|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
A friend of mine had a 00 v6 auto. Its handling wasn't good, the engine had some problems, and it wasn't very fun or real comfortable to drive, which a car needs to be atleast one of those. He did do a great donut one day leaving one tire mark in a circle and a bunch of smoke, the v6 has some power for sure, but a v8 would be much better.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Wow, the ignorance from all sides in this thread amazes me.
There is just too much to even respond to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,738
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,738 |
Originally posted by Rara:
Wow, the ignorance from all sides in this thread amazes me.
There is just too much to even respond to.
lol....the Rara has spoken 
~Andrew
2001 VW Jetta Wolfsburg Edition
20 valves of fury
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857 |
Originally posted by svt4b:
mustangs are cockroaches...they are everywhere 
they have a decent fun factor and can definitely become fast cars, but the tour sets us apart...lose that and blend in with the rest, might as well get the wifey a honda while yer at it 
just because they are everywhere that makes them bad??????spend the day behind the wheel of one,and you might just change your mind...torque is your friend....and while i may see tons of stangs everyday,i have yet to see one that is identical to mine in every way....and don't hate because my car is faster than yours..lol...  nice svt btw...
new,new ride!
'99 svt
black/mnb
'95 mustang gt sold!
'98 svt #800 sold!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 389
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 389 |
 All the lies, and egos being thrown around. I'm glad Ford did away with the 302. Anybody who dares tell me their stock 302 can keep up with a stock 281 is either smoking the good stuff, or jealous. Yes, the 302 is a tough engine, and yes it can be built up well, but a stock 302 Mustang is a DOG. All you auto haters will be happy to know that the 4R70W will be replaced by the 5R55N, which has seen action under the Explorer since 1997, and as a C3 for over 20 years. It also under-pins the Lincoln LS. Maybe the better spaced gear ratios, and faster shifting of this 5-speed auto will help the auto Mustang out a bit. I know it works well in the Explorer. My dad owns a 2000 XLT with the 5R and 4.0 combo, and it will run close to an 8 second 0-60. The shifting is next to flawless. The Fox chassis Mustang definitely has its fair shrae of problems, mostly in the rear suspension. Anybody that tells me a Mustang handles extremely well has never driven a true sports car. That rear end bounces around like you're driving an old pickup truck, and the under-steer is horrendous. Ford needed 4 shocks to keep it all under control in the rear. Seriously guys, the Mustang's big weakness in fact is in its suspension. The geometry just sucks. The Camaro/Firebird had a better system, but GM FUBARed the safety of the car, and the interior was about as beautiful as Martha Stewart. Japan smoked us on sports cars, and every few years I keep seeing displacement rising. I like the Essex V-6 motor actually for what it is. 1999+ models recieved a huge change to bring it up towards what the Windstar puts out. Yes, the headgaskets are a problem due to the coolant return line being too close to cylinder #1, but owners need to remember that coolant needs to be CHANGED once in a while, not just re-filled. Again, it's a good torque motor that can't breate for a dang up top. That's what the Mustang is about. It will be replaced by the wonderful 4.0 SOHC motor, which can do a bit of both. I don't think a Contour has much legroom either, and a 99+ V-6 Mustang will gladly rip any Non-SVT 'Tour a new one, but the Contour will definitely be much more fun to drive due to the fact that it weighs maybe 3-400 lbs. less I believe? In the end, why in the world are we arguing about this? These two cars aren't anywhere near the same league.
2000 Contour SE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,262
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,262 |
Originally posted by Majisto:
All the lies, and egos being thrown around.
I'm glad Ford did away with the 302. Anybody who dares tell me their stock 302 can keep up with a stock 281 is either smoking the good stuff, or jealous. Yes, the 302 is a tough engine, and yes it can be built up well, but a stock 302 Mustang is a DOG.
All you auto haters will be happy to know that the 4R70W will be replaced by the 5R55N, which has seen action under the Explorer since 1997, and as a C3 for over 20 years. It also under-pins the Lincoln LS. Maybe the better spaced gear ratios, and faster shifting of this 5-speed auto will help the auto Mustang out a bit. I know it works well in the Explorer. My dad owns a 2000 XLT with the 5R and 4.0 combo, and it will run close to an 8 second 0-60. The shifting is next to flawless.
The Fox chassis Mustang definitely has its fair shrae of problems, mostly in the rear suspension. Anybody that tells me a Mustang handles extremely well has never driven a true sports car. That rear end bounces around like you're driving an old pickup truck, and the under-steer is horrendous. Ford needed 4 shocks to keep it all under control in the rear. Seriously guys, the Mustang's big weakness in fact is in its suspension. The geometry just sucks. The Camaro/Firebird had a better system, but GM FUBARed the safety of the car, and the interior was about as beautiful as Martha Stewart. Japan smoked us on sports cars, and every few years I keep seeing displacement rising.
I like the Essex V-6 motor actually for what it is. 1999+ models recieved a huge change to bring it up towards what the Windstar puts out. Yes, the headgaskets are a problem due to the coolant return line being too close to cylinder #1, but owners need to remember that coolant needs to be CHANGED once in a while, not just re-filled. Again, it's a good torque motor that can't breate for a dang up top. That's what the Mustang is about. It will be replaced by the wonderful 4.0 SOHC motor, which can do a bit of both.
I don't think a Contour has much legroom either, and a 99+ V-6 Mustang will gladly rip any Non-SVT 'Tour a new one, but the Contour will definitely be much more fun to drive due to the fact that it weighs maybe 3-400 lbs. less I believe? In the end, why in the world are we arguing about this? These two cars aren't anywhere near the same league.
I know thw contour is a quick car. But I also now my old 4cyl focus w/auto trans beat the [censored] out of a v6 auto mustang.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 139
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 139 |
I know thw contour is a quick car. But I also now my old 4cyl focus w/auto trans beat the [censored] out of a v6 auto mustang.
Are you fn kididng me you think a focus is faster than a stang my mom has a 02 focus and i have an 03 stang i have drove both extensivly and there is no comparison.
99 Silver frost Contour LX ztec..(RIP March 24th 2004 at 92,376 miles ) timing belt snaped goin 45
New whip
2003 Silver Mustang
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 389
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 389 |
Hold on there you guys...remember, before 1999, the V-6 Mustang only made 140 horsepower, making it even worse up top. I could see a Duratec or possibly a Zetec Focus beating a stock V-6 Mustang. It has no power past around 80 MPH. The 1999+ Essex is an entirely different animal.
2000 Contour SE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857 |
Originally posted by Majisto:
All the lies, and egos being thrown around.
I'm glad Ford did away with the 302. Anybody who dares tell me their stock 302 can keep up with a stock 281 is either smoking the good stuff, or jealous. Yes, the 302 is a tough engine, and yes it can be built up well, but a stock 302 Mustang is a DOG.
All you auto haters will be happy to know that the 4R70W will be replaced by the 5R55N, which has seen action under the Explorer since 1997, and as a C3 for over 20 years. It also under-pins the Lincoln LS. Maybe the better spaced gear ratios, and faster shifting of this 5-speed auto will help the auto Mustang out a bit. I know it works well in the Explorer. My dad owns a 2000 XLT with the 5R and 4.0 combo, and it will run close to an 8 second 0-60. The shifting is next to flawless.
The Fox chassis Mustang definitely has its fair shrae of problems, mostly in the rear suspension. Anybody that tells me a Mustang handles extremely well has never driven a true sports car. That rear end bounces around like you're driving an old pickup truck, and the under-steer is horrendous. Ford needed 4 shocks to keep it all under control in the rear. Seriously guys, the Mustang's big weakness in fact is in its suspension. The geometry just sucks. The Camaro/Firebird had a better system, but GM FUBARed the safety of the car, and the interior was about as beautiful as Martha Stewart. Japan smoked us on sports cars, and every few years I keep seeing displacement rising.
I like the Essex V-6 motor actually for what it is. 1999+ models recieved a huge change to bring it up towards what the Windstar puts out. Yes, the headgaskets are a problem due to the coolant return line being too close to cylinder #1, but owners need to remember that coolant needs to be CHANGED once in a while, not just re-filled. Again, it's a good torque motor that can't breate for a dang up top. That's what the Mustang is about. It will be replaced by the wonderful 4.0 SOHC motor, which can do a bit of both.
I don't think a Contour has much legroom either, and a 99+ V-6 Mustang will gladly rip any Non-SVT 'Tour a new one, but the Contour will definitely be much more fun to drive due to the fact that it weighs maybe 3-400 lbs. less I believe? In the end, why in the world are we arguing about this? These two cars aren't anywhere near the same league.
this has got to be the most idiotic post i've read yet...obviously you know absolutely nothing about mustangs...your post is so ridiculous i won't even waste my time responding to most of it....
and for your information the 96-98 2v 4.6's were some of the most pathetic mustangs to be built...it took a 4v 4.6 to even hang with the old 302 cars...now the '99 up 2v 4.6's are pretty powerful....
and fwiw my 95 gt(with a 302)with nothing more than gears and exhaust has run a best of 14.2@ 98 mph...
new,new ride!
'99 svt
black/mnb
'95 mustang gt sold!
'98 svt #800 sold!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 389
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 389 |
Quote:
this has got to be the most idiotic post i've read yet...obviously you know absolutely nothing about mustangs...your post is so ridiculous i won't even waste my time responding to most of it....
and for your information the 96-98 2v 4.6's were some of the most pathetic mustangs to be built...it took a 4v 4.6 to even hang with the old 302 cars...now the '99 up 2v 4.6's are pretty powerful....
and fwiw my 95 gt(with a 302)with nothing more than gears and exhaust has run a best of 14.2@ 98 mph...
You really think I know nothing about the old Fairmont chassis, eh? Heh, prove me wrong about the lousy suspension, and the lazy automatic shifting structure. You obviously haven't pushed your Mustang to its limits, and seen how horrible the under-steer can be. Don't get your panties tied up in a wad, calm down.
I apologize for not stating the 99+ Modulars instead of those breathless wonders from 96-98, but I still stand by my opinion that the modular is a good successor to the 302. The stock exhaust is also better on the modular. *shrug* That's just opinion though.
It's not like I hate the Mustang. It's a great pony car, but it's not the end all, be all car that some people say it is. I drove a 2000 GT Vert, and it was a very nice car. Sure the chassis flex was fairly bad, but it was a convertible, and I expected that. The great thing about the Mustang is that the seat feels high, and it makes it a much easier car to deal with day to day driving. Old Camaro I drove put me so dang low, that I could barely see over the huge dash, and the hump in the floorpan was weird.
Still, the Fox platform can't be band-aided forever. It's time for it to go, and I'll be glad to hail in the new Mustang with better ergonomics, and a much more powerful V-8. You dan't deny that the modular has come a long way from being stuck in a Lincoln 2-door.
2000 Contour SE
|
|
|
|
|
