I am so damn happy!

Discussion in '1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-' started by Tru_Blue_104, Jul 23, 2004.

  1. 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!!!
  2. :D Yeah, those 3.8's are pathetic.
  3. Well the 94-98's are for sure but the 99-03's are nice :p I'm not sure on the 04' 3.9' but I bet it holds its own also.
  4. are the 94-98 v6's for real slower than a 4 banger? my friend had one and I thought it was quick enough but then I never rode in the thing

    the 04 will be bored out to 4.0 liters not 3.9
  5. Thats it we're bringing the cougar.
  6. 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.
  7. 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:
  9. im sorry, but im pretty sure a stock 2/3 na couldnt even beat a 94-98 v6
    matter of fact, it wouldnt be close
  10. 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.
  11. well, thats why I cant figure it out. I bet it was a v6 with crappy exhaust and gt badges. lol
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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 :)
  16. 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??

  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. dammit I get numbers mixed up. Yeah its the 05 that has the 4 liter, I don't know how I thought you guys were talking about that :chair: