Would you like a more powerful GT? Would you sacrfice the V8 engine for it?

whiteboyslo · Jun 21, 2005

crewwolfy said:
I agree, but what about these 3/4 scoops for the stang? Is this ricing it out? Scoops there generally cool the rear brakes when functional, but all you're doing with a stang is taping on some shaped urethane. Just curious what you guys think.

again, any mod that looks like it's supposed to add performance but doesn't equals rice IMO. yes, ricey mustangs can and do exist.

Mike

sawman70 · Jun 21, 2005

whiteboyslo said:
again, any mod that looks like it's supposed to add performance but doesn't equals rice IMO. yes, ricey mustangs can and do exist.

Mike

I am unsure about this, a raised hood looks good on a mustang even when not necessary.

I think rice is more this "advertising horsepower you simply don't have".

66 BLAKE 96 · Jun 21, 2005

Seems like this would be a retread of the 80's SVO. My experience with those cars is that:

a) boost is really fun.
b) there's only so much you can squeeze out of small displacement engines before stuff starts breaking.

In stock (or nearly stock) form, an SVO is a heckuva fun car. But if I'm trying to make (and keep) serious power, give me the V8. I can always add boost to it later.

JMAN311 · Jun 21, 2005

05Stangster said:
Nothing like the rumble of a V8. Nough said.

199 said:
V8 = Muscle
So i will go with the V8 mucle anytime its not just hp numbers its the felling of the V8 rumbling.

My thoughts exactly

Mustang GT + V8 = Amercian Muscle Car
Mustang GT + 2.0 litre 16v Turbo 4 cylinder =

4511.21 · Jun 21, 2005

V8 all the way...and don't even think about messing with it...like what Cadillac made years back to save on gas....their "V8-6-4"...turning off cylinders for savings.

'01SilverBullet · Jun 21, 2005

A 4 cyl.....LOL...yeah ok.

D.Hearne · Jun 21, 2005

4511.21 said:
V8 all the way...and don't even think about messing with it...like what Cadillac made years back to save on gas....their "V8-6-4"...turning off cylinders for savings.

Yea, and what Mopar has also done with their "new" Hemi. It's also a V8-6-4. And seems like Caddy's North Star does the same thing.

Mickey21 · Jun 22, 2005

whiteboyslo said:
again, any mod that looks like it's supposed to add performance but doesn't equals rice IMO. yes, ricey mustangs can and do exist.

Mike

Way too generalized... Modifications that pay homage to prior stock generations are not exactly rice to me. Like side scoops and louvers. Unnecessarily dramatized accessories like a 10 inch raised wing(that has no benefit), huge logos of companies that dont sponsor you, ground effect moldings that are overly ornate, wheels that shout louder than the car does, and paint schemes that confuse the eyes will do it for me.

Modding without performance gain can be very tastefull. A vehicle looks will always play a part in ownership satisfaction. No reason to try to pigeon hole everything into "rice".

For example, hood pins that are functional are not rice, no matter what (unless hugely oversized of course), hood pins that are not functional (stick ons) are rice to me, BUT in the event the car in question is being styled to a previous version that commonly did have hood pins; not rice within reason.

SpazHairlip · Jun 22, 2005

To me, 'Rice' is something that I feed my GT to keep her strong and healthy

05Stangster · Jun 22, 2005

I agree. I don't like rice - but that's their perogative. Personally, I don't consider louvers, side scoops and non-functional hood scoops as rice. If I remember correctly, my 69 Mach 1's hood scoop did little for adding air or hp - there was plenty of air coming through the grill. I am actually planning on putting the Mach 1 hood scoop and rear louvers on my Torch Red GT. Debating in my own head about the side scoups - visibility issues.

05Stangster · Jun 22, 2005

SpazHairlip said:
To me, 'Rice' is something that I feed my GT to keep her strong and healthy

Interesting point. However, I prefer to feed my GT Steak and Potatoes over Rice. She seems to poop better out of the gate

SpazHairlip · Jun 22, 2005

05Stangster said:
Interesting point. However, I prefer to feed my GT Steak and Potatoes over Rice. She seems to poop better out of the gate

The 'Rice' goes better with the Sushi and Sake (and Geisha girls) then potatoes do.

199 · Jun 22, 2005

who are the two losers that choose the (350bhp 2.0 Turbo 4 cylinder)

have you ever seen a 4cylinder muscle car??? is that even possible
Muscle is all about size, not just power, (huge Car and a huge Engine) = muscle
if your intresrted in a 4 cylinder car you can get a focus,

whiteboyslo · Jun 22, 2005

Mickey21 said:
Way too generalized... Modifications that pay homage to prior stock generations are not exactly rice to me. Like side scoops and louvers. Unnecessarily dramatized accessories like a 10 inch raised wing(that has no benefit), huge logos of companies that dont sponsor you, ground effect moldings that are overly ornate, wheels that shout louder than the car does, and paint schemes that confuse the eyes will do it for me.

Modding without performance gain can be very tastefull. A vehicle looks will always play a part in ownership satisfaction. No reason to try to pigeon hole everything into "rice".

For example, hood pins that are functional are not rice, no matter what (unless hugely oversized of course), hood pins that are not functional (stick ons) are rice to me, BUT in the event the car in question is being styled to a previous version that commonly did have hood pins; not rice within reason.

i'd be willing to agree with you on that. IF the non-functional scoops, pins, etc., were a good attempt to capture a certain look, OK. i wouldn't put them on my car unless they were functional, but that's just me. i mainly started the rice debate bc i get so sick and tired of people who loop any 4-banger into the rice catagory. that's all.

Loco5.0 · Jun 22, 2005

SpazHairlip said:
4 cylinders are not cars, they are lawn mowers.

Look it's ignorance!

reddrgn01gt · Jun 22, 2005

Two liters is a bottle of coke not an engine displacement.

05Stangster · Jun 22, 2005

Never considered a Porsche 4 banger a lawn mower.

mogs01gt · Jun 22, 2005

I will take the v8 over the 4 popper

timeless2 · Jun 22, 2005

66 BLAKE 96 said:
Seems like this would be a retread of the 80's SVO. My experience with those cars is that:

a) boost is really fun.
b) there's only so much you can squeeze out of small displacement engines before stuff starts breaking.

In stock (or nearly stock) form, an SVO is a heckuva fun car. But if I'm trying to make (and keep) serious power, give me the V8. I can always add boost to it later.

Agreed. You can milk a lot of power out of smaller displacement engines, but often times, you suffer two consequences:
1. Decreased reliability
2. Increased cost of maintenance (mainly imports that have high parts cost)

So yes, the old SVO Mustang did quite well (even better in HP figures than the mid 80's GT models) but at the end of the day, you will spend much more on maintenance and worry on a car that is being pushed to its mechanical limits over a car that is constructed with expansion in mind.

My 2 cents.

streetstang03 · Jun 22, 2005

V8 >.

Would you like a more powerful GT? Would you sacrfice the V8 engine for it?

Prefferred engine:

300bhp 4.6 V8

350bhp 2.0 Turbo 4 cylinder

New Member

New Member

Native Texican

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Vi Veri Veni Versum Vicus Vici

unModerator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency