'twas hella fun, too. Weighed 2400lbs. Those HP figures are at 7k feet; at sea level it made 30% more. 50/50 weight balance. The pain in the ass is that 17-year-old kids aren't the best chassis designers, even when they're me, and cooling was always a bitch. It's stranded in New Mexico right now. If I were to rebuild the silly thing, I'd probably put it on an ML430. Dumb thing is I had to cut the Scout chassis down by 15"; apparently in England they do it all the time because it's a pretty easy swap onto a Land Rover.
Dude, you have no idea how awesome I think that is. You got bigger and better projects to do these days, but it must be great knowing that you put something together like that, especially at that age. Did you actually ever take it off road? How well did it do? Personally, I've always felt a bit torn about mudding and rock crawling. On the one hand, having trucks as purpose built as those are amazing to see, just like top fuel dragsters and F1 cars are amazing. On the other hand though, I'm sure the actual activity of mudding and rock crawling puts a bit of stress on any local eco system it takes place in.
We didn't use the phrase "off road" because we never went "off road." We just had roads around us shitty enough that you needed 4 low and 33s to get up them. That's generally the attitude of the sport; there's plenty of goofing around on-trail to be done such that you don't need to go out and destroy the environment for everyone. Basically I've always seen jeeping as a utility to make your hikes shorter. The TR-7 (my dad called it "the road toad") sucked ass on-trail. That's because 17-year-old me improved its ground clearance with add-a-leafs while also reducing the chassis weight by over a thousand pounds. As such, it effectively had no suspension. It also had a Holley 4011 (I built it the one year you could actually buy one) because spread-bore makes so much more sense than square bore and the only aftermarket spread bore carb you could buy other than a 4011 was a Carter AFB and nobody with any sense runs those. Anyway, the main problem with a 4011 for off-roading is they have a really sloppy splashy float bowl and going over speed bumps would stall it out because the fuel would all jump out of the jets. Man that carb was a piece of shit. Dumb thing is I haven't done any hotrodding in 20 years and the parts are the same, the players are the same... it's almost like my generation was the last generation to put a 350 in anything.
Its probably because the generation after yours was too busy playing video games and posting selfies to go out and actually do anything. Also after about 96 cars became much more difficult to customize with anything other than ricer body panels and tin can exhausts. Emissions requirements, airbags and complex electronics did really help either.
350s are still used in circle track racing and GM G-Bodies are still predominantly used as well. They're pretty popular in drag racing too. You can even still get GM 350 Crate Motors if you wanna get new. I think motorwise though, everyone is moving on to LS for GM or whatever respective halo engine a certain car's manufactuer has. A lot of Toyota fanboys I know won't shut up about the 2JZ for example. I don't know much about carbs myself. Was there anyway for you to modify the float bowl at all to fix that problem? Or would that be more work than it's worth?
The LS offends me so much. Same bore, same stroke, same intake size, same exhaust size, zero parts interchangeability. It's like, fuck's sake, people. It's 2008. DOHC that bitch for once and for all you choads. Carbs are vastly more complicated than fuel injection because they're passive devices whose functionality is wholly dependent on vacuum being correct throughout a power regime. The fix would have been to throw Corvette TPI on the fucker to begin with but back then that was outlandishly expensive and bourgeois as fuck. Now? Well, masculinity still looks like this as far as I'm concerned.
I might be reading Wikipedia and recalling things wrong, but I'm pretty sure the LS is a pushrod V8 (pretty certain it's a descendent of the same block design as the 350), so it can't be a DOHC because the camshaft is inside the block. To make a DOHC would mean they'd have to design a whole new engine block. Pushrods are kind of GM's thing though. Mazda has their rotary engines, Subaru has their boxer engines, and GM has pushrods. I mean, yeah, you can't get as rev happy with them but they're small, light, easy to modify, and that's why everyone loves to do LS swaps. If a car has an engine bay, there's literally a good chance the LS can fit in it. They're wonderful engines that sound absolutely amazing and easily produce pants wetting amounts of power. It's been 20 years now. You could probably source parts pretty easily to build the engine 17 year old you would want. So you ever find yourself tempted to go back and work on the car some more?The LS offends me so much. Same bore, same stroke, same intake size, same exhaust size, zero parts interchangeability. It's like, fuck's sake, people. It's 2008. DOHC that bitch for once and for all you choads.
The fix would have been to throw Corvette TPI on the fucker to begin with but back then that was outlandishly expensive and bourgeois as fuck.
