I am so damn happy!

Tru_Blue_104 · Jul 23, 2004

Hey, so I went out driving tonight, just to listen to some music. I see this 94-95 mustang pull out off a street and start following me, so i figured he wanted to beat me down. I'm not really sure what happend but we eventually got to a stoplight and he floored it so i did also. I ended up kicking his ass. Like i said, dont know what happend, but I sure am happy!

GO 2.3's!!!

bhuff30 · Jul 23, 2004

Yeah, those 3.8's are pathetic.

Pro-Hawk · Jul 23, 2004

bhuff30 said:
Yeah, those 3.8's are pathetic.

Well the 94-98's are for sure but the 99-03's are nice I'm not sure on the 04' 3.9' but I bet it holds its own also.

Ray III · Jul 23, 2004

are the 94-98 v6's for real slower than a 4 banger? my friend had one and I thought it was quick enough but then I never rode in the thing

the 04 will be bored out to 4.0 liters not 3.9

351wcoupe · Jul 24, 2004

bhuff30 said:
Yeah, those 3.8's are pathetic.

Thats it we're bringing the cougar.

Tru_Blue_104 · Jul 24, 2004

Oh yeah, forgot to mention the most important part: It was a GT with a 5.0. Does that make me sound crazy? Cause I looked like 5 times to make sure I wasnt seeing things.

notched86 · Jul 24, 2004

Tru_Blue_104 said:
Oh yeah, forgot to mention the most important part: It was a GT with a 5.0. Does that make me sound crazy? Cause I looked like 5 times to make sure I wasnt seeing things.

umm...no offense, but there's no way it could have been a 5.0. Even if it was an automatic, he woulda beat you pretty bad. I mean, you have 88 hp. He has 215. Could have been a v6 with dual exhaust or GT badges. Or unless he was just playing with you when you raced.

n/a 2.3's just don't beat 5.0's...

mr_woodster · Jul 24, 2004

FAKTORY FREAK!

Jonstantine · Jul 24, 2004

im sorry, but im pretty sure a stock 2/3 na couldnt even beat a 94-98 v6
matter of fact, it wouldnt be close

bhuff30 · Jul 24, 2004

When I was stock, I would only lose by 2-3 car lengths to a 94-98 V6. After last summer, when the long tube header, and cam went in, I never lost to a 94-98 V6 again.
We may have less power, but we weight a lot less too.
The 99+ 3.8 is actaully fairly strong. I don't like the way they drive, but none the less, it would give 5.0 a hell-of-a run.
I have never been in a Supercoupe T-bird, or cougar before. Probably descently fun and torquy.

Tru_Blue_104 · Jul 24, 2004

well, thats why I cant figure it out. I bet it was a v6 with crappy exhaust and gt badges. lol

Pro-Hawk · Jul 24, 2004

bhuff30 said:
When I was stock, I would only lose by 2-3 car lengths to a 94-98 V6. After last summer, when the long tube header, and cam went in, I never lost to a 94-98 V6 again.
We may have less power, but we weight a lot less too.
The 99+ 3.8 is actaully fairly strong. I don't like the way they drive, but none the less, it would give 5.0 a hell-of-a run.
I have never been in a Supercoupe T-bird, or cougar before. Probably descently fun and torquy.

I have to use Foot ball field as a scale to descibe how bad I lost to a 99+ V6 when I raced in my LX N/A 2.3L Now when I raced one in my SVO ( stock 175hp), I beat him by a car lenght. The kid couldn't believe I was a 4cl either. I like the 99+ stangs my self, hell I've probly drove more of them than there are V6 owners on SN

QangMartoq · Jul 25, 2004

heh, lol.

Before my '87 LX, I used to own a '96 Windstar 3.8 (Yes, the minivan!) - It was rated at 200hp, quite a chunk above the Mustangs of that year, but then, it weighed a lot more too.

