What would be your response to this statement.....
- Thread starter Kdubslugga
- Start date
- Status
opcorn:- where i gets good"
Shaolin Crane
Banned
Shaolin Crane
Banned
I'm not hating im being realistic, if its proves itself, i'll have no issue building one, but im not gonna play up its power until its had a chance to prove it wont pop like a balloon.We have very different ideas what "stripping the car to the bone" means. After looking into it some more I do see there was a little weight reduction done to it. The car got light weight race seats and an aluminum driveshaft (although I consider that a bolt on). The slicks and skinnies obviously cut some weight as well, as did the suspension components, but those are always counted as bolt ons and were a necessary evil in order to plant the power. Neither of which is ever left out of the equation when any record breaking FBody or Fox Body make record breaking runs either.
In any case, the car still has the rest of its interior, emmions and A/C equipment, lights, body panels, etc.
And I'm not sure where this magical "100-shot of nitrous" accustaion came from? That pass was 100% N/A my friend....no power adders. When the nitrous was added (which was 125 hit BTW) they ran 10.58@128mph. Even more impressive still.
Back seat was gone, so was the passenger seat, all of the trunk area paneling and carpet was removed, thats pretty damn stripped to me. And it made that pass once, one time. thats it. no back to back, no multiple runs in the 10's you can always have a fluke, **** my car ran a 8.5 at 80mph with only 200rwhp but ive never been able to do that again.
Cool, got any vids....pics....specs....timeslips? No huh.....guess we'll just have to take your word for it.
Who the **** said no i didnt. Go over to LS1tech, ther eare pics, timeslips and vids to prove it
And I argued this point how? Would you rather they kept going with that same, tired old Fox chassis they were using since the 70’s?
Lol same old tired huh, When the chassis being used is basically what people were forced to do to their chassis to get them up to par, nothing different in my chassis over a S197, sad but true, except for adjustable coil overs and all solid bushings
12's ain't 10's!
I'm sure there is a coupe that was stripped, had full suspension that dipped into the 10's, once, i mean thats all it takes right
Suuuuure you did. Mothers, brothers, uncles, friend of a friend kinda thing, right? Yeah, I know a guy who made a time machine out of a DeLorean. It's local though, so you probably have never heard about it, but I swear I saw it happen.
Unlike you im sure, im at the track every week and i see these things first hand, sure drag racing is teh uber ghey but i still go to wrench and tech for people. Just like mothers, uncles, friend of a friend say canadians are cool people, but i swear its happened
Errr....thanks for again proving my point again? This is of course assuming I actually made one since I don’t recall anywhere where I stated the MSRP on the 2010 GT was $28k? Are you putting words in my mouth now? In any case, you just posted a link of a 2010 GT going for $28 and change....so I guess if that's what I said, you just confirmed it?
Seems there is some funny business going on cause thats not the link i posted last night, GT was blue and listed for 22k
Starting MSRP on a 2011 GT $29,645 Ford - Cars, SUVs, Trucks & Crossovers | Ford Vehicles | The Official Site of Ford Vehicles | FordVehicles.com
In any case.....the difference between the ’10 GT’s $28,845 and the ’11 GT’s $29,645 is actually even less than the $2,000 I quoted above. You’re starting to lose it man.
Yeah when someone tampers with a link it can looks like that, how many dealers are stocking bare stripped model GT's none ive seen, i went to look at them first hand, and they were all 33-35k
Hey....personal opinions, are personal opinions. Many, myself included agree that FBodies (and even Mustangs) from those era’s have been mostly a compromise. They were all built during a time when quality and fit & finish gave way to mass production and emissions compliance. So did pretty much all North American vehicles of that time, which is why the Euro’s up until now have been famous for building a better car and why the Japanese kicked our asses for nearly two decades.
Yeah, they made the power, they had character, the RWD layout, arguably better looks and most importantly for some, the “Made in America” seal of approval, but they were still a sub standard built car none the less.
Then you havnt driven in one long enough, or owned one to know the truth.
Maybe it will be another 6.0L Diesel, or maybe it’ll pick up where the success of the last 5.0L left off. Only time will tell for certain, but for the time being it’s a huge success. The fact that it’s being criticised from every angle by the haters that have since been left in it’s dust, proves a much. In any case, it’s nice to see some of you are already choosing to shun it and deeming it a failure before its first year of production has even finished. What true Mustang enthusiasts you guys are.