This is correct. My argument is that if you're going to make yet another pushrod V8 with the exact same bore, stroke and valve profile as the one you've been making since '57, maybe you should try and keep some of the parts the same. 'cuz they fuckin' made a 32v DOHC 350 back in 1990: And no, pushrods are not "GM's thing." Pushrods were everyone's thing up until the Japanese decided they wanted to simplify the valvetrain, minimize the parts, and increase the valve area. The only people running pushrods now are the throwbacks: Harley Davidson, Ducati and Briggs & Stratton. At least Ducati has the honor to go desmodromic on it and at least Harley uses Chevy pushrods and at least Briggs and Stratton is no longer making flatheads but that's where we're at: the people still using pushrods only just stopped building flatheads. And I know you don't understand what half that means, and that's okay. This is my gentle way of saying "no, you're wrong, pushrod engines aren't small, light and easy to modify, they're shit." Everyone loves to do LS swaps because everyone used to put small blocks in everything. I've seen a small block VW Beetle. I've seen a small block Honda Civic. For a while, I was on the edge of putting a small block in a VW bus, except that isn't true, we were going to put a 512 Cadillac V8 in it because small blocks are horrendously overrated. Li'l story. I was reading a Hot Rod Magazine article about the Ford Romeo V8, looking at the parts available, noticing that it would get up to 500HP if you breathed on it right, and thinking that'd be pretty fun to put in a 3000GT. But it only takes one Youtube video. Yeah. The engine that's already in a 3000GT can make a streetable 1100HP, no engine swap necessary. Look. American V8s have been forgotten by time. They really have. Saying "pushrods are their thing" is like saying "training wheels are their thing." And you're assuring someone that smallblock V8s fit in everything after he's shown you pictures of the smallblock TR-7 on 31" mud tires that he built. I know they do. So no, not really, I don't feel tempted to work on the thing. 'cuz here's the deal: At the age of 17, I pretty much exhausted the possibilities of that engine and I've been through two Bushes, a Clinton and an Obama since then. It may have been unclear but I really hate the fact that chevy makes DOHC engines by the bargeful, they just don't put them in anything fast. So when I say that I find myself pushed into a corner where I'm seriously considering a CTS-V, know just how uncomfortable that makes me. See this car? It's basically a remixed Corvette. Know what it uses for a transaxle? A Porsche G50. Know why? Because Porsche, with their bullshit little air-cooled 3L flat six, has been making more horsepower and torque than Chevy with their 5.7L V8 for 30 fucking years. See this thing? That's a 4.6L DOHC all-aluminum General Motors V8. That GM stopped making in 2010. Know what an LS-7 is? It's a ported and polished LS-1. Which means, for the easy hot-rod stuff, the peak HP out of an LS motor is 500 fucking horsepower. Punk-ass-kid me was getting 450 with a shitty carb and an RV cam and some $200 headers back in nineteen diggity two.I might be reading Wikipedia and recalling things wrong, but I'm pretty sure the LS is a pushrod V8 (pretty certain it's a descendent of the same block design as the 350), so it can't be a DOHC because the camshaft is inside the block.
I'm on mobile at the moment but I do have some quick questions. Have you thought about the new S550 Mustang? People seem to be head over heels for the car and you could get a decent one for much less than the price of a CTS-V. I'm not familiar with the engine. I'll look it up when I'm home tomorrow morning. I wonder what the dollar/hp ratio is. I see your argument about the LS being dated, but I'd half bet part of their popularity is due to price, availability, and widespread aftermarket support. An F1 engine, as an extreme example, could murder the LS series without even trying. The price point of such an engine though, would make it impractical.When I say that I find myself pushed into a corner where I'm seriously considering a CTS-V, know just how uncomfortable that makes me.
A Porsche G50
Edward Abbey argued in Desert Solitaire that all young men willing to undergo vasectomy in exchange for a new Camaro or Mustang should be permitted to do so. That'll stick with ya. Having grown up immersed in car culture, Camaros and Mustangs are 100% out. There's no way. I would sooner ride a Harley than drive a mustang, and I would sooner ride an ostrich than ride a Harley. A G50 is a transaxle. The point being: the burly transmission you use for your heavily-breathed-on LS V8 is the one that has come stock in 911s for nearly 30 years. As it makes no HP, the pricepoint is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is, a 3L air-cooled flat six will stomp the shit out of a water-cooled 6L water-cooled V8. F1 engines don't count. They don't run gasoline, and their curves are in the wrong place. But when you're talking "thing that drives legally on city streets" compared to "thing that drives legally on city streets" and they both fill up at the same gas'n'sip, the argument that Chevy is the king of the throwbacks is harder to defeat. And yeah. Fuck yeah. An iron-block pushrod V8 is going to be cheaper than a Porsche flat six. every time. Part of that is that there are a lot more iron-block pushrod V8s in the world so their unit price drops. But again: Chevy made a DOHC aluminum V8. then they stopped. Then they made another DOHC aluminum V8. then they stopped. And if they made DOHC aluminum V8s the way they make fuckin' LS1s the DOHC aluminum V8 probably wouldn't be some hyperexotic wondermachine, it'd be something we all throw in our Cobras or whatever. After all, Ford can do it.
The mouth breathing, knuckle dragging American in me likes Mustangs. I'm sorry, I can't help it. I think it's fun that you bring up Ford's engines though, because I was thinking about how they're taking a different path than GM's LS Series. Just like people seem to go gaga for the S550, people similarly seem to be in love with Ford's Coyote V8 which happens to be a DOHC setup. Similarly, like you were talking about sub 2L Straight 4s, the 2.3L Ecoboost Engine is proving to be quite respectable. Maybe Ford is on a better path engine wise? Who knows. I'm not trying to turn you on to Mustang or anything, I just think it's an interesting comparison in design philosophy. So maybe yeah, the argument that snoodog brings up is kind of relevant combined with your argument. I guess people love what they know and more often than not, what people know is what they can afford.Ford can do it.
And yeah. Fuck yeah. An iron-block pushrod V8 is going to be cheaper than a Porsche flat six. every time. Part of that is that there are a lot more iron-block pushrod V8s in the world so their unit price drops.
Hon, let me tell you something. It's gonna blow your mind. . . Cigarettes - are fuckin' cool. People love cigarettes because they are fucking cool. People love cigarettes because when they smoke one, they feel that they look like a scene from a black-and-white movie. Because when they smoke one, they convey a certain message, or at least flavor of message. Because smoking a cigarette simultaneously says, "Fuck you," and "Look at me." Mustangs are cigarettes. They convey a certain air. They are not just a status symbol or a "car." To drive a Mustang is to deliberately choose to try to convey certain values and traits about yourself. That is what GM has sold you when you drive a Mustang. It has nothing to do with what the car looks like. It has everything to do with what it means and represents. Of course Mustangs appeal to you. They appeal to most people. That's because they have become synonymous with a kind of badass greased-back toothpick-chewing male sex symbol straight out of the '80s or '50s. They are not only designed to do that but every Mustang ad ever made conveys that idea. Movies have bought into these ads and use Mustang ownership/drivership as a way to convey messages about the person handling the car. And so on. Cigarettes cause cancer and they suck. But ask any cigarette smoker and they'll agree: cigs are sexy as fuck. Cig smokers are secret romantics. Nobody gets hooked on tobacco or 'stangs or American hot rods because of the way they look. They get hooked because of the image they have been made to represent. As for me? Me? Well I confess. I'm a classic '60s Stingray kind of girl. That car's got curves like a woman you would fuck. It's a beautiful god-damn car. But a Stringray is loaded with image and secret meaning just like a Mustang, just like a Ford F150, just like a Prius or Fiat. We choose what image of ourselves we present to the world. Don't feel bad if the image you present includes a 'Stang. Just know what it means when it does that, and own it.
The 2014-current stingray almost has me swayed over to the dark side. For me, it's always been the '69-77 notchbacks. Thing of it is, ever since Chevrolet went transaxle on the 'vettes they'll go in directions other than "straight." That '97 C5 really fucked with the autocrossers...
Nobody who likes sports cars likes Corvettes anyway. They had a well-earned bad rep for a really long time; I think Automobile pointed out that the last generation smoked nearly everything else on the track, cost less, but still felt like a tupperware party on the inside. This time around everyone is jumping around pointing out that it doesn't feel like a tupperware party on the inside and trying to wrap their heads around the fact that it's a Corvette. I've heard a few people beefing over the fact that the taillights aren't round anymore. Okay, fine. "too japanese?" Also fine. Detroit's offerings have been a fat folder of fail ever since they decided it was 1967 again and I'll take the car that doesn't look like it was designed for a Bullitt retrospective.
I'm surprised that the mustang represents anything to you. I always thought that most mustangs were under-powered poser cars that were more wanna-be. I guess I grew up in the 90's where a mustang is what you got if you wanted to pay too much for a rental car. Or this? please... smoking cigarettes was cooler. Now classics... that's a different thing. I guess it represents peak America "good old days" what ever the hell that is. But it also shows that you understand your cars at least a little bit and you have a love for them. A lot of those older cars wont run without constant TLC so you need to know a little bit about cars. Its not really just a car at that point its more of a hobby.
a status symbol? 
Lord Mercy, you're putting out a skewed image of the Mustang. This is a car, like the Corvette, with over 50 years of very rich history. Your pictures, while they support your argument, are far from impartial. That's like saying “Oh. Picasso was a painter? Here's a picture of a blank canvas. La dee daa. Big fucking deal.” First of all . . . Both cars you just showed, the Fox Body and the early SN-95 were underpowered. EVERYTHING from that era was underpowered. The Malaise era was real and it wasn't until the late '80s and early '90s that we started to see a change from that. The production cars sucked. Yes. What people could do with them though and are still doing with them? That's fucking magical. Furthermore, people love the engines in those cars and in return, those engines love being modded. The 302 Windsor V8 found in the Fox Body? Easy to mod. The Modular 4.6L V8 in the SN-95 and the first half of the S-197 series? Easy to mod. The Modular 5.0 in the second half of the S-197 series and the current S-550 series? Fucking same. There are after market parts from body kits to suspension to dress ups to really make your car unique. Don't believe me? Go shopping for a bit this morning. People take, what you've shown, and turn them into works of art like pretty much every damn thing you see here. They're beautiful. They're fast and powerful. They're points of personal pride to their owners. In short, they're fucking amazing. I'm not even gonna get into how the classic Mustangs are fucking iconic. For good fucking reason too. They're stylish. They're sexy. They're timeless. Now, I know what you're gonna say next because I hear this argument all the time. “Mustangs are only good for going in straight lines.” 1. So what? Drag racing is awesome enough as it is so that's good enough. 2. That's true for the majority of American cars up until recently and while that's not defendable in and of itself, at least the Mustang wasn't alone in this regard. 3. If you want a Mustang that handles well, there are suspension mods for that. The car is a blank canvas, make it personal. “Up until the S-197 all the previous Mustangs were based on commuter cars platforms.” So? That shit is auto industry standard and it's still going on today. The Audi TT is on the same platform as the VW Golf. The Mazda RX-8 has the same underpinnings as the Miata. Subaru's WRX and STI are built off of the Impreza and on and on it goes. The S-197 and the S-550 though? Built from the ground up. Their own dedicated platforms. And both cars, while flawed, ARE FUCKING AMAZING. So you know what? Everyone and anyone can fucking shit on the Mustang all day long. Be all bourgeoisie about your car choices and engines and all that. I don't give a fuck. All cars have their flaws and all cars have their strong points. Good luck trying to afford a fucking McLaren and using it as a daily driver. Me? I'm gonna continue to love my FR-S, because it's amazing fun despite its lack of power. I'm gonna continue to oggle Mustangs and Camaros cause they're amazing. I'm gonna chat it up with the guy who has the MG Midget about how his car left him stranded on the side of the road for the third time this year and reaffirm that despite its flaws, it's still awesome. I'm gonna continue to love cars that people like to poo on like El Caminos and Rancheros, Hyundai Tiburons and Genesis (because hey, at least Hyundai is trying), VW Vans and Unimogs, and Pintos and Vegas and Gremlins and everything else out there. Fuck, shit, I know a guy who has a Kia Optima that he's making his own because he loves the lines and you know what? I fucking support him too because it's his and it makes him so damn happy. I'm gonna love peoples' cars whether they're purely stock or highly modified, whether they're classic American Muscle or European Roadsters or a 20 year old Chevy S10 that's been repainted, filled to the brim with speakers, and slammed to the ground. Just remember this. Cars are amazing. Period. Cars are a point of passion for so many people. Period. When you diss on a car, whether it's a Honda Civic or a Ford Mustang or a Porsche 911, you're not only insulting the car, but you're actively dismissing the opinion of the people who love those cars, and even worse, marginalizing countless man hours of hard work from researchers and engineers to designers and factory workers. I've heard that Gale Halderman is one of the nicest, approachable guys in the car world. 50 bucks says if you told him your opinion on the legacy of a car that he was there for from the start, you'd probably break his heart. I'm done talking cars today. Cause you all broke mine.I always thought that most mustangs were under-powered poser cars that were more wanna-be. I guess I grew up in the 90's where a mustang is what you got if you wanted to pay too much for a rental car.
1) Righteous burn. 2) One man's history is another man's notoriety. 3) Your choice to take our disdain for the mustang personally is exactly that - your choice. The fox body mustang was and is a piece of shit. However, to say everything that era was shit is revisionist; GM was at a suckitude nadir back then and Dodge was bleedin' on fire. Nobody has said jack about your Scion - and most of the opinions here have been solicited, not volunteered. And by all means - continue loving every car ever made. But I'm here to tell ya - I've forgotten more about cars than most people will ever know. I have the wet weight of five engines committed to memory. I can wire the plugs for four different V-8s without having to consult a manual. AND THERE ARE BAD CARS IN THE WORLD. My first car was a '66 Falcon Futura. It was my grandmother's. She got it because the '66 Mustang convertible she bought was so uncomfortable that she traded it back after a week. It was like this, only in a wretched spidercracked maroon with cream top. It was an execrable piece of shit. It had a three-speed column shift. It had four wheel drum brakes. Its handling was not so different from a bass boat's. And I regretted, every day, that it was not a '66 Mustang convertible. HOWEVER Another kid in my class had a '66 Mustang convertible and that piece-of-shit Falcon was faster and handled better. it was a unibody, for one. It weighed about 800 lbs less for another. But both cars had their asses handed to them - straight, twisties or braking - by my got-it-free ex-lawn-ornament RX-4. Maybe they're better now. They can't be worse. I acknowledge all the wonderfulness of the fact that Ford is making modern V8s and Chevy isn't. There might be a point in my life where I build an AC Cobra replica, in which case a gutted mustang is where things start. That'd be all right. But just 'cuz you like 'em doesn't mean I have to. I've worked on 'em, I've driven 'em, and I've suffered under Christian Walters' insufferable douchebaggery enough that i'd rather drive a Trabant than a Mustang (his best buddy had a '67 Camaro - fuck them both). Know what? The earliest 'vettes were fuggly, too, and I don't care if that would hurt Zora Duntov's feelings. How many times do you think Ferruchio's rigs were compared to tractors?
