what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Topic: what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have? (Read 6500 times) previous topic - next topic

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #15 – May 01, 2013, 10:48:53 PM

Quote from: Haystack;414319

my 4 year old calls my thunderbird a race car. he kept pointing out how big the tires are today. (just threw on some 275/60/r15's on the back, and 235/65's up front).

Your 4 year old is probably right.

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #16 – May 02, 2013, 03:52:04 AM

haha, nope. I'm going to be working on the engine soon, but for right now its a $400 car with an exhaust leak.

I have a list I'm going to whittle away at, one thing at a time. first thing to need done was tires. had it priced out at $110 a tire. next is a basic suspension work over, then either duel exhaust or 11" brake upgrade, then onto engine. one peice at a time.

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #17 – May 02, 2013, 12:11:02 PM

OK THUNDER

Traction lock differential (TRAC-LOCK) (FORD name) Posi is a GM name for it's unit and ford cant use the term

Sure Grip

Limited slip

Posi

LSD

And i know when i used POSI the Chevy daemons in your mind had a field day!!!!

99% of the people refer to it as POSI no matter who makes it.

GM and FORD now uses a ZEXEL TORSEN units that does not have a cross pin. Or require special additives. So the dreaded cross pin retainer bolt breakage is long gone.

TORSEN does not use clutches or special additives. And they can be used in FWD vehicles. My TYPHOON has one in the front diff.

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #18 – May 02, 2013, 01:24:46 PM

In my perception, the 5.0 HO and 2.3T powered foxes, including the mustang, seem like loosely built slugs in the extreme, barely able to get out of their own way. That's only because I have driven in so many 6-700horse cars at the track, and I also DD a 400hp 4.6 powered Cobra everyday. When I was young one of these cars would have really felt like a rocketship to me, now not so much. It's a cool nice riding mid-size luxury car stock, anything more than that is just wishful thinking by minds not fully in reality. I do enjoy fully stock rides though, and I do keep some of my rides 100% stock, but I'm building mine to actually go out and race for money, so stock isn't in the plans for this car. I could always just buy another low-mileage garage kept one, keep it stock and just take it to shows, but there isn't much fun in that for me. People don't have much love for these cars anyway.

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #19 – May 02, 2013, 05:13:14 PM

Once again, you have to look at these cars with the 25-30 years they have on them. Comparing an '87 T-Bird to a new 2013 car makes about as much sense as comparing a Model T to an '87 T-Bird. Comparing any stock street car, especially one that's 30 years old, against a modern 700 horsepower race car, is just plain silly. You might as well compare them to highway tractors or farm equipment. By current standards these things were slow and crudely built, but by mid 80's standards they were at the top of the heap. Remember, these things were made in the infancy of electronic engine controls, sequential multi port fuel injection, etc. Four-speed automatics with lockup torque converters were technological wonders. The reason they felt like rocketships when you were young is because they WERE rocketships when you were young (assuming you were young when these cars were new).

Think of it this way: The Ford flathead V8 was a veritable rocket. It brought cheap speed to the masses. It pretty much started the whole hot rod movement that continues to this day. Yet by modern standards its 65-110 horsepower seem like a joke. No fool would ever go to a car show and say "This '32 Ford is a piece of shiznit - my Honda Accord is faster". It's apples to oranges.

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #20 – May 02, 2013, 09:07:55 PM

Well said Thunder!!

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #21 – May 03, 2013, 10:19:50 AM

I agree, you have to compare them to the cars of their time. Anyone knows, that stock, they are slow compared to the new vehicles 30+ years later.

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #22 – May 03, 2013, 02:22:21 PM

Well just for kicks driving a 400 Hp car around here will get your pants knocked off. But calling a TC a slug is beyond imagination. Think of it this way the 5.0 of 1988 was 220 Hp and the 2.3 was 190 advertised!!! With the options the TC had it is not far from today's cars. IT HAD EVERYTHING AND MORE. There is no denying FORD built this car and optioned it with features some new cars do not have today. And once again a street driven 400 WHP car is a JOKE. You better be putting 700+ down to the pavement or tail lights will be in your future!!

People don't have much love for these cars anyway.

Unless i am reading this wrong I truly think you have lost your mind if i read this correctly!!! The FORDS ar more popular now then ever before. I see just as many Fords as chevys at the shows. And in some cases fords dominate and that is a FACT. I personally love the birds and mustangs. Call me CRAZY!!!

A 4.6 @ 400 HP has to be supercharged. And they were 390 from from the factory flywheel HP. Unless your 4.6 is built to the HILT!!

In 2000 my LT1 motors NA were making 418 HP to the wheels and at that time it was un-herd of to make that much HP. Today it is not hard to make a 1000 Hp chevy street driven engine. Things in the last ten years have changed drastically. Back in 1988 a 225 HP 5.0 was a dam good amount of HP.

http://www.lsxtv.com/news/katech-builds-327-copo-engine-that-makes-1100-plus-horsepower/

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #23 – May 04, 2013, 01:13:19 AM

Quote from: TOM Renzo;414424

Well just for kicks driving a 400 Hp car around here will get your pants knocked off. But calling a TC a slug is beyond imagination. Think of it this way the 5.0 of 1988 was 220 Hp and the 2.3 was 190 advertised!!! With the options the TC had it is not far from today's cars. IT HAD EVERYTHING AND MORE. There is no denying FORD built this car and optioned it with features some new cars do not have today. And once again a street driven 400 WHP car is a JOKE. You better be putting 700+ down to the pavement or tail lights will be in your future!!

People don't have much love for these cars anyway.

Unless i am reading this wrong I truly think you have lost your mind if i read this correctly!!! The FORDS ar more popular now then ever before. I see just as many Fords as chevys at the shows. And in some cases fords dominate and that is a FACT. I personally love the birds and mustangs. Call me CRAZY!!!

