Surrounded By Sissies

[Boosted92LX]

I live in NJ lol...the turnpike is where i hit the highest top speed... What do you think the top speed is in your car My old turbo foxbody had pull on top but i didnt like the way the car felt..and being a convertible well that made it worse...lol...i would say 150 easy but i would never want to try that...lol...ive been over 170 in the SRT still pulling hard...that was just on motor to no spray...top speed is 180ish i think that is what the computer lets it go to...i have a tuner never played with those adjustments...dont think i will be hitting those speeds all to much...LOL....

I'm not sure. I think keeping it on the ground will be the hard part. My ultimate goal is to go run the silverstate classic with it. I think 170 would be easy power wise, handling may be different though. I'll know more later.

 

[MY 85 GT]

I'm not sure. I think keeping it on the ground will be the hard part. My ultimate goal is to go run the silverstate classic with it. I think 170 would be easy power wise, handling may be different though. I'll know more later.

Yeah being the 300 is 4450 that helps plus i guess they designed it to handle those speeds to...our foxbodies werent maybe 140s i think?...back when they were New...

 

[A5literMan]

Yeah no way would I take a stockish mustang to that speed. I love acceleration but after about 140...uhhh not for me. Steering gets ify and our brakes suck. Been there when younger but now it scares me. I may qualify as the sissie in this case.

 

[skyline247]

Yeah no way would I take a stockish mustang to that speed. I love acceleration but after about 140...uhhh not for me. Steering gets ify and our brakes suck. Been there when younger but now it scares me. I may qualify as the sissie in this case.

I did that once with my stock 2012...ended up clenched up until I dropped in speed. First and only time although I would do it again in a more controlled environment.

In regards to the rest of the thread...I consider myself to be young but I always preferred the track to street racing. I already had a cop try to pin me for drag racing once because another mustang and I were speeding on the highway. I don't want to give them a real reason to do it. Maybe I'm more cautious than most people on the street but I would run with anyone at the track.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[stykthyn]

I had my modified ls1 z28 well over 160. The car felt like it was wanting to shake every nut and bolt off the chassis. I can't imagine trying it with a Fox that wasn't set up with a dedicated suspension.

 

[madspeed]

my little AMG pulls hard up through 160 when I let out of it

 

[Boosted92LX]

Yeah no way would I take a stockish mustang to that speed. I love acceleration but after about 140...uhhh not for me. Steering gets ify and our brakes suck. Been there when younger but now it scares me. I may qualify as the sissie in this case.

Well, that's the thing, most of my suspension is aftermarket, brakes all upgraded, it does quite well at speed. Way better than my lowered sn95 did even. I have a few more tweaks i want to do and i think I'll be there. I. E. MM k member a arms and coilover kit for my konis.

 

[MustangIIMatt]

Says the guy that thinks a Mustang II looks good.

That's all you got?

Weak.

I've had three IIs (and seven other 'stangs) over the years, I've heard it all.

 

[CarMichael Angelo]

That's all you got?

Weak.

I've had three IIs (and seven other 'stangs) over the years, I've heard it all.

Wait,.......you want me to be nasty?

Please,.....the fact that you've had three Mustang II's in the past, is just a testimonial to the fact that love is blind. At least you got it right 7 outta 10.

 

[MustangIIMatt]

At least you got it right 7 outta 10.

4/10. The '09 GT/CS was a pos, one of the three IIs was too. Two of the IIs were/are awesome, my 2010 GT was the bomb, and my '88 2.3 car was trusty and reliable. The rest were 5.0 foxes.

I'm actually looking at another fox (2.3/5spd) Friday... Might make it 11 'stangs (6 foxes).

Having owned IIs and foxes though, I prefer the IIs for several reasons.

 

[CarMichael Angelo]

4/10. The '09 GT/CS was a pos, one of the three IIs was too. Two of the IIs were/are awesome, my 2010 GT was the bomb, and my '88 2.3 car was trusty and reliable. The rest were 5.0 foxes.

I'm actually looking at another fox (2.3/5spd) Friday... Might make it 11 'stangs (6 foxes).

Having owned IIs and foxes though, I prefer the IIs for several reasons.

Here, let me help you with that..I can think of a bunch too, but these 4 come immediately to mind
#1. because Mustang II's are rebodied Pintos.
#2. Pintos' are ugly.
#3. Pintos' blow up when impacted from behind.
#4. Using a pinto as a base to build a performance car on is like building a house out of straw. (And we all know what happens when the big bad wolf comes knocking (SS 454 Chevelle) at the door of a house built out of straw.)

 

[MustangIIMatt]

Here, let me help you with that..I can think of a bunch too, but these 4 come immediately to mind
#1. because Mustang II's are rebodied Pintos.
#2. Pintos' are ugly.
#3. Pintos' blow up when impacted from behind.
#4. Using a pinto as a base to build a performance car on is like building a house out of straw. (And we all know what happens when the big bad wolf comes knocking (SS 454 Chevelle) at the door of a house built out of straw.)

1. No they're not. They share less than the Fairmont and Fox Mustang or the Falcon with the classic Mustang. They share bulbs, a few brake parts, and engine mechanicals (except the 2.0 (Pinto only) and 302 (Mustang II only).
2. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... or the beer-holder. I personally think all of the foxes except the fox Capri, 85-86 fox Mustang, and fox T-bird TC are ugly.
3. That's been disproven by people smarter than you or I. http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf They didn't blow up any more or less often than anything else in their class.
4. Pintos (and Mustang IIs) are very light, 74+ models have great front suspensions, and anything you can do to the 302 in any other car can be done to the 302 in a II. I used to spend a lot of time "in Mexico" beating up on a lot of high-dollar cars in a wrecked II I saved from the scrapyard, gutted the interior, built the engine and trans, and went looking for a fight back in my younger and dumber days. It won a lot more than it lost. That particular car was already twisted from the wreck when I bought it, I got a lot of good years out of it, and when I was done, I yanked the powertrain (2/3 of which is now in my dad's Capri) and threw the car away.

Again, boring. Same arguments I've heard for 16 years, and not even the good ones.

Real reasons I prefer a II over a fox?
1. Lighter
2. That front suspension (no bump steer, smooth as glass, and no strut towers)
3. I like the challenge of fabricating or hunting for what I need vs. buying off the shelf
4. Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition... err... Mustang II! (Seriously, I love the extra butthurt expressed by the haters when it wins.)
5. Big deal, it's a II. I love the things, they're cheap fun, I dig most of the looks (hate the taillights and the stock 13" wheels, WTF was Iacocca drinking?), but if something happens to it tomorrow? Big deal, yank the powertrain, find another one on Craigslist or Ebay for next to nothing, and do it again. Barring theft or fire, not a whole lot to worry about.

Wanna go back to drooling over the Ford Nien Numb... err... GT? (I actually think everything about the new GT is gorgeous except that grille, kind of like the 2013+ Hyundai Genesis Coupe, it also looks amazing from behind and the sides, then you get to the front and it's like... eww... ).

 

[Boosted92LX]

1. No they're not. They share less than the Fairmont and Fox Mustang or the Falcon with the classic Mustang. They share bulbs, a few brake parts, and engine mechanicals (except the 2.0 (Pinto only) and 302 (Mustang II only).
2. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... or the beer-holder. I personally think all of the foxes except the fox Capri, 85-86 fox Mustang, and fox T-bird TC are ugly.
3. That's been disproven by people smarter than you or I. http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf They didn't blow up any more or less often than anything else in their class.
4. Pintos (and Mustang IIs) are very light, 74+ models have great front suspensions, and anything you can do to the 302 in any other car can be done to the 302 in a II. I used to spend a lot of time "in Mexico" beating up on a lot of high-dollar cars in a wrecked II I saved from the scrapyard, gutted the interior, built the engine and trans, and went looking for a fight back in my younger and dumber days. It won a lot more than it lost. That particular car was already twisted from the wreck when I bought it, I got a lot of good years out of it, and when I was done, I yanked the powertrain (2/3 of which is now in my dad's Capri) and threw the car away.

Again, boring. Same arguments I've heard for 16 years, and not even the good ones.