1) Not really. It was overly aggressive and uncalled for. I'm sorry snoodog for unloading on you. 2) I don't know how fair that statement is, especially in regards to cars. Every company has their smudges. I don't think it's fair to dog on the Mustang and Corvette for their poorer models, just because the nameplate has lasted for so long. It wouldn't be fair to compare an original Dodge Dart to the Dodge Neon for example, even though they fill the same niche. Likewise, the Mustang II and the S-550 are completely different creatures. 3) In all honesty,y response was a culmination of this entire thread. I'm not blaming you or anything, cause you're just sharing your opinion or knowledge, but it brings a man down a bit to keep on hearing the things that he and his friends love suck for one reason or another. As for bringing up my car, I bring it up not be a use anyone else criticized it, which they're free to do, but to just illustrate that I understand the limits to even my own car.
Hey you like what you like, I think its cool that you have a passion for mustangs even though I cant understand what they have to offer of any other competitively priced car. Personally I have no love for cars that base their popularity on the idea of the car as opposed the the actual implementation. To me the mustang was more about pretending to be a car with lots of power and failing to account for the fact that a car actually has to turn, and the actual power has to be divided out by weight. The in 96 baseline mustang with a 150hp engine had a worse power to weight ratio than than a Miata, and the 217hp version had less power to weight than a MR2-T, or the E36 all of which handle a lot better. Add in the disappointing build quality of mid 90s American cars and you get a real lackluster package. I dont really think its fair that kleinbl00 keeps comparing mustangs to cars in completely separate price points. I like to look at the car as more of a complete package: (Power, weight, reliability )/ (Weight and price). But like I said about I dont think the mustang was a good contender using those metrics. But feel free to argue otherwise If you have a good reason why you think it was Id like to hear it.
So power to weight ratio, like raw horsepower and peak torque, engine displacement, etc. is only one facet of the car. I tried looking up the E36 for you, but to be honest, BMW's and Mercede's numbering convention confuses me to no end, so I don't even know if I'd pick the right model if I tried. If you know though, here's where I'm getting my numbers. The '96 Mazda Miata had a 0-60 of 8.6 seconds and a quarter mile of 16.4 seconds. The '96 Mustang GT had a 0-60 of 6.7 seconds and a quarter mile of 15.1 seconds. The Mister Two Turbo had a 0-60 of 6.1 seconds and a quarter mile of 14.7 seconds. It spanked the crap out of both of them. The MR2 was also in a much higher price bracket and had a damn near suicidal snap oversteer. The thing is raw numbers only tell half the story. Those 0-60 and quarter mile times are just as dependent on suspension setups and geering ratios as they are raw horsepower and torque. Each car drives completely different. That's good. That's amazing. That's the spice of life. That's a huge reason why I love cars. When you actually compare Mustangs to other cars in their price point, they have features that make them competetive. They really do. If I were to compare an '85 Fox Body with cars near their price range, I'd probably favor it over the Camaro and the Firebird for the body styling alone. Four eyed Fox Bodies are sexy. But I wouldn't just be comparing it to Camaros and Firebirds, I'd also compare it against the Toyota Celica and favor the Mustang for the horsepower of the engine. I'd compare it to the MR2 and once again favor the Mustang for the price. I'd compare it to the RX7 and figure that I probably couldn't afford the RX7 either. I'd also compare it to the Dodge Charger and Daytona and know that Chrylser's cars at the time were a bit of a joke so I'd say “No thanks. I wish I could afford that Conquest though.” I'd also compare it with the Monte Carlo SS and Chevrolet El Camino. Hell, if I was lucky enough to know what the Mk II GTI was back then, I'd even compare it to that, because back then VW at least somewhat had their act together. All of those cars I listed? They have their pluses and their minuses, their gives and their takes, and I would be happy to have any one of those cars. We could obviously do the same thing with the mid '90s cars, swapping out some models for others, but you get the general idea. Let's talk about my personal experience car hunting. Let's fast forward about 20 years though and go to me in 2012, test driving cars left and right and why the Ford Mustang GT was my second choice. I test drove, over the course of 2 years, almost 30 new and used cars searching for the one, before I pulled the trigger on my FR-S. I'll make a short list of some of the modern cars I drove . . . Dodge Challenger R/T – Pros Looks great. Sounds great. Drives nice and smooth on the interstate. Cons Handles like a boat. Felt massive. Cost way too much. Chrysler has horrible reliability. Chevrolet Camaro - Pros Sounds great. Lots of power. Cons Looks boring outside and in. Car felt claustrophobic. VW GTI - Pros Interior was nice. Peppy as fuck. Small and unassuming. Cons Expensive. Questionable reliability. The VW scene is kind of full of not so nice people sometimes. Hyundai Veloster - Pros It looks pretty cool. Cons Pretty much everything else. It was really disapointing. At this point, you get the idea. By the end, it came down to the Mazda Miata, the FR-S, and the Ford Mustang GT. I pretty