I dunno about you but i havnt been left in anyones dust. I'm a car enthusiast, sorry if i dont think that ford has built the almighty of ever vehicle.
Who's bashing the Fox body? I like the foxbody, I just recognize its limitations. Don't confuse defending and admiring the 2011 with hating its predecessor. I know full well if it wasn't for the success of cars like the Fox Mustang, we would have superior cars like the S197 powered by great engines like the TiVCT here for the haters to bitch about and downplay today.
LOL i wasnt talking to u....................dude your shell shock from going rounds with gearbanger:fairyfight:
...................dont worry about the power low 400s to the wheels is safe and reliable and more fun than anyone should have on street or strip
Shaolin Crane
Banned
LOL i wasnt talking to u....................dude your shell shock from going rounds with gearbanger:fairyfight:
Oh i wasnt aiming that at you at all it was towards gearbanger
ow sorry..... read that wrong....yeah gearbanger can stir up **** he loves to come in the foxbody forums and put them down.........he claims hes got the facts to prove it always................i guess he never had a heavily modded Foxbody done right or he would have more praise............Foxbodys done right are nothing like a cookie cutter 03 cobra with a whipple..........more like a pitbull........... they come in different colors and shapes got a badasss bark and will bite
amnit:
- Jul 21, 2005
- 2,169
- 145
- 155
Old man has a phenom clean 03 anniversary cobra. Put down 449hp and 432 tq on a very conservative mustang dyno. Everytime I whoop him in my fox he flips me off. Sucks that I can drive around in 95 degree summer heat with ac on and 100% smooth idle, drivability and believe it or not, 23 mpg. What's even worse, is that completely dissproves everything that garbagebanger said about foxes. Put over 500 crank power from a new '11 and my money says they won't get any better than 25 mpg.
I love both, but this bull**** about they aren't reliable, fuel efficient and or smooth is unfounded. Anyone wanting to not play Internet bully is welcome to fly out to my house and take her for a spin yourself.
I love both, but this bull**** about they aren't reliable, fuel efficient and or smooth is unfounded. Anyone wanting to not play Internet bully is welcome to fly out to my house and take her for a spin yourself.
First off, since you seem to be alluding to it.....for the record, I tampered with nobodies post. This was what was linked in the post and it’s what I quoted in my response. I’m not to blame for someone else’s carless hot linking. If you don’t believe me, that’s fine. I’ll be happy to take a screen shot of the edit logs to prove it wasn’t tampered with. It’s really no skin off my nose. In any case, my point was proven and yours was proven wrong. Get over it. You don't have to be right all of the time.
Soooo defensive. Again (like we go round and round every time I don’t jump immediately on the Fox body band wagon), show me where I "put down the fox body"? There's a difference between ignorantly cutting something up and recognizing its limitations.
A lot of you seem to lose sight of that little difference the moment your panties get into a bunch when someone chooses to admire any Mustang not built during the 80's and early-90's.
For the record. I love Foxes....or at least Coupes. I would love to build another one someday with a healthy dose of 427W motivating it. Putting aside it’s little quirks, flaws and drawbacks for a moment, I have no doubt that it could be made to go fast enough in a straight line with bolt-ons, cubes and/or power adders to put an S197 on the trailer....5.0L TiVCT powered, or otherwise. I also have no doubt I could turn it into a corner carver that handles like its on rails, stops on a dime and eats S197’s for breakfast both on the street and at the track. I don't even have a doubt I could match the cleanliness, drivability and fuel mileage of the TiVCT powered S197 with a well maintained and gingerly driven light weight Fox either.....
....but I've also got no grand delusions that I could do all three with the same car at once, nor could I even get anywhere close to it for a reasonable amount of money.
If I do ever get another Fox body, I expect to compromise on at least one, or more of those characteristics....and if I do so, I will be ok with that.....but I won't be ignorant about it, nor will I ignore, or downplay the accomplishments and advancements made by the later generations like many here. I will see and admire the later generation models for the superior and in some cases vastly superior cars that they are and be thankful that my old Fox body is what was mostly responsible for their existence.
Like every generation before and after it, Fox's have their own form of charm and character.....which is the one thing that can't be bought, or built. This is what ties many of us to our cars and continues to do so year after year. Just remember though....it takes more than character alone to carry a model. It needs to evolve and improve over time. If not, it whithers and dies. If you don't believe this, just remember for a moment the fate of the 3rd Generation FBodies.
