High Powered New Cars

ECU5.0

Banned

Jan 10, 2004

1,803

1

0

raleigh, nc

Jun 27, 2005

#21

• Jun 27, 2005

• #21

yeah the new cars are fast but they are also more expensive to make go even faster and a lot more expensive to maintain. the plugs for the new mustangs are like $12-13 bucks a pop.....screw that ill stick with my 1.28 plugs

 

Lyncher

New Member

Jun 14, 2005

434

0

0

Jun 27, 2005

#22

• Jun 27, 2005

• #22

stock 92 gt said:

1968 427 which had about 390

Click to expand...

390! ...try 335....big difference! He!! even the Boss 429 only had 375 stock!...Aside from the 2 1,400hp "Lawman"s produced for the amusement of the troops in vietnam. There is only one remaining and that thing is as bad ass as it gets!!! That wrestler guy goldberg or whoever the hell he is owns it. There is a new show on the history channel about cars that he hosts.

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Jun 27, 2005

#23

• Jun 27, 2005

• #23

Lyncher said:

390! ...try 335....big difference! He!! even the Boss 429 only had 375 stock!...Aside from the 2 1,400hp "Lawman"s produced for the amusement of the troops in vietnam. There is only one remaining and that thing is as bad ass as it gets!!! That wrestler guy goldberg or whoever the hell he is owns it. There is a new show on the history channel about cars that he hosts.

Click to expand...

My brotehr had a "335 hp" 428 Super Cobra Jet 69 Mach 1. It actually had more like 475 as delivered. Cars were wayyyy underrated back then in some instances. Boss 9's were easy 500 hp engines.

 

The Shape

Founding Member

Jan 11, 2002

2,224

8

49

East ARKANSAS Delta

Jun 27, 2005

#24

• Jun 27, 2005

• #24

You can also take comfort in the fact the fox still looks better than most of those cars.

 

P

Project89

New Member

Apr 24, 2005

94

0

0

Panama City, Florida

Jun 27, 2005

#25

• Jun 27, 2005

• #25

I like the fact that it is paid for and I do not have a big $$$ payment looming over my head each month. Sure things break/need to be replaced but it is still cheaper than a monthly payment. The money saved can go towards mods or whatever. Our cars have a huge following, it will be interesting to see what happens 10-15 yrs down the road w/fox bodies.

 

sacha

New Member

Mar 31, 2005

84

0

0

Jun 27, 2005

#26

• Jun 27, 2005

• #26

tjm73 said:

My brotehr had a "335 hp" 428 Super Cobra Jet 69 Mach 1. It actually had more like 475 as delivered. Cars were wayyyy underrated back then in some instances. Boss 9's were easy 500 hp engines.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Speedvision had a special on the Mach1 a few nights ago and mentioned that Ford grossly underrated these engines in order to keep insurance low.

As for the person that said they'd rather have a 68 fastback - I drive an 05GT and I love it, but my dream car is a 69 Mach 1 with the 428 Super Cobra Jet

 

Lyncher

New Member

Jun 14, 2005

434

0

0

Jun 27, 2005

#27

• Jun 27, 2005

• #27

tjm73 said:

My brotehr had a "335 hp" 428 Super Cobra Jet 69 Mach 1. It actually had more like 475 as delivered. Cars were wayyyy underrated back then in some instances. Boss 9's were easy 500 hp engines.

Click to expand...

Ok i agree that they were definatly underrated...but you sayin a stock scj is putting out 475? ...I am not saying your wrong be any means, but I would definatly like to see a dyno sheet. And same with the boss 429 although I find that more understandable considering those were the meanest cars ever built!

 

J

JB66

New Member

Aug 21, 2004

565

1

0

New York

Jun 28, 2005

#28

• Jun 28, 2005

• #28

Take a test drive in a 4 door, family sedan that'll do 163 top end, stock.
CTS-V
It's fast (but expensive)!

 

ExplodingGopher

New Member

Jun 11, 2004

517

0

0

The mistake on the lake (Ohio)

Jun 28, 2005

#29

• Jun 28, 2005

• #29

Car RamRod said:

gt500?
whens the last time a mustang had 300 horses?

Click to expand...

Mine does, well add 250 to that But you probably meant from the factory. in that case, the 1969 boss 429 takes the cake IMO.

 

HISSIN50

"How long does it take to get help in here?

15 Year Member

Nov 29, 1999

31,179

34

129

Jun 28, 2005

#30

• Jun 28, 2005

• #30

The power stuff is across the board. Sportbike 600's now put down near (or more) power than literbikes did 10-15 years ago (same time frame as aero fox production).

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Jun 28, 2005

#31

• Jun 28, 2005

• #31

HISSIN50 said:

The power stuff is across the board. Sportbike 600's now put down near (or more) power than literbikes did 10-15 years ago (same time frame as aero fox production).

Click to expand...

Technology is a beautiful thing.

 

Michael Yount

Mustang Master

Apr 10, 2002

9,039

6

79

Charlotte, NC

Jun 28, 2005

#32

• Jun 28, 2005

• #32

Yes. Speaking of expensive, fast sedans - Bentley's (think VW) new sedan powered by a 500HP turbo'd W-12 6.0L VW engine went 195 mph with the speed govenor disabled. All 5500!!!! pounds of it. 0-60 in 5.2 seconds. All 5500 pounds of it.

