2005-2014 Mustangs Discussions on the latest S197 model Mustangs from Ford.

2000 vs 2011 interior

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 24, 2010 | 08:01 PM
  #51  
Rollin Thunder's Avatar
Rollin Thunder
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 293
From: va beach va
Default

all muscle cars in the 80s were down on power due to the fuel crysis.
Old Mar 24, 2010 | 08:04 PM
  #52  
hawkeye18's Avatar
hawkeye18
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 627
From: Norfolk, VA
Default

Yeah, they don't call the late 70's / early 80's the "malaise era" for nothing.
Old Mar 24, 2010 | 08:19 PM
  #53  
chronos's Avatar
chronos
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 750
From: CA
Default

Originally Posted by WeinerDog
Hey chronos, check out this site. It's amazing how slow the "muscle" cars were in the mid/late 70's early 80's (actually most of the '80s).

Your V6 would humiliate that TA.

"1980 Pontiac Firebird Turbo Trans Am 9.0 17.0" And that's the turbo!!

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html
(Thanks for the link WienerDog.) I must agree that the 80's were a sad, sad time for cars in this country. I stayed away from buying any cars made in the 80's. They just seemed to be nothing but garbage for the most part. My wife had a 89 Grand Am when we met and it was nothing but trouble. Had to get rid of it due to the constant repairs.
Old Mar 24, 2010 | 08:49 PM
  #54  
discodave's Avatar
discodave
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,172
From: Maryland
Default

Originally Posted by chronos
(Thanks for the link WienerDog.) I must agree that the 80's were a sad, sad time for cars in this country. I stayed away from buying any cars made in the 80's. They just seemed to be nothing but garbage for the most part. My wife had a 89 Grand Am when we met and it was nothing but trouble. Had to get rid of it due to the constant repairs.
I had an 83 Chevette that rocked!
Old Mar 25, 2010 | 11:14 AM
  #55  
RedRave's Avatar
RedRave
1st Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 53
From: Ontario
Default

Originally Posted by 05gtdriver
Hahahaha(LMAO). A Boss 351 had an 11:1 C/R, solid lifter cam and was under rated by Ford at 330bhp(more like 400hp), the '80 Trans Am was a 301 Pontiac V-8 with 155hp(210hp if it was a Turbo version), the 400 Pontiac V-8 & 403 Olds V-8 only lasted until 1979(all ran carburetors) and neither made more than 220hp and would be mince meat by a Boss 351(which ran high 13's in stock form and could be "super tuned" to run low 13's). Burt Reynolds wouldn't have known what hit him-lol
+1. My 80's T/A while sounded good was slow. What was just as bad was the popular 5.0 80's mustangs. They made quick work of me all day long not even close. Those were the days ;o)
Old Mar 25, 2010 | 12:10 PM
  #56  
jdmcbride's Avatar
jdmcbride
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,567
From: Palm Beach to South Carolina
Default

Originally Posted by RedRave
+1. My 80's T/A while sounded good was slow. What was just as bad was the popular 5.0 80's mustangs. They made quick work of me all day long not even close. Those were the days ;o)
I had an automatic 1981 Trans Am with the 301 ci engine rated at 170 bhp. Yea, it was slow because it was heavy and underpowered - it looked nice though.

I traded it for a new manual 5-Speed 1986 Mustang GT. Wow, what a difference! It was the first year of the fuel-injected 5.0 liter engine and was rated at 200 bhp. Lighter weight (probably by 1,000 lbs) with more horsepower is a great combo!

I removed the "smog pump" and installed a Ford Motorsports Off-Road H-Pipe (yes, I was modding back then too!). I was faster 0 to 80 than just about anything out there. In 1987, the Mustang got a new front and rear facia and ground effects which weighed the car down a bit. I was still able to take the newer Mustangs that were rated from the factory at 225 bhp! That was a fun car. Ah, memories!

Last edited by jdmcbride; Mar 25, 2010 at 12:12 PM.
Old Mar 25, 2010 | 12:28 PM
  #57  
05gtdriver's Avatar
05gtdriver
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,127
From: Los Angeles Ca
Default

Originally Posted by jdmcbride
I had an automatic 1981 Trans Am with the 301 ci engine rated at 170 bhp. Yea, it was slow because it was heavy and underpowered - it looked nice though.

I traded it for a new manual 5-Speed 1986 Mustang GT. Wow, what a difference! It was the first year of the fuel-injected 5.0 liter engine and was rated at 200 bhp. Lighter weight (probably by 1,000 lbs) with more horsepower is a great combo!

I removed the "smog pump" and installed a Ford Motorsports Off-Road H-Pipe (yes, I was modding back then too!). I was faster 0 to 80 than just about anything out there. In 1987, the Mustang got a new front and rear facia and ground effects which weighed the car down a bit. I was still able to take the newer Mustangs that were rated from the factory at 225 bhp! That was a fun car. Ah, memories!
Ahh, the good old days! I was in an auto mechanic trade school in 1986 & the smog/tune-up professor(former Ford manager) had a killer '82 Mustang GT with a built 351W in it and it was an easy low 12 second car on street tires, he bought a brand new 1987 GT in the fall and we all thought it was ugly(too Taurus-like in the front) and the rear tail lights were very Pep Boy-ish. Time changes perceptions, the 1987-1993 Foxes are some of the best Mustangs made and best looking(LXs come to mind). BTW, a fellow student had a '69 Firebird with a built LT-1(original 1970 1/2 Z/28 motor) Chevy 350 in it with a Saginaw 3 speed behind it(student budget!) and damn that car was fast for the time(mid 13s), but geez, it had 4 wheel drum brakes! He let me drive it once and after hauling butt, I jab the brake pedal.......nothing........few more seconds......nothing, boom! It finally stopped-hahaha. Kids now a days should all drive a classic car(pre 1974) once in their lifetimes, makes you appreciate what cars now can do.................
Old Mar 25, 2010 | 03:22 PM
  #58  
05gtdriver's Avatar
05gtdriver
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,127
From: Los Angeles Ca
Default

Originally Posted by discodave
I had an 83 Chevette that rocked!
I had a friend back in the mid 80's who was messing around with a married woman that had a late 70's Chevette(****vette, as he called it-lol) and that car was a nuclear bomb surviving cockroach!
It just ran & ran & ran. Dirty air filter? No problem. Dirty oil? No problem. Out of adjustment carburetor? No problem. Hitting a pothole that broke the weld on the shock tower mount and the shock was now touching the underside of the hood? No problem, even tracked straight! Too funny.....
Old Mar 25, 2010 | 04:07 PM
  #59  
Snakebite64's Avatar
Snakebite64
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,532
From: dark side of the moon
Default

Nice find/reading
Old Mar 25, 2010 | 04:10 PM
  #60  
discodave's Avatar
discodave
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,172
From: Maryland
Default

Originally Posted by 05gtdriver
I had a friend back in the mid 80's who was messing around with a married woman that had a late 70's Chevette(****vette, as he called it-lol) and that car was a nuclear bomb surviving cockroach!
It just ran & ran & ran. Dirty air filter? No problem. Dirty oil? No problem. Out of adjustment carburetor? No problem. Hitting a pothole that broke the weld on the shock tower mount and the shock was now touching the underside of the hood? No problem, even tracked straight! Too funny.....
Same here man! Me and my buddies used to drive that car through fields and chase cows with it. We would jump things in it, pull the emergency brake all the time to get it to slide sideways. You name it. That car took the beating and never gave up.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 AM.