A 4.6 @ 400 HP has to be supercharged. And they were 390 from from the factory flywheel HP. Unless your 4.6 is built to the HILT!!

In 2000 my LT1 motors NA were making 418 HP to the wheels and at that time it was un-herd of to make that much HP. Today it is not hard to make a 1000 Hp chevy street driven engine. Things in the last ten years have changed drastically. Back in 1988 a 225 HP 5.0 was a dam good amount of HP.

http://www.lsxtv.com/news/katech-builds-327-copo-engine-that-makes-1100-plus-horsepower/

Tom, I agree with you todays hot hatches with turbo 4cyls are making TC horsepower numbers so Ford did great in my opinion. The LT1 though is a 5.7l and as we all know there is no Replacement for Displacement.

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #24 – May 04, 2013, 11:10:07 AM

I can remember well when a 200 HP domestic V6 was considered powerful. Of course, mostly GM and their 4.3, but I find it strange that throughout the mid 80's to late 90's Ford made nearly as much (or more than in a few cases) power as GM engines that had more c.i.
Of course Renzo will argue, but I've read shiznit tons of magazines since before I had a driving privilege.....plus I've seen numerous times a '92 Mustang LX 5.0 coupe with ONLY exhaust and gears for mods beat an '89? Iroc Z Camaro with only an exhaust for mods.....both were 5 speed cars, the Stang had 3.55 gears, not sure what the 'Maro had, but the owners even traded several times, each driving the other car, and the Stanger still won.

Not bagging on the Camaro, he kept it clean and nice and didn't filth it up with stickers, retarded wheels, or that goded "look at me, I'm a sheep" cowl hood.
I think the Stang may have had tinted windows and a cd player, but was mostly stock in appearance too.

I'd be happy to own either one, in the shape they were in back in 1995-1998. Good clean cars with nothing that they didn't need. I miss those days and cars..

I'd love to own one of those older Iroc Camaros...

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #25 – May 04, 2013, 02:20:50 PM

IMO, the IROC (aka:the white trash ride of choice) was a POS even brand new, and couldn't hold a candle to any fox body in build quality. Not sure why you guys keep comparing our cars to the IROC, there are much better comparisons to make if your trying to prove something

I was 4 when my car was brand new, and it did feel like rocket ship back to me back then, not because it was one, but because I had not experienced any real power in a vehicle yet. Regardless of what it was back then, the cold hard fact is that now, it is SLOW and SLUGGISH compared to near everything on the road, it will get blown away in a cloud of embarrassment even trying to race a lowly Family Sedan. Yes, even as sad as it is to say, a 05 Honda Accord will out handle one of these cars stock. But if you like these cars stock, and don't mind the slowness, and the inability to take a turn safely at high speed, then more power to you, I'm not putting the cars or the engines down, just stating my opinion which is based on my actual experience with these cars, and many others of the same time period. Take it how you will, but don't assume your opinion is the only possibly correct one, that is the true mark of a fool. :)

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #26 – May 04, 2013, 04:35:50 PM

I know the TC handles like shiznit from the factory

BETTER THINK AGAIN AND DO SOME RESEARCH.

05 HONDA HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND COMPLETELY. My washing machine handles better, Not getting in to this as the chevy haters will pound me. Ford and it's electronics back in those days were barbaric. You could not even read data stream till OBD2 without laboratory equipment. So i will pass on the chit chat. It is really getting DEEP!!!

Camaro specks

Manual 305 TPI 215 hp

Mustang standing 1/4 mile 85 @ 15.9

Camaro standing 1/4 mile 15.0 @ 96

Mustang specks

Manual 5.0 225 hp

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #27 – May 04, 2013, 06:36:11 PM

I have chosen to delete my post as it clearly upset a Chevy lover which was not my intent. My apologies.

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #28 – May 08, 2013, 10:19:42 PM

Quote from: TOM Renzo;414476

I know the TC handles like shiznit from the factory

BETTER THINK AGAIN AND DO SOME RESEARCH.

05 HONDA HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND COMPLETELY. My washing machine handles better, Not getting in to this as the chevy haters will pound me. Ford and it's electronics back in those days were barbaric. You could not even read data stream till OBD2 without laboratory equipment. So i will pass on the chit chat. It is really getting DEEP!!!

Camaro specks

Manual 305 TPI 215 hp

Mustang standing 1/4 mile 85 @ 15.9

Camaro standing 1/4 mile 15.0 @ 96

Mustang specks

Manual 5.0 225 hp

NOT TRUE. you could read live data in 90 or 91, when EEC-iv got mass air. with a ngs.
ford's electronics were barbaric? of course they were to todays standards. but it sure as hell worked good for the time.

you needed a tech scanner to read live data on gm's. whats the difference.

comparing these cars to an IROC is a JOKE. i know thunderchicken stated these cars were crudely built. i still think theyve aged well, are still tight. NOT as tight as a newer car for sure. but against anything older, i think they stood the test of time.

a TBI 305 Camaro, with drum rear brakes, and you call that the IROC? to me a IROC should be a 350, 5 speed, disc brakes. it seems like the put IROC on everything just to sell it. mine was a rattle trap, and that hump in the pass floor sucked.
and to say the TC handles like shiznit? seriously? THAT IROC handled like shiznit. my TC handles great, and i drive circle track cars, i think i would have a little more knowledge then the average person.

what ford intended? what kind of cars do we have?

Reply #29 – May 08, 2013, 10:22:44 PM

Quote from: 86cougar;414477

i have chosen to delete my post as it clearly upset a chevy lover which was not my intent. My apologies.

lmao.