I am so damn happy!

Tru_Blue_104

New Member
Nov 13, 2003
218
-1
0
34
MN
Hey, so I went out driving tonight, just to listen to some music. I see this 94-95 mustang pull out off a street and start following me, so i figured he wanted to beat me down. I'm not really sure what happend but we eventually got to a stoplight and he floored it so i did also. I ended up kicking his ass. Like i said, dont know what happend, but I sure am happy!

GO 2.3's!!!
 
  • Sponsors (?)


Tru_Blue_104

New Member
Nov 13, 2003
218
-1
0
34
MN
Oh yeah, forgot to mention the most important part: It was a GT with a 5.0. Does that make me sound crazy? Cause I looked like 5 times to make sure I wasnt seeing things.
 

notched86

Founding Member
Tru_Blue_104 said:
Oh yeah, forgot to mention the most important part: It was a GT with a 5.0. Does that make me sound crazy? Cause I looked like 5 times to make sure I wasnt seeing things.
umm...no offense, but there's no way it could have been a 5.0. Even if it was an automatic, he woulda beat you pretty bad. I mean, you have 88 hp. He has 215. Could have been a v6 with dual exhaust or GT badges. Or unless he was just playing with you when you raced.

n/a 2.3's just don't beat 5.0's... :shrug:
 

bhuff30

Founding Member
Dec 11, 2001
6,035
33
129
Olathe KS
When I was stock, I would only lose by 2-3 car lengths to a 94-98 V6. After last summer, when the long tube header, and cam went in, I never lost to a 94-98 V6 again. :D
We may have less power, but we weight a lot less too.
The 99+ 3.8 is actaully fairly strong. I don't like the way they drive, but none the less, it would give 5.0 a hell-of-a run.
I have never been in a Supercoupe T-bird, or cougar before. Probably descently fun and torquy.
 

Pro-Hawk

New Member
Dec 4, 2003
971
0
0
44
West Texas
www.cardomain.com
bhuff30 said:
When I was stock, I would only lose by 2-3 car lengths to a 94-98 V6. After last summer, when the long tube header, and cam went in, I never lost to a 94-98 V6 again. :D
We may have less power, but we weight a lot less too.
The 99+ 3.8 is actaully fairly strong. I don't like the way they drive, but none the less, it would give 5.0 a hell-of-a run.
I have never been in a Supercoupe T-bird, or cougar before. Probably descently fun and torquy.
I have to use Foot ball field as a scale to descibe how bad I lost to a 99+ V6 when I raced in my LX N/A 2.3L :eek: Now when I raced one in my SVO ( stock 175hp), I beat him by a car lenght. The kid couldn't believe I was a 4cl either. I like the 99+ stangs my self, hell I've probly drove more of them than there are V6 owners on SN :D
 

QangMartoq

New Member
Feb 27, 2004
46
0
0
41
Lakeland, FL
heh, lol.

Before my '87 LX, I used to own a '96 Windstar 3.8 (Yes, the minivan!) - It was rated at 200hp, quite a chunk above the Mustangs of that year, but then, it weighed a lot more too.

With it empty of cargo (bench seats out of it sometimes too) it would HAUL A$$!

It scared people that the thing could do dougnuts - Shame it was so top heavy though!

Except for a leak in my heater hose, and inoperative rear heat (Florida though, and both the front and rear A/C kicked a$$) it was a great van. I took it back to the BHPH dealer on Jan 31st of '04 when I bought the Mustang, still owed $3500 on it.

Were it not for the fact that I wasn't working at the time, and making the payments on disability was killing me, I would have kept, it had one year to go on the loan and was running strong at 134,000 miles.

Would I buy another? Definately! Mustang fun and Ford truck reliability in a package with lots of room and A/C that was extremely useful as a torture device.. lol

One thing that was nice about it was that it was MUCH safer than my '87 Stang in the torrential rain we get here.. It has ABS and dual airbags, very handy. Never used the airbags (lol) but the ABS was a life-saver a few times.

In those same conditions, my Stang would likely get wrapped around a telephone pole.
 

Penguin

Active Member
Oct 23, 2003
115
1
28
36
SC
Ray III said:
the 04 will be bored out to 4.0 liters not 3.9
Pro-Hawk was speaking of the change from '03 to '04 I think. The engine size went from 3.8 to 3.9L... nothing else changed power or otherwise.

You must be speaking of the '05?
 

1Slick5.0

New Member
Jul 21, 2004
132
0
0
37
Vermont
Ok im sorry but it had to be a V6. Theres no way in hell It was a 5.0. If it was a 5.0 it was either ready for the junk yard. Or Your hiding some of that funny gas in the trunk. Then again it coulda been a one legged driver? Just kidding a kill is a kill :)
 

Mustang5L5

Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
30,599
7,082
224
Massachusetts
Ray III said:
the 04 will be bored out to 4.0 liters not 3.9
The '05's 4.0L Motor is a SOHC design and nothing like the previous 3.8/3.9L OHV design.

As for the 2004 3.9L, it's just a 232 3.8L with slightly larger displacement due to a little rearranging of internal parts. It displaces 238 ci making it a 3.9L. The externals of the motor is the same as the other 3.8's and they will take the same mods. The extra 6 ci of displacement prob adds 0.25HP maybe??
 

JamesBaumann

Member
Nov 26, 2003
625
0
16
Vancouver Island
Visit site
94-98 V6 Mustangs were rated at 150hp I do believe. Your 2.3 is rated at 88hp. I also own a 1993 Mercury Sable with a 3.8 and I know it would eat my n/a 2.3 alive. I don't want you to lose your happiness, because I'm a huge 2.3 fan, but I think you were the only one racing.
 

Mustang5L5

Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
30,599
7,082
224
Massachusetts
Red_LX said:
Isn't it just the 4.0 SOHC that they've been using in the ranger? They shoulda put that engine in the mustang a long time ago anyway.
Yeah pretty much. It's been slightly revised but Ford should have dumped the 3.8L a long time ago...like back in the 80's.

It's been a good motor, but it's time has passed. A SOHC motor opens the doorway to better mods and performance when they develop.