 

J

JB66

New Member

Aug 21, 2004

565

1

0

New York

Jun 28, 2005

#33

• Jun 28, 2005

• #33

Traction control and stability control are wonderful, also. 0-60 in under 5 sec.
http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp...MC9PWC14409P456038B454237S0&cp_keyword=886119

 

Michael Yount

Mustang Master

Apr 10, 2002

9,039

6

79

Charlotte, NC

Jun 28, 2005

#34

• Jun 28, 2005

• #34

....JB - in my opinion they're wonderful only if they can be completely switched off. There are many circumstances from an enthusiasts perspective where they get in the way. Almost always - best lap times/acceleration times are achieved in testing with those systems (that can be) switched off. They're great for the majority of folks that won't ever fully test the envelope of their automobile -- they get in the way for those of us that want complete control of the car.

 

J

JB66

New Member

Aug 21, 2004

565

1

0

New York

Jun 28, 2005

#35

• Jun 28, 2005

• #35

The older I get, the more I need'em!

 

Michael Yount

Mustang Master

Apr 10, 2002

9,039

6

79

Charlotte, NC

Jun 28, 2005

#36

• Jun 28, 2005

• #36

Don't get me wrong - they're nice; I just want the option of turning them off completely - which fewer and fewer manufacturers are providing. The Caddy and the new Stang are both examples of the manufacturer providing overiding control of systems I'd like to have control of. GM has always been the worst in my book for that - doors that lock and unlock automatically; headlights that I can't turn off; etc. Drives me batty. And others too based on their recent (last 20 years) sales performance. How a company that used to be that phenomenal can slowly let itself die is beyond me...

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Jun 28, 2005

#37

• Jun 28, 2005

• #37

Michael Yount said:

Don't get me wrong - they're nice; I just want the option of turning them off completely - which fewer and fewer manufacturers are providing. The Caddy and the new Stang are both examples of the manufacturer providing overiding control of systems I'd like to have control of. GM has always been the worst in my book for that - doors that lock and unlock automatically; headlights that I can't turn off; etc. Drives me batty. And others too based on their recent (last 20 years) sales performance. How a company that used to be that phenomenal can slowly let itself die is beyond me...

Click to expand...

Don't forget the required skip-shift in the F-bodies when they started coming with the 6 speed T56. WTF was that all about? Retarded IMO. A manual transmission is about shifting tothe gear you want when you want. Why would GM electricly lock out access to some gears unless you drove a certain way? F-n retarded I say!!

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Jun 28, 2005

#38

• Jun 28, 2005

• #38

Michael Yount said:

The Caddy and the new Stang are both examples of the manufacturer providing overiding control of systems I'd like to have control of....

Click to expand...

That's all about limited warrenty responsibility. Regular drivers won't care and if somethign breaks Ford/GM/who ever will fix. Performance drivers (ie, people that tinker and enhance) will care and when something breaks Ford/GM/who ever, don't want to pay for a problem their design didn't cause.

You know they don't want to fix anything that they don't have to. THeir tighter controls will limit their responsiblity down the road. Like the new Mustangs torque sensing programing. Add a blower and the computer goes into limp mode until you turn that off with a tune. Basically if it's delivered any way other than Ford built it and something breaks, Ford don't want to hear about having them pay to fix it.

 

J

JerryDaugherty

Member

Apr 7, 2005

309

0

16

Near Dallas

Jun 28, 2005

#39

• Jun 28, 2005

• #39

Michael Yount said:

Try this on Jerry - most of the time, people who don't do the work themselves -- simply have more money. It's only expensive if you can't afford it.

Click to expand...

I never said anything about money. its the time you spend with your car building it your self.

 

90mustangGT

I felt sorry for girls because

Founding Member

Jan 15, 2002

2,773

17

89

Dallas, GA

Jun 28, 2005

#40

• Jun 28, 2005

• #40

We are in another muscle car war today. In the past 5 or so years the HP on newer cars has greatly increased, just like it did in the 1960's. GM, Ford, and Chrysler had some projects ready to launch that would have just blown away earlier muscle cars but after the gas crisis, they squashed them. Well, after 20-30 years of technology, they have learned how to make cars so effecient that restrictive engines are not needed to burn clean. We are seeing more power out of smaller motors than the old big motors, now like in the new Z06, size is comming back. HP sells cars, the bug has bitten more and more people, and if someone is going to pay for it, they are going to make it.

One thing about these 60's muscle cars, all these older guys claim to have owned a 440 or Hemi Cuda/Challenger/Barracuda or a 454 Chevelle or a badass nova, bigblock fastback or whatever, the truth is that if you look at the production numbers of the "legendary" muscle cars were too low that "everyone" owned one. Of course back then the standard motor was quite impressive. You could buy a standard V8 Mustang for about $3000 or so dallars, but a Shelby 428 would cost you well over $6000. Same with the GM's and chryslers. $6000 back then was a lot of money, closer to $60,000 today.

The 5.0 Mustang was probally the first V8 car to make a comback out of the smog era. It is my strong belive that if Ford took all the engineering that they put in designing the 4.6 modular and put it towards improving the 5.0HO, Today we would have even better motors, cheaper, even better on gas than the 4.6. Just look as what GM did.