Got me a new car!

Sometimes I wonder if you're TOO obsessed with your car...
...
On second thought, there is no such thing as too obsessed.
 
Absolutely!! I love it.. it can corner effortlessly like nobody's business. Its funny, because friends ride with me and they're like "you really like taking those corners!" when I didn't even think I was pushing it that hard. God help me if I ever have to drive another car :D Also, the engine's broken in now, so I can finally take it over 4k rpm :D oh man its got such a kick in the pants around 5-5.5k, I LOVE IT :D :D :D
 
DreamThrall said:
Absolutely!! I love it.. it can corner effortlessly like nobody's business. Its funny, because friends ride with me and they're like "you really like taking those corners!" when I didn't even think I was pushing it that hard. God help me if I ever have to drive another car :D Also, the engine's broken in now, so I can finally take it over 4k rpm :D oh man its got such a kick in the pants around 5-5.5k, I LOVE IT :D :D :D
Click to expand...

Haha, breaking rotaries in is a bit more fun. You need to rev it up relatively high early on :p Taking corners fast is an awesome feeling....that and going down hills really fast :D
 
Yep just looked it up, my car has 220 ft/lbs of torque and 155 horsepower.
 
What car is that engine from? SOHC and deisel engines generally make more torque than hp so it's probably one or the other, or just poorly tuned DOHC.
 
Nope, it's the stock 3.8L V6.

3.8-liter V6 OHV pushrod motor was responsible for power again for the 1997 base model, and was a highly respected motor. The motor was capable of producing 150 horsepower and 220 pounds of torque. This horsepower rating was a boost during the 1996 model and proved sufficient enough that no upgrades were made for the 1997 model year, at least in this arena.
Click to expand...

http://www.mustangforums.com/timeline/1997-ford-mustang/
http://www.mustangforums.com/timeline/1996-ford-mustang/
 
I like torque, it turned my radials into slicks. Large pretzel-looking black marks in the parking lot.
 
Is that a good rofl, as in you don't believe me? Or a bad rofl as in that is shit? Cause our 2002 makes 193 bhp if you are curious.
 
wakiwaki said:
Is that a good rofl, as in you don't believe me? Or a bad rofl as in that is shit? Cause our 2002 makes 193 bhp if you are curious.
Click to expand...

That's...not good. My N/A 13B motor pulled 140 out of the line. Take out the AC/PS/Emissions/add performance exhaust/tinker a little bit more and you'll hit 160ish no problem.

It was a bad rofl :p
 
CyberPitz said:
That's...not good. My N/A 13B motor pulled 140 out of the line. Take out the AC/PS/Emissions/add performance exhaust/tinker a little bit more and you'll hit 160ish no problem.

It was a bad rofl :p
Click to expand...

Oh ok, cause if I put $300 into a supercharger made by ford for the Thunderbird Supercoupe (same 3.8 engine, only supercharged) I can make well over 300 hp.
 
wakiwaki said:
Oh ok, cause if I put $300 into a supercharger made by ford for the Thunderbird Supercoupe (same 3.8 engine, only supercharged) I can make well over 300 hp.
Click to expand...

Sure, $300 for the supercharger, you're forgetting everything else tied with that. You can't just drop on top a supercharger :p

And I'm speaking of just Naturally Aspirated motors...no turbo/supercharger/anything.

My classified 4 cylinder *dag nabbit* does same/if not more hp than your V6. You can't say that's a good motor they drop in those.
 
It's also 10 years old. The new V6 from Ford, the 4.0L gets 210 hp. And I meant that it would cost $300 for new injectors, the supercharger, etc. etc. etc.

Edit: But hell, it's a really nice $400 car, you can't get much nicer than that for less, unless you get it for free or $1 or something.
 
wakiwaki said:
It's also 10 years old. The new V6 from Ford, the 4.0L gets 210 hp. And I meant that it would cost $300 for new injectors, the supercharger, etc. etc. etc.

Edit: But hell, it's a really nice $400 car, you can't get much nicer than that for less, unless you get it for free or $1 or something.
Click to expand...

Haha, that's true. It's just there are so many reasons I hate Mustangs of that year already, and this whole engine business is really driving me nuts. That has to be one of the cheapest engines I've seen built. Heck, the Rotary in it's natural form for the RX-7 is a very early version of it, hence the reason it requires alot of maintenance, and look at the RX-8..it's a solid engine there. Pulling over 200hp out of the same 13B that's in the 1988s. You have to admit, the fact that it's only doing 150 hp on a V6 *which can be put way higher* ...I just don't like cheap cars like that. I'm all for the $500 1990 Mercury Topaz, because they weren't boasted for being a great car...but Mustangs? Shit....
 