Really.....your car is naturally aspirated all of the sudden? If you wanna join the party, at least stick the subject matter at hand. I don't recall at any point comparing N/A performance to FI performance. Truth be told, blowers and turbo's are great equalizers.....just as long as you recognize their existence in the equation. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realize that a bolt on and blown 5.0 OHV beats a near stock 5.0L TiVCT any day.
...but then I think you already know I'm quite aware of this and was by no means alluding to a FI vs. N/A comparison at any point during this thread. As usual though, great way to further stir the pot....even if it is a total bull**** point that I would have never contested.
BTW....got any 10-second, or even 11-second timeslips for your car while we're on the subject? Just curios since we're now comparing your blown 5.0L OHV GT to bolt on, N/A 10-second (or even low 11-second) 2011's?
ow sorry..... read that wrong....yeah gearbanger can stir up **** he loves to come in the foxbody forums and put them down.........he claims hes got the facts to prove it always................i guess he never had a heavily modded Foxbody done right or he would have more praise............Foxbodys done right are nothing like a cookie cutter 03 cobra with a whipple..........more like a pitbull........... they come in different colors and shapes got a badasss bark and will bite
Soooo defensive. Again (like we go round and round every time I don’t jump immediately on the Fox body band wagon), show me where I "put down the fox body"? There's a difference between ignorantly cutting something up and recognizing its limitations.
A lot of you seem to lose sight of that little difference the moment your panties get into a bunch when someone chooses to admire any Mustang not built during the 80's and early-90's.
For the record. I love Foxes....or at least Coupes. I would love to build another one someday with a healthy dose of 427W motivating it. Putting aside it’s little quirks, flaws and drawbacks for a moment, I have no doubt that it could be made to go fast enough in a straight line with bolt-ons, cubes and/or power adders to put an S197 on the trailer....5.0L TiVCT powered, or otherwise. I also have no doubt I could turn it into a corner carver that handles like its on rails, stops on a dime and eats S197’s for breakfast both on the street and at the track. I don't even have a doubt I could match the cleanliness, drivability and fuel mileage of the TiVCT powered S197 with a well maintained and gingerly driven light weight Fox either.....
....but I've also got no grand delusions that I could do all three with the same car at once, nor could I even get anywhere close to it for a reasonable amount of money.
If I do ever get another Fox body, I expect to compromise on at least one, or more of those characteristics....and if I do so, I will be ok with that.....but I won't be ignorant about it, nor will I ignore, or downplay the accomplishments and advancements made by the later generations like many here. I will see and admire the later generation models for the superior and in some cases vastly superior cars that they are and be thankful that my old Fox body is what was mostly responsible for their existence.
Like every generation before and after it, Fox's have their own form of charm and character.....which is the one thing that can't be bought, or built. This is what ties many of us to our cars and continues to do so year after year. Just remember though....it takes more than character alone to carry a model. It needs to evolve and improve over time. If not, it whithers and dies. If you don't believe this, just remember for a moment the fate of the 3rd Generation FBodies.
Really.....your car is naturally aspirated all of the sudden? If you wanna join the party, at least stick the subject matter at hand. I don't recall at any point comparing N/A performance to FI performance. Truth be told, blowers and turbo's are great equalizers.....just as long as you recognize their existence in the equation. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realize that a bolt on and blown 5.0 OHV beats a near stock 5.0L TiVCT any day.
...but then I think you already know I'm quite aware of this and was by no means alluding to a FI vs. N/A comparison at any point during this thread. As usual though, great way to further stir the pot....even if it is a total bull**** point that I would have never contested.
BTW....got any 10-second, or even 11-second timeslips for your car while we're on the subject? Just curios since we're now comparing your blown 5.0L OHV GT to bolt on, N/A 10-second (or even low 11-second) 2011's?
Shaolin Crane
Banned
First off, since you seem to be alluding to it.....for the record, I tampered with nobodies post. This was what was linked in the post and it’s what I quoted in my response. I’m not to blame for someone else’s carless hot linking. If you don’t believe me, that’s fine. I’ll be happy to take a screen shot of the edit logs to prove it wasn’t tampered with. It’s really no skin off my nose. In any case, my point was proven and yours was proven wrong. Get over it. You don't have to be right all of the time.
Funny how i can have a link saved in my favorites for weeks looking for cars to replace my 07, i dont see how i was proven wrong, the link that is currently up is not the link i posted, so im not going to "get over it" funny how that happened, you can claim all you want, but in the end why the **** would i post a link that proves YOUR point
anyways im done with this argument, im not willing to keep reading the novels you post when in the end it does no good.
Funny how i can have a link saved in my favorites for weeks looking for cars to replace my 07, i dont see how i was proven wrong, the link that is currently up is not the link i posted, so im not going to "get over it" funny how that happened, you can claim all you want, but in the end why the **** would i post a link that proves YOUR point
Don't know what to tell you Guy. The only person that has made any changes to that post at all, was you.
Maybe you did it by accident, maybe the content of the link somehow changed after you posted it. In any case....it was you who posted it, and later edited the thread, not I.
What I have learned however, is that rather than recognize your folly when the facts themselves were presented, you would instead choose ignore and/or dismiss them rather than just admitting you might have made a mistake. Whether I was the one who proved you wrong, or whether you accidentally did it yourself, you saw the link.....knowing it confirmed my point and still chose to ignore it.
Now that to me speaks volumes not only about your research, but about your character (or perhaps lack of) as well. Shame on you man, shame on you.
- Jul 21, 2005
- 2,169
- 145
- 155
What choice did they have? The 302 OHV wasn't cutting the mustard anymore. The power was too low and emissions and mileage was too high. How much horsepower they might have been able ring out of it would have been irrelevant if they had to further sacrifice mileage and emissions to do it.
And why wouldn't I use those points as part of my argument. It's not important to the pushrod diehards because it’s quite frankly unattainable and they couldn’t make it happen with a 302 even if they wanted to. You speak of what Ford "could have done" done, but in the end, they never did.....nor has anyone else since.....and this engine was around for 35-years for them to prove it. Make the power part was easy. There have been 400+hp 302’s around since the 60’s. Making it driveable, efficient and reliable enough to stuff behind the strut towers of a daily driver was the hard part.
You state how unimpressive the 5.0 TiVCT is with its complicated and over-engineered design....even though trounces the most powerful N/A EFI production 302 OHV by over 170hp and 100lbs/ft of torque and quite frankly best it in every other category as well.
I mean really.....unimpressive???The new heads on this thing outflow Yates NASCAR castings, right out of the box.....STOCK!!! The short blocks are designed to handle anything reasonably thrown at them. Their dry weight is only 430lbs (about 30-50lbs lighter than the last 302HO). They promote nearly 100% volumetric efficiency throughout most of the power band and over 110% efficient at peek torque. And does it all while knocking down 26mpg in a 3,500lb car. How is this thing unimpressive again?
I’d bet you’d be impressed if it was a 302 OHV putting out these types of stats though wouldn’t you? I think you’re problem is more OHC envy than anything else.
Besides, if emissions, mileage and smooth operation aren’t a priorities for you, that’s fine. Then just imagine for a moment if you will, what these engine are capable of once the aftermarket starts putting out some real performance pars for them. I mean....we’ve already seen low-11’s/high-10’s out of them with bolt ons and mid-10’s with a small shot of nitrous. What will they be capable of with aggressive camshafts and CNC head programs?!? The 302 OHV got 35-years to do it....and you’re practically deeming this engine a failure less than 6-months into production.
Really.....your car is naturally aspirated all of the sudden? If you wanna join the party, at least stick the subject matter at hand. I don't recall at any point comparing N/A performance to FI performance. Truth be told, blowers and turbo's are great equalizers.....just as long as you recognize their existence in the equation. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realize that a bolt on and blown 5.0 OHV beats a near stock 5.0L TiVCT any day.
...but then I think you already know I'm quite aware of this and was by no means alluding to a FI vs. N/A comparison at any point during this thread. As usual though, great way to further stir the pot....even if it is a total bull**** point that I would have never contested.
BTW....got any 10-second, or even 11-second timeslips for your car while we're on the subject? Just curios since we're now comparing your blown 5.0L OHV GT to bolt on, N/A 10-second (or even low 11-second) 2011's?
HEY BRIAAANNNNN!!!!
*shouts to LEFT FRIGGIN FIELD*
Hey captain obvious, wanna row your boat over this way to help me speak to Brian? THANKS...
