That's the truth!

 

In some ways yes, but in others...... nooooo.

 

i have alotta respect for these blown 4 cylinders...but i mean i have a cobra so....if theres something that beats my cobra ill be impressed

 

SVO's are sweet cars and I give them my respect. In fact I actually am looking for one for my DD so if someone is selling theirs or knows where to get one in the PA area, let me know.

 

I missed this or would have responded along time ago. His so called stock tires are nitto 555r whihc was listed with his mods. The tires were 295 wide. My car which in the video had killed the clutch (hence the crappy burnout) was running a 235 mt drag radial. I personally think the mt is a better tire but would rather have the extra 4 inches of rubber on the ground if it would fit.

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/...45ab773d8a.htm

Guess he had street tires too? Must be why he jumped me out of the hole and forced me to run him done. (i didn't post that video or title btw)

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/...070171a335.htm

This v-8 must have needed tires too?

Hope you get the point. The v-8 cars are fun and all and I have owned several and currently own a 95 gt 5 spd but anyone who thinks the v-8 is better because it is a v-8 is just silly.

 

I love V8s and will never drive anything but. But, V8s do not rule the world and are not 'all that'. Used to be that V8s ruled because thats all there really was. That was a long time ago. Now we got 4 bangers and v6s that have sent high hp V8s packing with thier tails between thier legs, and then driven home on pump gas with a well deserved smile on thier face.

My point is this. Theres always somebody better and somebody faster. And they arent all runnin V8s. Know what i mean?

And the whole stock vs. modified bs? Thats comparing apples to hand grenades.

 

I respect the SVO and 2.3 turbos (like the '79 pace car) because they're part of our rich mustang heritage. I only don't like fwd fast and furious style cars. Also I only consider 4 cylinders below 2.0 liters to be good for gas mileage. At my dealership, the sales mgr's wife keeps dropping off her caliber saying it only gets 19mpg...hey it's a 2.4 which is considered a big four...plus she runs the a/c and holds it to the wood...I ran off a copy of a car and driver article about how they really get those mileage numbers and how they don't equate to real-world driving...
...getting a little off topic here. But yes I respect 2.3 turbos and would be happy to lay strip in one![sm=smiley20.gif]

p.s. back in the day the 2.3 turbo and 5.0 HO had similar if not identical hp/tq numbers...gotta respect that!

 

My next car will be an SVO (if I can find one). Gotta love them turbo four bangers. My Ranger has a 2.3l and I love that little engine.

 

+1

i have parts gathered for a 2.3 thats going back into my dads 75 mach1 (yes, a II). i hogged out the bowls in the heads for larger stainless valves, and threw an erson cam in there which came into the shop on a core motor

 

you think modding a 4cyl turbo is expensive? Try modding a 98 cobra....$1600 just for the bare heads...wtf? another 1500 for a cam kit....$3100 just for heads and only to gain, what, 30-40hp? Screw that, $3100 goes alot farther in a 4cyl turbo than it does in a 98 cobra...so i'm gonna sell the cobra. I am currently looking for an SVO or even a turbo coupe for that matter.....spend some money on it and have a 12 sec car that still gets 22mpg[sm=happybounce.gif]