much nixed the Miata for the fact that it was a convertible, even though I loved the car. The Mustang? Looked great. Sounded AMAZING. Drove relatively smoothly. It has a cache to the nameplate. It was a relatively nice car. On the downside, it didn't handle nearly as well as the Miata or the FR-S and it actually felt like it had too much power. When I test drove the FR-S though, it was pretty much immediate love. The interior is small in a way that feels snug without feeling claustrophobic. It handles turns amazing well. It looks absolutely gorgeous from certain angles (though paradoxically, from some angles it looks kind of plain). It's great on gas. It's just a nice, fun car. It does have its flaws though. The paint is thin as fuck and at this point, my paint is all but jacked up. The interior is kind of cheap and chintsy. It's so low to the ground, even stock, that sometimes I do have problems with really steep drive ways. People will ask me with a straight face why I didn't get a Mustang or WRX instead. Seriously. In all honesty, it came down to an emotional coin flip. There are some days where I wake up in the morning, get in my car, and wish I had gone with the Mustang instead. It really is a nice car for its price point, power, handling, and all. The thing about the cheap plastic though? Whether we're talking my car or the Mustang or the Camaro or the WRX, I don't think that in and of itself is a fair complaint. All of the money for these cars are paying for the drive train, the suspension, the stuff that makes these cars performance cars. Compared to cars like Fortes, Civics, Cruzes, and such, they're actually pretty passable. When kleinbl00 was joking about the tupperware fantastic interior of the Corvette, that's a bit more of a valid criticism, just because of the Corvette's price point. People will compare Corvettes to the car offerings of companies such as Porsche and Jaguar. The thing is though, the people who want Corvettes aren't the kind of people who want Porsches and Jaguars. They're more often than not, blue collar Americans. Know what they demand? Reliability over a hundred thousand miles and reasonable service prices. Guess what the Corvette has that Porsche and Jaguar don't?
The corvette is kind of in the same category. For its price point its likely 1.5 of 2x the car of its neighboring competitors. It really competes quite well with exotics. Sonsidering its usually around 1/2 the price that makes its a pretty darn good deal. I tried looking up the E36 for you
Thats the M3 of that era. In my opinion that's the last M3 BMW built that wasn't a piece of shit for reliability. After that reliability ate a big one and now they are so shitty that maintenance costs will be half the cost of ownership after the first 3 years (Other half being depreciation). Still i'm sure its probably 2x as much as the GT i didnt realize it was so cheap at 18k The '96 Mustang GT had a 0-60 of 6.7
I did a bit more research and the GT had a MSRP of 17.6k which was almost half of the 29k MSRP of the MR2. So I guess you are right its only real Japanese competitor was the 240SX at a 8.8 0-60. I never really though of the mustang as a value car but looks back at the numbers is really does make sense at that price point. just because of the Corvette's price point
Genuine question. Where are you able to find the prices? I've been looking for pricing charts like the 0-60 website for a while now and haven't been able to find one. Price ranges really are a useful tool when comparing cars. As for mid '90s Japanese competitors, I'd be willing to throw the Celica in there against the Mustang too. They're all different kinds of cars, but they're all performance cars in similar price ranges,
Kind of all over the place i think MSN autos might work just kind of a pain to use. https://books.google.com/books?id=g-76CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=1996mustangGToriginalprice&source=bl&ots=kaDO5UWxqO&sig=0fmDoP9Lskr4DdxofEwH80Upy_E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKr-Ws9vvMAhVCwGMKHUNEBWM4FBDoAQgzMAQ#v=onepage&q=1996%20mustang%20GT%20original%20price&f=false For mustang prices MR2 http://www.iseecars.com/car/1995-toyota-mr2 240SX http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/nissan/240-sx/1996/sd-AAbL9Q3
You can also check Toyota MR2 prices here https://carsdesk.com/Search-Cars/Make-Toyota/Model-MR2 And Nissan 240SX here https://carsdesk.com/nissan-240sx-for-sale Definetely a good choice
Ford DOHC V8: $5k used Chevy LS1: $3200 used For $1800 I'll take all-aluminum 32V modern design, thanks. Of course, for another $2k I'll dare to be different. Here's the thing: back in the glory days of hot rodding, simply polishing the combustion chambers and gasket-matching the intake and exhaust ports was good for a 25% horsepower boost, no tweakage needed. Wanna get dumb about it? Change the cam. Okay, go taller in the intake, throw some headers on it. But that's what you get stock now. The easy tweaks have been done. The rest of it is software - when I have computer control over the ignition charge, the injector load, the valve timing and the spark advance on a per-cylinder basis, I don't need speed parts. I need a laptop. Ford is a very successful company. They make a quality product. My beef is it's all fuggly, though, and on the inside it all feels like it was built by Fisher Price. I'm trying to think of the last pretty car Ford made. I think it was probably the GT40. Which ain't near as pretty as the Porsche 917, McLaren M6, Chevron B16 or Lola T70. And none of which are as pretty as a Ferrari 330. Really - that's Ford in a nutshell. Nice product, but uglier than everything else.
I look at the Chevy 350 and the LS1 as most an artifact engine. Its large, heavy, and makes inefficient use of space. Because of this though its relatively simple to work on and easier for a newcomer to tweak with and make repairs to. There are tons of engines out there that are better, more efficient, lighter etc but there aren't many that both have a reputation for being as easy to modify and work on as the LS1 and 350 and have the parts availability of the two engines. There other thing is that those 2 engines are really proven, all the little reliability tweaks that come from years of building the same engine ensures that the next iteration will not be a problem child. A new engine is a huge risk and its not uncommon for engines to have all sorts of really expensive problems when there is a design mistake or oversight. Every time you have to do a recall for head gaskets, crank shafts or some other catastrophic issue it does some serious damage to your brand and reputation.
I agree with you on the 350. It earns the right to be called "legacy." But the LS1 was rolled out the last year Acura made the NSX. Variable valve timing had been on production vehicles for seven years. The DOHC ZR1 V8 was a six-year-old design, out of production for two years. CARB standards were going up, not down, and efficiency suddenly fucking mattered. And the parts availability should be an order of magnitude more than it is: LS1 parts should fit on 350s and 350 parts should fit on an LS1. But they're mutually exclusive. It takes a company like GM to keep all the dimensions (bore, stroke, piston center, crank center, cam center, rocker length) yet ensure that the old parts don't fit on the new and the new parts don't fit on the old. Because you're right - a new engine is a risk. But Chevy rolled out a new engine that has all of those drawbacks and none of the benefits from, you know, designing something actually new.
Interesting the 2JZ seems like its almost non existent here in the states. The LS though, now that's a common engine. The beauty of those GM350s was that they were everywhere. From cars to trucks engines were both robust an ubiquitous. Also they were super simple engines to work on. I was looking to pickup a 97 silverado with a 350 a while back because I knew I could make it run forever and the limiting factor for that truck was the ability to keep the doors from falling off.
The 2JZ isn't that rare here. It's found in the Supra, which is kind of rare, but also the Lexus GS300 and SC300 which are a bit more common. The LS though, it's not just used in GM cars, just like the 350 wasn't either. If it's a car with 4 wheels, chances are someone has tried to put an LS in it.
I'm genuinely confused as to why you would say this. Straight 6s are great engine layouts. They're able to produce a good amount of power, they're well balanced, and from what I've been told the majority of them are easy to work on. People really seem to like them too. The 2JZ isn't the only straight six I've heard people wax poetic about at car meets and in magazines. Chrysler's Slant 6 is still well regarded in the Classic American car scene. Nissan's L series engine used in their 240/260/280 Z cars are almost as iconic as the cars themselves. I can't imagine any of those engines being half that bad if people still clamor about them years after they've all gone out of production.
Straight sixes are shit. They don't fit transversely. They require a ridiculous amount of engine bay. They require overbuilt crankshafts. And yes. People like slant sixes, too. They're insane. They don't like the slant 6 because it puts out power, they like it because they had a '77 Valiant that lasted almost as long as their sister's '77 Civic except since it was American it was obviously superior. You can shave 180lbs off the front end of a 280Z by putting in a 350V8. Think about that: 2.8L of SOHC inline 6 (with an aluminum head!) weighs more than 5.7L of all-iron V8. Here's the thing: the hot rod community is full of douchebags and morons. They're the same ones who used to argue that all American 4x4s were superior because they had live axles and leaf springs. Why? Because they were American, therefore live axles and leaf springs must be superior by definition. Meanwhile Subaru would kick your ass on the trail and you were in a constant state of being embarassed by 2wd baja bugs. So of course the slant 6 is brilliant. Why? Because Lee Iacocca is brilliant, therefore everything he touches is brilliant and if you disagree, you're a traitor. It has fuckall to do with the assets of the motor itself. This is a Chrysler Slant 6 in situ. it displaces 2.8L. Here's the same displacement engine, same era, in a ford, in iron, in a V-6, in a PINTO FFS, making more power. Here's a Jaguar 12-cylinder, same era, taking up the same amount of space, weighing about the same, making so much more power that it isn't even worth discussing. Worthy of note: the '94 Cherokee inline 6 b_b is waxing eloquent about is the same motor Jaguar abandoned back in the '70s. If you've got a large boat, and you need to be able to work on the engine while at sea, an inline 6 is fine. if, on the other hand, you're attempting to engineer a motor vehicle with minimal moment of inertia, the lowest hood possible and the most compact arrangement you can come up with, the only thing worse than an inline 6 is an inline 8.