With it empty of cargo (bench seats out of it sometimes too) it would HAUL A$$!

It scared people that the thing could do dougnuts - Shame it was so top heavy though!

Except for a leak in my heater hose, and inoperative rear heat (Florida though, and both the front and rear A/C kicked a$$) it was a great van. I took it back to the BHPH dealer on Jan 31st of '04 when I bought the Mustang, still owed $3500 on it.

Were it not for the fact that I wasn't working at the time, and making the payments on disability was killing me, I would have kept, it had one year to go on the loan and was running strong at 134,000 miles.

Would I buy another? Definately! Mustang fun and Ford truck reliability in a package with lots of room and A/C that was extremely useful as a torture device.. lol

One thing that was nice about it was that it was MUCH safer than my '87 Stang in the torrential rain we get here.. It has ABS and dual airbags, very handy. Never used the airbags (lol) but the ABS was a life-saver a few times.

In those same conditions, my Stang would likely get wrapped around a telephone pole.

Penguin · Jul 29, 2004

Ray III said:
the 04 will be bored out to 4.0 liters not 3.9

Pro-Hawk was speaking of the change from '03 to '04 I think. The engine size went from 3.8 to 3.9L... nothing else changed power or otherwise.

You must be speaking of the '05?

1Slick5.0 · Jul 31, 2004

Ok im sorry but it had to be a V6. Theres no way in hell It was a 5.0. If it was a 5.0 it was either ready for the junk yard. Or Your hiding some of that funny gas in the trunk. Then again it coulda been a one legged driver? Just kidding a kill is a kill

Mustang5L5 · Jul 31, 2004

Ray III said:
the 04 will be bored out to 4.0 liters not 3.9

The '05's 4.0L Motor is a SOHC design and nothing like the previous 3.8/3.9L OHV design.

As for the 2004 3.9L, it's just a 232 3.8L with slightly larger displacement due to a little rearranging of internal parts. It displaces 238 ci making it a 3.9L. The externals of the motor is the same as the other 3.8's and they will take the same mods. The extra 6 ci of displacement prob adds 0.25HP maybe??

Red_LX · Jul 31, 2004

Mustang5L5 said:
The '05's 4.0L Motor is a SOHC design and nothing like the previous 3.8/3.9L OHV design.

Isn't it just the 4.0 SOHC that they've been using in the ranger? They shoulda put that engine in the mustang a long time ago anyway.

JamesBaumann · Aug 1, 2004

94-98 V6 Mustangs were rated at 150hp I do believe. Your 2.3 is rated at 88hp. I also own a 1993 Mercury Sable with a 3.8 and I know it would eat my n/a 2.3 alive. I don't want you to lose your happiness, because I'm a huge 2.3 fan, but I think you were the only one racing.

Mustang5L5 · Aug 1, 2004

Red_LX said:
Isn't it just the 4.0 SOHC that they've been using in the ranger? They shoulda put that engine in the mustang a long time ago anyway.

Yeah pretty much. It's been slightly revised but Ford should have dumped the 3.8L a long time ago...like back in the 80's.

It's been a good motor, but it's time has passed. A SOHC motor opens the doorway to better mods and performance when they develop.

Ray III · Aug 5, 2004

dammit I get numbers mixed up. Yeah its the 05 that has the 4 liter, I don't know how I thought you guys were talking about that

I am so damn happy!

Tru_Blue_104

New Member

bhuff30

Pro-Hawk

New Member

Ray III

New Member

351wcoupe

New Member

Tru_Blue_104

New Member

notched86

mr_woodster

Active Member

Jonstantine

bhuff30

Tru_Blue_104

New Member

Pro-Hawk

New Member

QangMartoq

New Member

Penguin

Active Member

1Slick5.0

New Member

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Red_LX

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

JamesBaumann

Member

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Ray III

New Member

Similar threads

I am so damn happy!

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

I’m not much help unless you’re looking for ****!

Member

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency