|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,774
Moderator
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,774 |
1998 E0 SVT #3128, T-Red
2001 Infiniti G20t
1974.5 MG B GT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 250
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 250 |
you guys ever seen this roush  pretty nice, not sure if it has any engine mods
98 SVT
MODS:
Something or another
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,774
Moderator
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,774 |
i saw one of those in boston on tuesday. had RI plates.
1998 E0 SVT #3128, T-Red
2001 Infiniti G20t
1974.5 MG B GT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,248
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,248 |
You would be suprised. It handles pretty good. Not really Troy. A cement mixer COULD be made to handle well - so should we SVT that too? Well, IMO no BECAUSE it makes it less capable at its primary job - hauling cement. Look at any "performance" SUV - BMW, RX300, ML320 - yes they are better handlers than other SUVs, but any hint of off road capability is lost. And universally they are WORSE handlers than the car with equivalent hauling capacity (compare BMW SUV with cheaper 540i wagon, RX300 with GS300 etc). Cannot overcome basic disadvantages with big rubber & stiff shocks - massive weight, greatly elevated center of gravity. I think building such vehicles makes performance tunners look cheesy and like they would do anything for a buck. I know they infact are driven by money but lets not advertise it so loudly. Just an opinion, SVT will do as it choses.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
Stock SVT Duratec V6 with:
Intake- K&N filter/75mm MAF meter
Exhaust- MSDS Y-pipe/Bassani catback
Durability-Ford "dual mode" damper, Mobil 1/K&N oil filter
179.2 FWHP at 6900 RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 165
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 165 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon: You would be suprised. It handles pretty good.
Well, IMO no BECAUSE it makes it less capable at its primary job - hauling cement. Look at any "performance" SUV - BMW, RX300, ML320 - yes they are better handlers than other SUVs, but any hint of off road capability is lost. And universally they are WORSE handlers than the car with equivalent hauling capacity (compare BMW SUV with cheaper 540i wagon, RX300 with GS300 etc). Cannot overcome basic disadvantages with big rubber & stiff shocks - massive weight, greatly elevated center of gravity. I think building such vehicles makes performance tunners look cheesy and like they would do anything for a buck. I know they infact are driven by money but lets not advertise it so loudly.
Just an opinion, SVT will do as it choses.Don't worry we don't plan on building it.  I've driven it though and it does handle better than I ever expected. Suprisingly because of the added weight in the rear it is pretty well balanced. I had no concerns on the course about center of gavity either. I really didn't feel like I was driving an SUV. BTW it would have 0 offroad capability.
Troy
93 Cobra
#4336 of 4993
built 6/10/93
93 SHO ATX
built 6/8/93
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9 |
Troy, Has there been any interest in a SVT Escape? I have a 01 Escape XLT (3L V-6) which handles well and accelerates quickly. Besides a few cosmetic changes (i.e. a front clip that's similar to the Lightning), changing the suspension, a few engine mods and maybe a manual trans, it seems very duable without breaking the bank. I plan on starting the mod project on the Escape this winter (after the CSVT), but will hold off if Ford decides to offer an SVT version.  If not, I'll just have to make my own  Any opinions/support from my follow CEG'rs?
98 CSVT----All stock, but big things are coming!
"You can spend all the money you want, but if you can't drive you'll still lose!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 308
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 308 |
SUV is just another name for a glorified station wagon. Rather than SVT version they should be thinking about making a woody. :p
Last ad I saw for explorer was touting the roominess of the third row seats...makes it clear that suv=minivan w/a more appealing name.
1996 Contour GL Sport, Zetec, MTX
1995 Contour GL, Zetec, MTX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,906
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,906 |
I LOVE MY SUVand my SVT too Originally posted by Troy@SVT: Don't worry we don't plan on building it.  Just have to make my own
Spattmobili®
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 452
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 452 |
I love my SUV too...even if it is a money pit with a fouled up fuel pump and tons of knock.
I dunno about this SVT Expedition though...sounds almost silly. When I read the post topic I expected some photoshop like the SVT EconoLightning (lol that one was awesome)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 80
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 80 |
Originally posted by turbomaster:
Guys today i pull over to the gas station near my house and i was looking @ this Expedition and i saw a SVT logo on it i'm like hmmmmmmmm wtf is this then on the side it had the LIGHTHING logo, but i'm thinking there's no such thing yet not that i know, don't get me wrong it was looking good.... let me know if i'm wrong. I'm sorry I didn't read all the responses to your post to see if what I'm about to say was already mentioned, but let me say it anyway: What makes you think its not a regular Expedition that was fitted with a bunch of Lightning parts and than have logos slapped all over it in proper places? I mean come on, there are a ton of enthusiasts out there that do these kind of things, doen't have to be anything official! Heck I like to call my Cars ThunderVics, and a few cars back I used to slap them with ThunderBird badges all over the place, I mean you can find one of my first cars on Beaterz.com for that mere fact... I think I grew out of it though by my 5th Crown Vic now... lol --Russ
|
|
|
|
|
