to live with the crappy build quality counting as a reason
>they were forced out>. It just irks them that their car isn't
>recognized as the best.
The thing that was so great about the 5-liter LXs, was knowing you had the
better built car, you were faster, AND you paid less than the IROC/GTA guys.
Musashi™
>In article <38b292c1...@news.mindspring.com>, ad...@asdf.com (Musashi™)
>writes:
<snip>
>> The people who are offended are the ones that really don't
>>believe that they bought a car to be user-friendly. It's pretty well
>>known that I'm considernig a GT in a year instead of an F-body, and I
>>am doing that because I think the Mustang is a better _car_ than the
>>F-bodies.
>
>What year GT?
1999 or later, depending on the deal I can get and the money I
have free. It'll need a few bolt on tweaks to the exhaust and intake
<ie, a small blower> but that should have it nicely in the 12's and
still be a good car for daily use. The styling of those years has
grown on me, and the earlier GT's are way too slow. A Cobra of the
earlier years would be ok, but I think I'd be happier with a newer GT,
and the price would be about the same for about the same performace,
plus a little lower insurance rates and a little newer car.
----
I believe in love and danger,
I believe the truth is stranger.
I believe that fear is much to strong.
I believe the best will find me,
when I leave the rest behind me,
out on the highway, I'm my own.
Musashi™
<snip>
>I believe in love and danger,
>I believe the truth is stranger.
>I believe that fear is much to strong.
"To." Crap. I hate people that don't proof their own sigs, don't
you? Damn it.
----
I believe in love and danger,
I believe the truth is stranger.
I believe that fear is much too strong.
Kenny H
>The thing that was so great about the 5-liter LXs, was knowing you had the
>better built car, you were faster, AND you paid less than the IROC/GTA guys.
That is such a good point. The only area the older FBodies were
superior in was handling, and they did it with a much stiffer
ride....But 2 out of 3 isn't bad today and the '99-'00 GTs low 14
second 1/4 mile time is fast enough for 98% of the people out there!
Kenny H
wrote:
>I am a Ford fan all the way. All the unintelligent acronyms are redundant and
>vapid. If that is all you can do is sit around all day trying to think up some
>acronyms that go with (Ford) because you got beat the other day by one then
>that's cool. But you don't need to brag about a Ford beating you. It happens
>everyday! All Chevy can do is drop a 350 in for performance.
Chevy is still using the 350? In what performance car do they still
use the 350?
They don't know
>how to make low displacement blocks make more horsepower. I guess that is
>because they aren't to smart with the technology.
Yeah, those Grand National, Grand Prix GTPs, Regal GSs, and TTypes
really suck!
How does it feel to be beat
>by a 281? That is close to a 6 cylinder.
Hmm. a 281 is an awfully big 6. Ford does make the 300 6 though, but
thats in trucks.
Does it make you sad and want to go
>out and think of your Ford acronyms, or does it make you want to build an
>(Anti-Ford) website and attempt to insult Ford owners? If Ford really sucks
>that bad, then why is the Mustang still around? Oh, I guess because the sales
>are sky high.
Mustang sales are hardly 'sky high.' Camry sales are 'sky high.'
Perhaps all the people are buying Camrys too, I should get one.
All the "SMART" people are buying them up! If you would like to
>try to bash me like any other Chevy or other sorry owner then go ahead. Tell me
>what you have to say! I would love to read it.
No need to bash, you make yourself look pretty dumb without any help
from me :-)
TFrog93
>The only thing they all have in common is that they all think they
>have a chance against an old, harmless Cutlass.
Does that "old, harmless Cutlass" SOUND like an old, harmless Cutlass? Just
curious. Seems to me that, as fast as you have that thing, it oughta downright
rumble!
dwight
Edward S. Clark IV
I am not talking about friendly rivalry here and good humored jokes. My
father drives a 95 Z28 Six speed and I can take him and have. You don't
think we get on the phone are start acting like jerks just because I
don't want a car just like his.
I am talking about near anti-social behavior. Yes, Jerks can drive any
type of car. But since buying a new mustang I have never experienced
such asshole-ish behavior from guys driving almost always Camaro's. I
can't drive to work and back without some asshole in a usually in a
Camaro drive by giving me the finger and telling me "MUSTANGS SUCK" when
he goes by. I have never ever seen this driving other cars and even
other models of Fords including my 93 SHO. But it is a common
experience now that I drive a Mustang. Why?
Sure not everybody in a Camaro is a jerk. There just seems to be an
element drawn to the car that needs to grow up a bit.
As far as "picking on" other cars. I am not a street racer, I even let
rice win (a basis for "I beat a mustang story"), and even compliment a
nice car no matter what it is. In fact the only time I have tried goat
somebody to leave a light with me, it was a good looking fox-body
mustang 5.0. The light turned and he did nothing (much to his credit)
so neither did I. Now, I go to the track. Using the timing at a track
you don't even need head to head racing to see who is the quickest. But
one thing I've noticed at the track, people are much better behaved and
mature, plus you can't flip somebody off, scream out the window as I
turn off.
Ed
"Musashi™" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 16:58:58 GMT, "Edward S. Clark IV"
> <edcl...@home.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >The new Camaro's are very quick cars. No argument there. I don't care
> >how they do it. The argument I think the original poster missed is why
> >are many Camaro owners such assholes?
>
> I've seen just as many asses in Mustangs as I have in Camaros. I
> think the reason the Camaros are more likely to pick on a Mustang is
> that the Camaro owners know they have a quicker car, just as the old
> 5.0's would try and pick on the IROC-Z's of the 80's. The Mustangers
> know that all else being equal, they will lose the race, so why bother
> to start one? Driving a car that neither camp sees as a friend or all
> that quick, they both want to race me, and GT's are every bit as
> foolish as the Cobra's and Z's and TA's in wanting to pick on me. The
> only thing they all have in common is that they all think they have a
> chance against an old, harmless Cutlass. I've gotten to the point
> where most of the time I don't even bother racing them. Personally,
> <and I believe this is due to the fact there are just more Mustangs on
> the road> I've noticed that more Mustangers are apt to try and
> instigate a race and act like a fool when I wave them off.
>
> >If we Mustangers are nothing to
> >worry about then why spend so much time and energy attempting to bad
> >mouth and insult us?
>
> Why the IROC acronyms? Why the Firechicken jokes in when they were
> slower than the 5.0's? It's part of the Camaro/Mustang rivalry. The
> difference is that now the Mustangs are on the losing end of it and
> can't simply say "see you on the track" like the old 5.0's could when
> an IROC owner called them a "five point slow."
>
> > We all had the opportunity to buy a Camaro and
> >decided for what ever reason not to. Does that make us all drunken,
> >rednecks? Personally I am not offended by much of that crap. It is kind
> >of funny in a sad way, but I can see how others might be offended by it.
>
> The people who are offended are the ones that really don't
> believe that they bought a car to be user-friendly. It's pretty well
> known that I'm considernig a GT in a year instead of an F-body, and I
> am doing that because I think the Mustang is a better _car_ than the
> F-bodies. I really won't care if I get beat in it because I know very
> well that it is a compromise car. The ones that get mad at being in
> second really wanted the fastest car they could get and are ticked
> that they were forced for whatever reason away from the Camaro
> <inability to live with the crappy build quality counting as a reason
> they were forced out>. It just irks them that their car isn't
> recognized as the best.
>
Edward S. Clark IV
But, I have seen fast ones.
Ed
TFrog93 wrote:
>
> In article <38b292c1...@news.mindspring.com>, ad...@asdf.com (Musashi™)
> writes:
>
> >The only thing they all have in common is that they all think they
> >have a chance against an old, harmless Cutlass.
>
Musashi™
>In article <38b292c1...@news.mindspring.com>, ad...@asdf.com (Musashi™)
>writes:
>
>>The only thing they all have in common is that they all think they
>>have a chance against an old, harmless Cutlass.
>
>Does that "old, harmless Cutlass" SOUND like an old, harmless Cutlass? Just
>curious. Seems to me that, as fast as you have that thing, it oughta downright
>rumble!
It does. Full headers, H-pipe, 2 1/2" exhaust, two 18" bodied
Thrush turbo mufflers. It ain't quiet, but it's not obnoxious. It's
also easy to tell the cam isn't a round lobed stocker, as the CC280
cam has 230 deg duration and a 110 deg LSA. People that know what
they are hearing understand that it isn't just a loud muffler and a
scoop that keeps the car from being stock.
Musashi™
<edcl...@home.com> wrote:
>
>I am not talking about friendly rivalry here and good humored jokes. My
>father drives a 95 Z28 Six speed and I can take him and have. You don't
>think we get on the phone are start acting like jerks just because I
>don't want a car just like his.
I wasn't talking about being friendly, either, I just didn't want
to get vulgar in my examples.
