Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
2 Pages 1 2 ( Go to first unread post ) |
Jayson | Posted: Feb 26 2003, 09:30 PM |
IDW Posts A Freaking LOT Member Group: Advanced Members Posts: 10,554 Member No.: 32 Joined: Sep 26th 2002 Location: Orlando, FL | who is mad max?!? Shmuck I say! Shmuck! |
Wheels84ss | Posted: Feb 28 2003, 01:26 PM |
IDW Prime Member Group: Advanced Members Posts: 607 Member No.: 275 Joined: Feb 25th 2003 Location: Sayreville, NJ | No not kidding at all. The 2.3T was a nightmare of a motor, and the "Special" SVO suspension was nothing more then slightly stiffer springs and better shocks. For the pricetag of the SVO you could put the same setup in an LX and still have enough for a new paintjob and dinner with your girl. |
GoFastLookSlow | Posted: Feb 28 2003, 02:26 PM | ||
♪ don't say lazy ♪ Group: Members Posts: 170 Member No.: 86 Joined: Nov 17th 2002 Location: Update Profile |
Stiffer springs and shocks?! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Yeah, modified front geometry and 15:1 power-assisted rack-and-pinion steering. Rear suspension featured a limited slip, 3.73:1 Traction-Lok axle. The Mustang SVO's suspension included many firsts -- it was the first Mustang to have as standard equipment all of the following: Koni gas filled/adjustable struts, shocks, and horizontal dampers; 5-lug, 16 x 7 inch aluminum wheels; P225-16 Goodyear Eagle VR 50 "Gatorbacks''; and four-wheel ventilated disc brakes, and as we all know, that = stiffer springs and shocks. And you obviously know nothing about the 2.3T. Please.. feel free to reply. | ||
Jayson | Posted: Feb 28 2003, 10:52 PM |
IDW Posts A Freaking LOT Member Group: Advanced Members Posts: 10,554 Member No.: 32 Joined: Sep 26th 2002 Location: Orlando, FL | Oh yeah! well a JAM was the first to put foot:to:GFLSface! the JAM was also better looking too! It had sexy:awesomeness, well the GFLS had ugly:fat rate. |
Wheels84ss | Posted: Mar 2 2003, 10:28 PM |
IDW Prime Member Group: Advanced Members Posts: 607 Member No.: 275 Joined: Feb 25th 2003 Location: Sayreville, NJ | Well other then the 3.73 all the components you describe are COPO on an 88 stang. Granted the SVO was the first, 84-86 production run, but the components are still there. And if you seriously wanna debate the mechanical value of ford's 2.3 turbo you either have a love affair with this particular motor, or you had the best luck in the world with the one you had. There was a reason ford discontinued the motor, it packed to many recalls. If the company is willing to admit it's an anchor, why is it that so many people wanna defend this engine. Because it was a predessor and followed the Japanese import ideals. The ford 2.3 and dode 2.2 and 2.5 torubos were horrible motors, no where near the levels of there across the ocean brothers. Even the GN 3.8 Gran National motor left severe lacks in dependibility for a turbo motor. There is a reason American car companies shy away from Turbos, they can't build them right, ask anyone that has ever turned a wrench for a living, not just on a backyard toy.
|
Jayson | Posted: Mar 2 2003, 10:35 PM |
IDW Posts A Freaking LOT Member Group: Advanced Members Posts: 10,554 Member No.: 32 Joined: Sep 26th 2002 Location: Orlando, FL | turbo mustangs=not right |
2 Pages 1 2 |