Real reasons I prefer a II over a fox?
1. Lighter
2. That front suspension (no bump steer, smooth as glass, and no strut towers)
3. I like the challenge of fabricating or hunting for what I need vs. buying off the shelf
4. Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition... err... Mustang II! (Seriously, I love the extra butthurt expressed by the haters when it wins.)
5. Big deal, it's a II. I love the things, they're cheap fun, I dig most of the looks (hate the taillights and the stock 13" wheels, WTF was Iacocca drinking?), but if something happens to it tomorrow? Big deal, yank the powertrain, find another one on Craigslist or Ebay for next to nothing, and do it again. Barring theft or fire, not a whole lot to worry about.

Wanna go back to drooling over the Ford Nien Numb... err... GT? (I actually think everything about the new GT is gorgeous except that grille, kind of like the 2013+ Hyundai Genesis Coupe, it also looks amazing from behind and the sides, then you get to the front and it's like... eww... ).

I have to admit, I've never cared for the mustang II, but im not totally close minded either. I abhored the 94-98 cars for years, then after having a closer look, i bought one. It was a good car. Not my favorite styling, but fun. The II's however, need a lot more to make visually appealing. You can't deny the resemblance to the pinto, (yuck) but I've even seen some pintos that looked pretty freakin cool, for a pinto. There are photos floating around the net right now of a V10 powered II that is made over to look just beastly. I guess my point is with enough effort you can make most, i did say MOST cars look quasi appealing, the question becomes, A: is it worth it? and B: are you going to be laughed at because very few others share you love or vision for the car?


So about your II, you wanna run em?

 

[MustangIIMatt]

So about your II, you wanna run em?

Why the hell not?

I'll probably lose, but screw it, I'll have a damned good time doing it!

You can't deny the resemblance to the pinto... A: is it worth it? and B: are you going to be laughed at because very few others share you love or vision for the car?

For years I was trying to figure out just what the hell people were carrying on about with the "Pinto resemblance"... I've only ever owned II coupes, so I didn't ever really see it. Then I saw a base-model II hatch sitting next to a Mercury Bobcat (dressed-up Pinto), and from the side, looking at the two of them together, I finally saw it.

A: Probably not, but honestly, it's not really "worth it" on any car. I could buy a $1500 II or a $1500 fox, do all the same stuff to either one, and I've still got a $3000-5000 car when I'm done.
B: That's actually the point. See above about the butthurt that those that lose to one express. That ish is priceless.

 

[MustangIIMatt]

I abhored the 94-98 cars for years, then after having a closer look, i bought one.

I don't know why, but lately I want to build a '96-98 2V car in the worst damned way. I think it's because they just might have even less respect from the performance crowd than the II at this point (even though they, unlike the II, have the aftermarket bolt-on support to overcome a lot of it). Throw in the fact that they're now cheaper than IIs, (chit you not, I've found running/driving 4.6/5spd cars on CL for under $2000 lately, can't say that about running/driving V8 IIs anymore), and they're right up my alley, cheap, no respect, and an uphill battle.

 

[Boosted92LX]

I don't know why, but lately I want to build a '96-98 2V car in the worst damned way. I think it's because they just might have even less respect from the performance crowd than the II at this point (even though they, unlike the II, have the aftermarket bolt-on support to overcome a lot of it). Throw in the fact that they're now cheaper than IIs, (chit you not, I've found running/driving 4.6/5spd cars on CL for under $2000 lately, can't say that about running/driving V8 IIs anymore), and they're right up my alley, cheap, no respect, and an uphill battle.

I can say this about a 2v car, parts are more expensive than pushrod motors, they are a pain in the a$$ to work on (forget header without droppinf the stock k member), but on boost those things are absolute monsters. There are some I've seen at the track in Houston... holy smokes those things are wicked.

 

[tannerc91gt]

I can't find a local race to save my life either.
Small town but there's a handful of HCI camaros on radials, a blown 5.0, turbo 5.3 car, bunch of other crap. Usually see them out on warm nights but nobody wants to actually prove their junks as quick as they say (or more likely they don't want to accept that it isn't)

And here I am on runflats and a stock clutch and I'd be happy to get my butt kicked just to see something quick go by!