Now that I hope I have some help to get your attention may I draw your attention to the topic of the thread? Someone was making fun of those who run superchargers. Now, let me connect the dots for you. YOUR QUOTES BOLDED ABOVE made the statements that foxes weren't reliable, fuel efficient and smooth operating. I responded to that with my fox. WHERE IN ALL OF GODS GREEN EARTH did I make a comparison with supercharged to NA???? I responded to both claims in one post making zero, zilch, nada damn hint of comparo of the two.
Not to mention, anyone who knows the modifications I have done to my car would usually also know that it results in poor drivability IF DONE POORLY. I was mentioning it was done correctly and that anyone can come on out to test my validity, I would gladly welcome them. That is, let me say this as kindly as possible, everyone save for you. I have a feeling we wouldnt have a lot to talk about if ya know what I mean.
Yet another attempt from you to de-validate what I have said with a completely unmerited and moot point. I am still confused as to why you only refer to me as the pot stirrer when I share my real world experiences...
Are they sub par for Brian? Would it help you if I resigned at this so called life I am living so your existence can be "me free?" Gese tits buddy, catch a clue...I have no time slips better than 12.0 period as the last three years of my life have been spent keeping my two precious daughters alive and I have no time or money to throw into the mustang hobby. It sat in my garage for two years, so no. But again, if anyone worth their weight in driving wants to take my car for a spin you are readily aware of the HP numbers and know this is capable of those passes you are for some reason requesting. It takes no rocket scientistto equate a 3200 lb car with 500 crank HP to an 11 second 1/4, so please, explain why it is you want to see my slips equating to 11's or 10's? If you took a modicum of interest in what I post for its relevancy as opposed to being higher than thou, all of these things would be common knowledge to you as it is to most other members on here. They have seen vids of the car running underhood, which would validate the HP claims and have seen my blog of my daughters and the millions invested to keep them alive. These things hold more weight to me than impressing some e-thug hell bent on setting the world straight whiles yours remains crooked.
Shaolin Crane
Banned
Don't know what to tell you Guy. The only person that has made any changes to that post at all, was you.
Maybe you did it by accident, maybe the content of the link somehow changed after you posted it. In any case....it was you who posted it, and later edited the thread, not I.
What I have learned however, is that rather than recognize your folly when the facts themselves were presented, you would instead choose ignore and/or dismiss them rather than just admitting you might have made a mistake. Whether I was the one who proved you wrong, or whether you accidentally did it yourself, you saw the link.....knowing it confirmed my point and still chose to ignore it.
Now that to me speaks volumes not only about your research, but about your character (or perhaps lack of) as well. Shame on you man, shame on you.
I thought we went over you using my first name, i dont use yours, dont use mine.
I corrected grammar mistakes, not change my own link. again why would i put up a link that proves me wrong, I never said it DID prove me wrong, there are still plenty of 2010 GT's in the 22-24 range around here. But fool me once...so im not going to post another link. So i'm done arguing with you, way to come in a poison FOX 5.0 talk yet again, its funny how i dont go to the other sections of stangnet and rag on the shortcomings of their engines/chassis/transmissions etc Yet it seems to be a weekly occurrence for you in all the areas of stangnet, damn you must work for the Ford marketing department.
And as far as my lack of character, well to me Gearbanger thats a personal attack against me, yet i cant issue you an infraction like you gave me our last tussle around, if anyone has a lack of character its you. Notice its YOU getting in the same arguments in FOX 5.0 talk, its YOU being the only moderator that tons of members cannot stand, its YOU who resorts to belittling people to get your point across, who the **** am i to care if you the "Almighty of Ford practitioners" says shame on me, i could easily bestow the same condescending attitude, yet i choose to hear out your side , even after you were the one who completely ignored my last 2 posts with no response what so ever, so how this "shame on you"
Shaolin Crane
Banned
Incase you didn't realize it EVERY car has its limitations. Put the new 5.0 against a 70s F1 car (or any purpose built race for that matter) and you can clearly see the limitations of the '11 Stang.
And more importantly, since we're talking about the Foxbody vs new Stang, I can think of a number of serious limitations/issues in the S197 which makes the Fox a better car.
Here are a few problems I have with the S197:
1.) OHC Engine
2.) Not cost effective (you build a Fox that can smoke a '11 for less than 40g's)
3.) Weighs a ****load more than a Fox
4.) Poor plastic construction (a plague in all new cars)
5.) Engine not boost friendly (judging by the compression numbers)
6.) Much smaller aftermarket (the chance of it surpassing the Fox in the near future is unlikely)
The bottom line is that the Fox platform is a much better platform for modding. Why else do you see so many enthusiasts choosing 79-93 cars as a base for modding over the 98-up cars?
All in all, it's safe to say that 10-15 years down the road hardcore enthusiasts will not be seeing the S197 cars as the best candidate for building a street performance or purpose-built track/drag car.
Are you familiar with the phrase "Jack of all trades master of none"? Thats pretty much what the S197 cars try to be. It will never have as much performance potential as a fox because it is built in an era where people such as yourself demand comfort, luxury, ride quality, interior space, fuel economy, eco-freindliness, quiet operation, etc. over performance. As a result, you get a two-ton boat with soft suspension, enough room to fit the whole family, and enough bells and whistles to keep you and the kids entertained.
Why should his car be restricted to N/A in this comparison. He is just utilizing one of the advantages that the fox has over the '11. Bringing this up is attune to the excuses that ricers make about have 4 less cylinders.
The S197 is a great chassis, i was never arguing that, My next race car is sure to be an S197, but its engine probably wont be a modular, but a 427w with an aluminum dart block
- Jul 21, 2005
- 2,169
- 145
- 155
Why should his car be restricted to N/A in this comparison. He is just utilizing one of the advantages that the fox has over the '11. Bringing this up is attune to the excuses that ricers make about have 4 less cylinders.
^EXACTLY. However, I actually did NOT make the comparison, it just happens that my car is FI. It was Brian who mentioned the methods to which I have attained equivalent power and not focused on the actual point I was making.
89_LX
Member
Yet the M3 cost twice as much, the engine makes less torque, gets a terrible 20mpg highway for a 4.0L, and comes with a nice $1,300 gas tax. But that 2 extra hp and cool BMW styling make up for the extra $30,000
The 5.0 will get you 400+hp and 25+ mpg for under 35k. If you want a smaller engine with less torque and worse gas mileage then be my guest and go for the $60,000 m3
They're in the same price range as the similarly powered Camaro. If it's too much $ get a new 6 spd 305hp V6, put a GT emblem on the fenders and tell everyone its a 2010 GT
--
Shaolin Crane
Banned
Yet the M3 cost twice as much, the engine makes less torque, gets a terrible 20mpg highway for a 4.0L, and comes with a nice $1,300 gas tax. But that 2 extra hp and cool BMW styling make up for the extra $30,000
The 5.0 will get you 400+hp and 25+ mpg for under 35k. If you want a smaller engine with less torque and worse gas mileage then be my guest and go for the $60,000 m3
They're in the same price range as the similarly powered Camaro. If it's too much $ get a new 6 spd 305hp V6, put a GT emblem on the fenders and tell everyone its a 2010 GT
--
Again we're comparing engines not cars, I'm sorry but i would take an M3 over a GT any day of the week. I'm not saying the 5.0l is a bad engine, im just saying its been done already, and shouldnt be praised as the holiest of engines just yet, reason the M3 engine is down on torque? You guessed it, its only a 4.0l. You watch BMW will up the displacement to show the world they still have it and i have no issue believing their engine wont make 400ftlbs and 500+hp
First off, you disproved nothing I said earlier. You alluded to the fact that your blown 302 was capable of running circles around the newer, more powerful cars like the '11 GT, while possessing great drivability and fuel economy.....yet you conveniently left out the fact you're running a blower under your hood to do it. Myself and a few members here are aware that you're blown, but many new members here are not....and since your signature didn't show up during the course of this post, I would hardly say I was pointing out the obvious.
I asked for your time slips since you choose to talk a lot of **** for a guy who's never accomplished times or traps speeds that this new '11 GT has. Yet you again allude to the fact your car is every bit as capable. I was just curious if you had more than talk to confirm your points since you seem so adamant at “schooling me” on them.
In any case, I would have never contested that a blown Fox body could accomplish all of the above.....like I'm now stating for a second time....although you again alluded to the fact that I had and use it as yet another opportunity to grandstand.
Entertaining, but unnecessary. I'll say it again....I DON'T DISAGREE!!!!!
Clear now?
You post your name in open forum, it's going to get used. You don't want people to use it, remove it from your sig...simple as that. After all, you're the one who chose to interact with me during the course of this thread by bringing of all things BMW crap into it, not the other way around, so please.....stop whining about it when I address you back.
And yeah, I’m such a trouble maker.....everyone hates me...or at least the same group of 3 or 4 usual suspects that get their panties wadded up in a bunch anytime they see my screen name. I’m not going to shelve my opinion just because you and a few select others don’t agree with, or want to hear it. There are many here that do, some of which who have spoken up and others who quite frankly probably don’t want to get wrapped up in the drama. In any case, this is the internet....everyone is going to have an opinion. I’ll not be censored for mine because they don’t mirror yours, just like I’ve not censored you for yours. It works both ways GUY.
Also....as far as the personal attack goes. You my friend all but called me a liar and accused me of altering your response in your previous post, and now you cry because you were called on its? Suck it up buttercup and keep your P's and Q's to yourself in the future if you don't want to be ousted for your indiscretions.
Cool, how many MPG is the ‘70’s F1 car knocking down. I can’t remember....did 70’s F1 cars come with a 100,000-mile warranty?Incase you didn't realize it EVERY car has its limitations. Put the new 5.0 against a 70s F1 car (or any purpose built race for that matter) and you can clearly see the limitations of the '11 Stang.
What was your point with that statement again?
And more importantly, since we're talking about the Foxbody vs new Stang, I can think of a number of serious limitations/issues in the S197 which makes the Fox a better car.
Here are a few problems I have with the S197:
1.) OHC Engine
No reasoning beyond that....just OHC Engine? Never mind that this OHC engine it tougher built and has proven vastly more efficient, in a lighter weight package than the OHV. It's bad because it has more than one camshaft....got it.
It's ok to be afraid RedFox...just let it out.
2.) Not cost effective (you build a Fox that can smoke a '11 for less than 40g's)
Irrelevant. Can’t cost compare a 20-year-old vehicle to brand new and expect to be objective. And if “smoking” the ’11 is your only goal, then sure the latest S197 probably isn’t cost effective. But if you want to run quick, turn a corner, stop, get great mileage, produce low emissions and be comfortable and do it all with a 100K warranty...it’s a great value for the money.
3.) Weighs a ****load more than a Fox
Guess it depend on the fox. A fully loaded Fox GT with the same features as what is now a base S197 only differs in weight by a couple hundred pounds. Even still, with both cars in stock form, the S197 runs circles around the Fox both at the street and on the track. Just goes to show you how far we’ve come with advancements in chassis/suspension material and design when the heavier car handily outperforms the lighter.
4.) Poor plastic construction (a plague in all new cars)
Oh man...you’ve got to be kidding me. Are you going to honestly sit here and compare construction, materials and fit & finish between these two cars and try to make me believe a Fox body Mustang is the better of the two. Time to wake up.
5.) Engine not boost friendly (judging by the compression numbers)
Damn....I guess we’d better tell Kenne Bell, Paxton, Vortech, Ford Racing, ATI and about half a dozen other supercharger manufactures to halt production on their ’11 kits then, huh? I mean....why did they waste all of this time sinking money into designing a kit for these engines when they could have just asked you whether it was possible or not.
Never mind the oil cooled forged pistons, heavy duty rods and steel crankshaft...these engines aren’t going to take any forced motivation at all without blowing all over the place. Psssst....Ford Racing has already done some preliminary testing on these engines and horsepower has shown to increase by nearly 100hp with as little as 5psi. So much for not being boost friendly.
6.) Much smaller aftermarket (the chance of it surpassing the Fox in the near future is unlikely)
Wow....you mean a brand new car hasn’t got the same amount of aftermarket support that a car that’s been around for 30+ years? Thanks for the update. Keep in mind, the 3V S197’s had more aftermarket parts released for them in just 5-short years than the Fox Mustang had in 20. I’m not worried. Besides, the production 5.0L TiVCT isn’t in desperate need of aftermarket help like the 5.0L OHV was.
Your opinion....as unfounded as it may be. I’ll tell you a couple of reasons I think Fox’s are still being sought out for basis in highly modified racing....they’re cheap and they’re a dime a dozen. You can pick up a 20 or 30-year old Fox body for a song. Why shouldn’t you be able to.....it’s a 20 or 30-year old car for god sake.
And really, let’s be frank. It’s more of a requirement to modify a Fox body over any other Mustang built after it. With so many downfalls and drawbacks in the stock design and refinements in all modern cars....it’s damn near a must if you don’t want to be walked by a 4-door family sedan driven by your Grandmother now a days. Sucks, but that’s how it is.
Man...I wish I had the crystal ball of yours. I’d really like to win the Lottery about now.
Have you ever heard the phrase....”Armchair quarterback”? You make a lot of predictions and spout a lot of self professed “fact” for a guy claiming to be able to predict the future. Fact is, the S197 has already proven itself time and time again. Both at the strip and in open track events by handing it to cars previously considered much faster, or more race oriented than them.
You act as though stripping weight is something only resered for Fox enthusiasts. Are you under the impression that these modern hard core racers are driving these cars at the track with full interior, Shaker 1000 stereo systems, a trunk full of luggage and the kids and family pet in the back seat? It makes me chuckle the way you make statements like this even after seeing the real world performance figures of these cars.
Awesome....I’ll remember that the next time I see a youtube drag race between a blown/nitrous injected ’11 GT against your average bolt on Fox body. It’s all relevant, right?Why should his car be restricted to N/A in this comparison. He is just utilizing one of the advantages that the fox has over the '11. Bringing this up is attune to the excuses that ricers make about have 4 less cylinders.
Are you really that thick, or are you just trying to be funny?
1990Coupe
Founding Member
^.. The difference is, you're opinion is ALWAYS right. You beat it into everyone that you have the RIGHT opinion, and you belittle the people who try to have a debate with you in the process. And if it gets out of hand, doesn't matter how nasty or personal YOU get, since YOU are a mod, you just ban the other person...
Which is BS.. No wonder so many people i used to interact with on these forums have left... How we interact outside of stangnet because of BS like this
/rant
Which is BS.. No wonder so many people i used to interact with on these forums have left... How we interact outside of stangnet because of BS like this
/rant
- Jul 21, 2005
- 2,169
- 145
- 155
First off, you disproved nothing I said earlier. You alluded to the fact that your blown 302 was capable of running circles around the newer, more powerful cars like the '11 GT, while possessing great drivability and fuel economy.....yet you conveniently left out the fact you're running a blower under your hood to do it. Myself and a few members here are aware that you're blown, but many new members here are not....and since your signature didn't show up during the course of this post, I would hardly say I was pointing out the obvious.
I asked for your time slips since you choose to talk a lot of **** for a guy who's never accomplished times or traps speeds that this new '11 GT has. Yet you again allude to the fact your car is every bit as capable. I was just curious if you had more than talk to confirm your points since you seem so adamant at “schooling me” on them.
In any case, I would have never contested that a blown Fox body could accomplish all of the above.....like I'm now stating for a second time....although you again alluded to the fact that I had and use it as yet another opportunity to grandstand.
Entertaining, but unnecessary. I'll say it again....I DON'T DISAGREE!!!!!
Clear now?
Much clearer, thank you. However, as two men can disagree I still do not agree that it makes my comparison irrelevant. I fail to see why my FI car is simply entertaining. In my experience, non factory supercharged cars have a tendency to be more finicky as they were not designed with this in mind. I will agree it was worth adding to the conversation as some new members may not know this, and mobile posting doesnt add my sig, but I am wondering why a blown fox fits the criteria of smooth operating, fuel efficient and the like and remains simply "unnecessary and entertaining."
Also, you again think I grandstand when I am a person of strong opinion. Look in the mirror fella, cause I think I see one when I look at you. I am confused as to why you constantly bitch about the spec of sawdust in my eye while you have a plank in your own
Alas, if you are so heartless to not see why since I have finished my fox I have no time slips, you sir are the ignorant you claim to not be. My children are my world, not proving anything to you. And please show my where I am talking ****, as I have claimed what others in this thread have about kdubslugga. If you have a blown 5.0 11's should be done with your eyes closed. How is that talking **** again?
Awesome....I’ll remember that the next time I see a youtube drag race between a blown/nitrous injected ’11 GT against your average bolt on Fox body. It’s all relevant, right?
Are you really that thick, or are you just trying to be funny?
The SC in this case was a leveler, not putting me far out from the power levels. I have NEVER ONCE denied the '11, in fact we actually agree on most of it and I WILL OWN ONE. You calling this person thick indirectly calls me the same. Thanks.
- Status