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

Prefferred engine:

  • 300bhp 4.6 V8

    Votes: 155 90.6%

  • 350bhp 2.0 Turbo 4 cylinder

    Votes: 16 9.4%
  • Total voters
    171
#21
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.
Click to expand...


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
 

  • Sponsors (?)


#22
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
Click to expand...

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".
 
#23
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. ;)
 
#27
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.
Click to expand...
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. :rlaugh:
 
#28
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
#30
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.
 
#33
who are the two losers that choose the (350bhp 2.0 Turbo 4 cylinder)

have you ever seen a 4cylinder muscle car??? :rlaugh: 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,
 
#34
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
#39
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. ;)
Click to expand...

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. :nice:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
New
Hot
Menu