It might be a cheap car, but it's still fun to drive. Remember the V6 is the base version: the cheapest mustang it was possible to buy. If you wanted a performance mustang you bought a Cobra, with over 300 hp stock it's hard to beat in its price range.
 
wakiwaki said:
It might be a cheap car, but it's still fun to drive. Remember the V6 is the base version: the cheapest mustang it was possible to buy. If you wanted a performance mustang you bought a Cobra, with over 300 hp stock it's hard to beat in its price range.
Click to expand...
I've seen stock 4 cylinders pull 150 hp out of the line, though. Sure it's the cheapest model mustang, but damn, they could have at least just put a decent 4 cylinder in there. Would have been better on gas a bit, that way too.

Oh well, that's OK. People who have those cumstains think they have a fast car because it's a mustang...then I'll just race 'em and call it good. :p
 
CyberPitz said:
I've seen stock 4 cylinders pull 150 hp out of the line, though. Sure it's the cheapest model mustang, but damn, they could have at least just put a decent 4 cylinder in there. Would have been better on gas a bit, that way too.
Click to expand...

VW's n/a 2.0l 4 cylinder made 175hp in the early 90's. It was known as the ABF motor, however at the same time they had the 172hp vr6 and they didn't want to have the 4cyl motor making more power than their 6cylinder so they chipped it differently and brought it down to 150. Placing it right in between the 132hp 2.0l (9a) and the 172hp vr6.

I always thought that was pretty good, especially for the day.
 
xcellerate said:
VW's n/a 2.0l 4 cylinder made 175hp in the early 90's. It was known as the ABF motor, however at the same time they had the 172hp vr6 and they didn't want to have the 4cyl motor making more power than their 6cylinder so they chipped it differently and brought it down to 150. Placing it right in between the 132hp 2.0l (9a) and the 172hp vr6.

I always thought that was pretty good, especially for the day.
Click to expand...

Gah! They could have raised the v6 up to more power, instead of cutting the 4 cyl down so much! What's funny, the old bugs have shit for HP in their motors, but damn if the cars aren't so light they keep up, eh Richard? :p
 
xcellerate said:
VW's n/a 2.0l 4 cylinder made 175hp in the early 90's. It was known as the ABF motor, however at the same time they had the 172hp vr6 and they didn't want to have the 4cyl motor making more power than their 6cylinder so they chipped it differently and brought it down to 150. Placing it right in between the 132hp 2.0l (9a) and the 172hp vr6.

I always thought that was pretty good, especially for the day.
Click to expand...
im talkin about the old school aircooled flat four :p all other 4cyls phail :p
 
CyberPitz said:
I've seen stock 4 cylinders pull 150 hp out of the line, though. Sure it's the cheapest model mustang, but damn, they could have at least just put a decent 4 cylinder in there. Would have been better on gas a bit, that way too.

Oh well, that's OK. People who have those cumstains think they have a fast car because it's a mustang...then I'll just race 'em and call it good. :p
Click to expand...

They did put a 4 cyl in the fox body mustangs, and the Mustang SVO pulled 185 hp from 1984 to 1986. With a new cam and turbo you could pull over 400 hp from the inline 4. However it was a performance mustang and came with Koni shocks and cost a lot more than the 5.0L which made the same horsepower. I get OK gas with around 23 mpg or so. And believe me I would never race my car, its just fun to drive, as in it is better than a Taurus.
 
wakiwaki said:
They did put a 4 cyl in the fox body mustangs, and the Mustang SVO pulled 185 hp from 1984 to 1986. With a new cam and turbo you could pull over 400 hp from the inline 4. However it was a performance mustang and came with Koni shocks and cost a lot more than the 5.0L which made the same horsepower. I get OK gas with around 23 mpg or so. And believe me I would never race my car, its just fun to drive, as in it is better than a Taurus.
Click to expand...

What isn't better than a Taurus!?
*ZING*
 
CyberPitz said:
What isn't better than a Taurus!?
*ZING*
Click to expand...

My mustang is better than a taurus. I like it because I could be talking to some girls and they are like "ohh I love Mustangs!" And also I just hate driving front wheel drive cars.
 
wakiwaki said:
My mustang is better than a taurus. I like it because I could be talking to some girls and they are like "ohh I love Mustangs!" And also I just hate driving front wheel drive cars.
Click to expand...

Yes, Fronts piss me off. And I don't know why girls like Mustangs so much. They are EVERYWHERE. At least pick a car with a better body style, like an RX-7...OK so I'm biased, haha. I can literally play the "mustang game" and count up to 20 cumstains down the road in 5ish blocks. That's on a slow day. It's quite sad in this town. :(
 
CyberPitz said:
Yes, Fronts piss me off. And I don't know why girls like Mustangs so much. They are EVERYWHERE. At least pick a car with a better body style, like an RX-7...OK so I'm biased, haha. I can literally play the "mustang game" and count up to 20 cumstains down the road in 5ish blocks. That's on a slow day. It's quite sad in this town. :(
Click to expand...

I know there are far too many, but most chicks I know don't even know what an RX-7 is. Not that I'm biased or anything, but when I tell girls about my car the general response is: "Oh my God, Mustangs are sooo sexy!"
 
wakiwaki said:
I know there are far too many, but most chicks I know don't even know what an RX-7 is. Not that I'm biased or anything, but when I tell girls about my car the general response is: "Oh my God, Mustangs are sooo sexy!"
Click to expand...

Haha, I've found a couple that have no clue what they are, but when they saw one, they were in love.

Until I found a girl from up north a bit. She freaking orgasmed when I told her I had a 7. Creepy....good thing she's hot.
 
wakiwaki said:
They did put a 4 cyl in the fox body mustangs, and the Mustang SVO pulled 185 hp from 1984 to 1986. With a new cam and turbo you could pull over 400 hp from the inline 4.
Click to expand...

...uh...what?

You're not trying to say that on a 185hp 4cyl non-turbo motor you can increase output to 400hp with only a cam and a turbo?
 
CyberPitz said:
oh my GOD! What did you do to that thing?! The rims themselves are sort of OK..but the color?! Are you black?
Click to expand...

What do you mean? It's completely stock aside from the wheels, which look much better in person. They are a sweet sweet gold. linkorz

xcellerate:
Not much on these limited edition cars but here's what I found.
SVO engineers opted to pass over the venerable Boss 302 in lieu of an updated, turbocharged, and stronger version of Ford's 2.3 litre inline four, originally used in the Pinto. Endowing the engine with an advanced, computer controlled fuel injection system and an intercooled turbocharger system helped push power output to 175 horsepower(130 kW), fairly high for the time. With fine tuning and the addition of a new water-cooling system, power output rose to 200 horsepower for 1986 (205 horsepower for 439 85.5 SVOs)
Click to expand...
There are more than a handful of SVO and SVO inspired 2.3L Turbo powered vehicles in the 400 Horsepower range, and a few even beyond that. A 9 Second 1/4 miles, though a product of significant modification, is not out of reach for these amazing machines.
Click to expand...
 
_Z_Ryuken said:
What do you mean? It's completely stock aside from the wheels, which look much better in person. They are a sweet sweet gold. linkorz

xcellerate:
Not much on these limited edition cars but here's what I found.
Click to expand...

Thank you, and they are very rare, only 10,000 ever built in the three years they were made.
 
I know how that is. Only 20,000 of my car were built from 91 to 96, and we are just this year breaking the 400hp barrier.
Small production equates to a small following and aftermarket. :/
 
There are more than a handful of SVO and SVO inspired 2.3L Turbo powered vehicles in the 400 Horsepower range, and a few even beyond that. A 9 Second 1/4 miles, though a product of significant modification, is not out of reach for these amazing machines.
Click to expand...

Yea I realize you can make a 4cyl have over 400hp, there's a million of them. I was just saying it's not going to happen with ONLY (a) cam(s) and a turbo.

Thank you, and they are very rare, only 10,000 ever built in the three years they were made.
Click to expand...

There's only 463 of my S6 Avant and in 1992 they only made 500 montana green GTi's (mine is a 1992), and for all the years montana green was produced the total was around 3,200. Of course they made a million GTi's....so it's really just a rare color.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Omnomnick
Dota 2 International 2015 Interactive Compendium Released
Replies
0
Views
2K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
sinkoman
Halp me choose a car
2
Replies
72
Views
9K
AKIRA
AKIRA
-smash-
Valve and The Road to GDC 2015
Replies
10
Views
44K
Engineer123
E
Krynn72
Krynn's medium-level diagnostics for common computer problems.
Replies
6
Views
2K
bobtheskull
bobtheskull
Back
Top