>I am talking about near anti-social behavior. Yes, Jerks can drive any
>type of car. But since buying a new mustang I have never experienced
>such asshole-ish behavior from guys driving almost always Camaro's. I
>can't drive to work and back without some asshole in a usually in a
>Camaro drive by giving me the finger and telling me "MUSTANGS SUCK" when
>he goes by. I have never ever seen this driving other cars and even
>other models of Fords including my 93 SHO. But it is a common
>experience now that I drive a Mustang. Why?
Because they can beat the Mustangs. Flash back 10 years to 1990
and ask a Z driver how bad the 5.0 drivers acted and you'll get the
same story, just from the Camaro guys. The difference? Then the
Mustang was being the poor winner, now the Camaro is faster, so its
drivers are acting like jerks.
Most people wouldn't recognize an SHO from a regular Taurus, so no
one would really bother with it unless the SHO started the race. Even
then, the SHO wasn't that much of a threat, and would likely be
dismissed by the "real performance cars" much like I've seen ignorant
fools dismiss a GN. How little you have to know to do that, I can't
really fathom, but I've seen it happen.
>Sure not everybody in a Camaro is a jerk. There just seems to be an
>element drawn to the car that needs to grow up a bit.
Any boy-racer car gets that element. Again, go back 10 years and
you can replace Camaro with Mustang in just about everything you've
said.
>As far as "picking on" other cars. I am not a street racer, I even let
>rice win (a basis for "I beat a mustang story"), and even compliment a
>nice car no matter what it is. In fact the only time I have tried goat
>somebody to leave a light with me, it was a good looking fox-body
>mustang 5.0. The light turned and he did nothing (much to his credit)
>so neither did I. Now, I go to the track. Using the timing at a track
>you don't even need head to head racing to see who is the quickest. But
>one thing I've noticed at the track, people are much better behaved and
>mature, plus you can't flip somebody off, scream out the window as I
>turn off.
You're one person. There are people in Camaros that feel the
same way, but there are jerks that drive them, too. There are also
jerks in Mustangs. It's all about who's faster, and if that's you,
you have bragging rights. Mustangs had them and used them, now they
have lost them and they're seeing the turn about. There's no real
mystery to it.
Edward S. Clark IV
Here's where your theory falls apart. Most of the Camaro's that are
pulling this are one's I can flat stomp on. And it's almost always a
guy too young to have been driving ten years ago.
Ed
TFrog93
writes:
>On 22 Feb 2000 09:56:15 GMT, tfr...@aol.comlink (TFrog93) wrote:
>
>>In article <38b292c1...@news.mindspring.com>, ad...@asdf.com
>(Musashiâ„¢)
>>writes:
>>
>>>The only thing they all have in common is that they all think they
>>>have a chance against an old, harmless Cutlass.
>>
>>Does that "old, harmless Cutlass" SOUND like an old, harmless Cutlass?
>>Just curious. Seems to me that, as fast as you have that thing, it oughta
>>downright rumble!
>
> It does. Full headers, H-pipe, 2 1/2" exhaust, two 18" bodied
>Thrush turbo mufflers. It ain't quiet, but it's not obnoxious. It's
>also easy to tell the cam isn't a round lobed stocker, as the CC280
>cam has 230 deg duration and a 110 deg LSA. People that know what
>they are hearing understand that it isn't just a loud muffler and a
>scoop that keeps the car from being stock.
That's about what I thought. So, anyone who pulls up next to you and hears
that exhaust note, and STILL wants to run... deserves to get spanked.
It's rare that I get to hear a "lopey cam" around here, but I think I can tell
the difference between pure power and "Midas time".
:()
NoOption5L
writes:
>On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 05:44:59 GMT, ad...@asdf.com (Musashi™) wrote:
> <snip>
>>I believe in love and danger,
>>I believe the truth is stranger.
>>I believe that fear is much to strong.
> "To." Crap. I hate people that don't proof their own sigs, don't
>you? Damn it.
What REALLY annoys me is people who don't know the difference between two, too,
and to! ;-)
NoOption5L
(Kenny H) writes:
>>The thing that was so great about the 5-liter LXs, was knowing you had the
>>better built car, you were faster, AND you paid less than the IROC/GTA guys.
>
>
>That is such a good point. The only area the older FBodies were
>superior in was handling,
And braking.
>and they did it with a much stiffer ride....But 2 out of 3 isn't bad today and
the >'99-'00 GTs low 14 second 1/4 mile time is fast enough for 98% of the
people out >there!
For a while... that's why the aftermarket is a booming business...