Fox The Proper Way To Build A Sleeper

TOOLOW91 said:

Yeah he is the creator of sloppy mechanics. Does some cool stuff .

Click to expand...

madmike1157 said:

If you call " cool" throwing a junkyard 5.3 into an ugly assed, bench seated, column shifted, 4 door dork mobile, and then putting an 88 mm turbo on it, and dumping the noisy assed, smelly down pipe in front of the passenger side front tire "cool stuff",....then yes, he does.

Sleepers............yaawwwnnn....

Click to expand...

hoopty5.0 said:

Cool in the sense that it shows a method of making power cheaply and easily. Does it live a long and fortuitous life? Probably not, but for a few thousand dollars total, what do you expect?

I seem to remember having a heated debate about the same topic a few years back and it never really made any headway one way or another.

Click to expand...

Boosted92LX said:

When I was in high school I had a buddy that drove the same car save for blue paint. Good grief he caught a lot of crap over that car being a dork mobile. I used to hate them too, but they've grown on me. The two door version is much cooler, but I've seen pics of four doors that actually looked pretty good. That said, if I were going to drive that car, it would need some aesthetic changes, definitely. Maybe I'm getting old, but I've actually considered recently getting a town car and supercharging it to make a mercury marauder of sorts. Not for a sleeper, just something more comfy than a mustang, but still hauls the mail. A new CTS-V is not exactly in the budget.

Click to expand...

madmike1157 said:

Yeah, as I recall I was using his example to justify being able to raid a junkyard Silverado, and take the engine, computer, and 4L60E trans, then transfer that stuff in its stock form ( with the exception of a cam, and intake change,) and be able to throw in reliable 350/375 hp/tq for the proven dollar amount of about 2500.00, that would've managed 27 MPG.

Having considered doing that myself, I'm still convinced that I'd be driving the current project now had I done that.

Does that change the fact that I think that the topic car here is still stupid?

Nope. It's a freakin four door fairmont......Websters has a picture of the car under the definition of stupid. Last time I looked, the web forum title here is Stangnet, not Montnet. If everybody thought that his rolling buck teeth were so cool, you'd see a lot more of these cars, instead of the obscure lone wolf where one idiot has spent way too much time and money trying to make one less stupid.

Does that change the fact that I think sleepers are equally stupid?

Nope. Who cares that you beat a 2015 Shelby GT 500 with that raggedy assed car? I'll take getting my ass beat every time in the Shelby to having to sit a minute on the bench seat of the 4 door USS Poindexter. Scary Fast, noisy, hot, smelly, and uncomfortable is still noisy, hot, smelly, and uncomfortable. Not to mention stupid.

In case I didn't say it, Sleepers are stupid.

Click to expand...

02 281 GT said:

Click to expand...

02 281 GT said:

Click to expand...

cleanLX said:

I am a fan of doing more with less, which is a form of "sleeper" I suppose. Although I will maintain I am not a fan of "sleepers" per say. Making a poo tonne of power with a motor that is well know to make a poo tonne f power, then bolting a hair dryer to it does not impress me. Everyone knows it should make a poo tonne of power... and it is expected to do so.
The car above does not interest me.
A sleeper that did interest me locally was a Ford Pinto, straight as an arrow, perfect period correct paint, siting on it's steel wheels like a stock Pinto, stock interior, also immaculate, running the "stock" 4 cylinder, although internally much worked over, and with hidden N2O.
No matter where you looked at/in that car it said "I have nothing to offer". Ran bottom 10's looking like an 18 second car.
Another sleeper that was my favorite of all time, was a white areo nose LX. Stock intakes, valve covers, old style iron TW heads (look just like E7's externally), all accessories, factory air box, battery in the tray ect etc. This was the most stock looking thing you've ever seen but was actually a well built 347. Hidden N2O, 9's looking like a 15 second car. I've had the pleasure of handling the "stock" HO intakes that car ran... literally paper thin. Held up to the light, you can see, well, light through them. Unfortunately, not for sale... otherwise they'd be bolted to my car.

Click to expand...

Stang D said:

Does nothing for me but to each his own. Mostly because my parents owned a few of these and I remember how close the Big 3 came to removing themselves from the market with this stamped junk. steel, and horrible motors that were lucky to live as long as your payment book. Always had a soft spot for 302 Pintos, and yes, they were junk too.

Click to expand...

madmike1157 said:

Well, I wouldn't go that far.

Despite the dorkiness of the 4 door sedan, and wagon, the fact still remains that the fairmont is " Yo baby daddy".

It is a fox mustang wearing high water pants and a pocket protector.

I agree that Detroit allowed the quality of their products to slip to the bottom of the ladder in the late 70's to the point of giving Honda the keys to the kingdom, but Fairmont, and the fox platform that followed was Fords start out of the bottom of the barrel.

Lightweight, and modeled after a small Mercedes was considered " cutting edge" in 1980.

And while I know that the pitiful 3.3 L 6 banger was slightly faster than walking, people pull those running engines out of every fox body that gets a swap.

Click to expand...