Yeah. That's a pretty compelling arguement, especially the size and weight argument. The comment about Chrysler's Slant six kind of rings home a bit. You don't see it as much in person, where people tend to be a bit more polite, but there really is a sense of tribalism when it comes to car brands. It gets a bit ridiculous sometimes. I remember one of my friends giving me shit for picking the FR-S over the Mustang GT for example, but let's be honest, the FR-S handles better and the only thing I liked about the Mustang more was the amount of power, which I'd almost never use. Not that I'd ever get my car modified myself, but the aftermarket community really seems to like Subaru's FA20, so it has that going for it as well. I know there tends to be a lot of elitist attitudes, but I also think that maybe certain people like engines by different priorities. Rat rodders for example love flatheads because they lend an element of authenticity to their cars and I know a guy who swears by old straight 8s like you'd find in '30s coupes because they're so simple and easy to work on. Which leaves me kind of curious as to what engine platform you appreciate more than any other . . .
Rat rodders don't give a fuck about going fast or taking turns. They also think primer is a color. They are the steampunkers of the hot rod universe - so long as it's made out of ostrich feathers and has surplus "e"s in the name, it's cool by default. I'm agnostic as to motors. My primary beef is affected primitiveness. Harley Evos? affected primitiveness. Pushrod V8s in the year 2016? affected primitiveness. For nearly any automotive application you care to name these days, there's probably a VVT DOHC sub-2L inline 4 that's doing the job quite nicely, thanks. But from an "art" standpoint? Fuckin' Ferrari 512 ain't bad. Too bad you can barely fit them on the road. For "real world" I gotta say there's something about the radial valve MV Agusta F4... ...but when I call an MV Agusta F4 "real world" you know I'm fucked in the head anyway.
Well, rat rods are more about aesthetics than functionality, which I'm sure you know but I'm just more stating this for anyone else who reads this. I do think though, there is something charming to the idea that they want to use flatheads for authenticity. They really aren't my thing, much like donks and lowriders aren't my thing, but when I see one at a show or out in the wild, in good shape and done well, I still find myself admiring them. They're all about form over function, but somehow function seems to find its way into their art. I think an extreme example, on the other end of the spectrum, would be pro-street and mudders, where function comes first, but somehow that function lends itself to a certain aesthetic that people try to emulate. My knowledge in automotive history is pretty spotty, but I think Honda could take a lot of credit for this trend. I'm not a Honda fanboy by any means, in fact Honda fanboys kind of turn me off to the brand if I'm being honest. But in the late '80s and early '90s, I think Honda's VTEC technology really paved the way for respecting smaller displacement engines. I'm unfamiliar with the engine so I googled it. Am I right in that it's for bikes? What do you like about it?Rat rodders don't give a fuck about going fast or taking turns. They also think primer is a color. They are the steampunkers of the hot rod universe - so long as it's made out of ostrich feathers and has surplus "e"s in the name, it's cool by default.
For nearly any automotive application you care to name these days, there's probably a VVT DOHC sub-2L inline 4 that's doing the job quite nicely, thanks.
MV Agusta F4
That's just the thing: rat rods are all about functionality, same as rat bikes. You have this thing, you don't give a fuck what it looks like, you just drive it. That was my childhood. A rat rod used to be a Porsche 914 with a poorly-hidden Hillborn-injected V8 in the back. Hell, I know a guy who would build fast CVCCs by putting a motor/transaxle in the front and the back and then link up the shifters and throttles. Now it's this twee fuckin' fiberglass t-bucket with a lovingly-restored flathead v8 in it. Gimme a break. And yes - Honda pretty much made variable valve timing de rigeur. They came up with a way to do it pretty simply, so that's what everybody does. Makes a hell of a difference. The MV Agusta F4 engine is the only production multi-cylinder engine I know of with radial valve symmetry. Know the difference between a wedge combustion chamber and a hemi? Thing of it is, hemis aren't actually hemispherical - they're just tented. The MV actually has angle-cut cams because the valves are splayed out in two dimensions. It's actually a hemi.
The only straight 6 I ever drove was in a 1994 Cherokee and that m'f'er went 240,000 miles when it was sold and was still in good shape with very minimal care. Not fast, but lots of torque. I don't have any research to support whether or not I6 is a good engine generally, but my only experience was very positive.