I've owned two mustangs and would buy a new one if it was in my car need plan but I have an S2000 and that's all the performance I need. The company I work for built a lot of the assembly systems for the new Mustang including the rear axle systems. Most of the cars in the late 60 and early 70 had V8's and did have the ignition point problem and this is one item that caused people to think that V8's shouldn't be revved much.
Last edited by Blkblurr; 05-31-2007 at 05:55 AM.
His tranny went probably because people were abusing it. Tires wear out. Brake lines? I don't really believe that.Originally Posted by MessyHonda
Besides, if you want to talk about cars that spend more time in the shop than driving, let's talk about DSMs.
That's nothing new. The 64 mustang had the same suspension as the Ford Falcon, and if you ever read about the creation of the movie "Bullit" you'll find the mustang was literally falling apart while filming, but the dodge charger's suspension was so heavy duty that it held up fine.
Agreed.
I think you missed a 0. The number I heard getting tossed around was $5,000, not $500. Even ford doesn't have its head that far up it's ass to stick with live axles instead of a $500 to IRS.
Alex
Yeha, i'm pretty sure the suspension isn't the same in the GT500 as in the base v6 model. It's the same STYLE of suspension, they both have live rear axles, but some people PREFER live axles. I think they're fun, and unless I plan on aggressively competing, I don't really think the cost increase for an independant rear suspension would be worth it.
roodoo you are right. the car was from a teenager and he could not afford to pay it off so the bank took it and thats how my friend got it...way under price
50k miles
it came with Koni adjustable suspension
roll cage,
nice set of 17 inch thrust 5 spoke rims
K&N intake with like carbon fiber
the tranny was moded....it has a shorter 2nd gear and that was what failed.
a roush shifter that looks kick ass
and it looks good....with 5% tint.
just his transmission cost more than my mods in my car..
Last edited by MessyHonda; 05-31-2007 at 10:48 AM.
1989 Honda Accord LX-i
B18c1 swap since 7/2011
175whp and 132tq
Redzone tuned
Depends on how you are going to drive the car. Independant suspension will handle better than a rigid axle. If you are going to spend the $5000 more, you need to have use for it or you just have too much money.
His tranny went probably because people were abusing it. Tires wear out. Brake lines? I don't really believe that.
Besides, if you want to talk about cars that spend more time in the shop than driving, let's talk about DSMs.
yeah....they switched out 2nd gear so it was shorter...and it would grid going in. break lines failed......he had to slow down with his Ebrake.....and midas charged him 500 bucks for new lines, rotors and pads.
1989 Honda Accord LX-i
B18c1 swap since 7/2011
175whp and 132tq
Redzone tuned
This is now a pointless thread.
Lats satle this debate... Ford Mustang GT500 @ TopGear Test
They did mantoned rear Axle in thet film.
edit:PS: gues i was wrong about thet $500. It is $5000,-
Its prttey fnuny how you can raed tihs eintre snetnece with all tehse ellters out of palce...
My Build Thread
I don’t know why people just rev their motors for non-diagnostic purposes anyway. In my opinion, its rather annoying when you have some kids at a car meet rev the hell out of their motor. Then it becomes more of a contest, who’s motor can rev the highest and fastest. Sorry ill get off my soapbox.
Anyway. Does revving you motor cause damage to it? yes and maybe. Just running your motor damages it. Oil just doesn’t turn black cause of heat from the motor. There are little pieces of metal in there as well. To what degree does reving an unloaded motor do to it, it’s hard to say. Revving it probally doesn't hurt it that much but im sure it does cause some wear and tear.
lol...soo true.....its like who has the biggest and baddest.
1989 Honda Accord LX-i
B18c1 swap since 7/2011
175whp and 132tq
Redzone tuned
Yeah, let's bring that up. Top gear puts a car on a DYNO, and expects to receive the 'advertised horsepower' at the freaking wheels. WTF. They were seriously smoking crack if they expected the mustang to have 'a zero friction' drivetrain. All cars lose 15-20% of their power through the transmissions, AWD cars even more so. If you put a Veyron on an AWD dyno you'd probably be lucky to break 800hp.
There is a HUGE difference between crank horsepower, and wheel horsepower. I can't believe Top Gear edited their show like they expected it to be the same. It really made me lose a huge amount of respect for that show, actually.
That's a pretty sad statement. Top Gear was merely exposing the fact that a lot of companies advertise thier hp numbers, but never really tell the public that the numbers were meaured at the crank. Top Gear is a great show and I will love it no matter.
a little too late on the last part i ripped my auto tranny out doing that
Fine. Name me ONE car company, anywhere, that advertises WHEEL horsepower. You won't find one, because ALL of them measure it at the crank. Hence why top gear's episode was sad, and really hurt any shred of credibility it had.
yeah car companies want it too look like they have lots of HP.
1989 Honda Accord LX-i
B18c1 swap since 7/2011
175whp and 132tq
Redzone tuned
agreed
it is like "let me make sure my rev limiter is still working" rev limiter check like ten times a day..lol
why don't we say, lets make sure the smoke alarm is working every hour on the hour, or lets make sure my dog really wont bite the kid if we antagonize it some more, or lets make sure the the exlax is still good that we had in the cabinet since 1999 or Hell lets test the circuit breakers in the house to see if they will trip.. give me a pair of scissors...
I love starbucks...
on a car it's acceptable to rev the motor a little to clear the carb. i don't mean rev the shit out of it,i mean if it's been sitting for a few days. there is no need on a fuel injected car. carbs have a tendency to develop varnish and gunk on the parts fuel flows through. you need to get plenty of airflow going through the engine,then the fresh fuel passing those parts will help clean them.
i rev my car and it runs fine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M2a5N-e8o0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsMJEP931o4
1988 Honda Accord LX-i Coupe 123k miles.
you mean except for the knocking,smoking and other stuff you were talking about. there is no reason to rev a fuel injected car. people who see that video will think you are a ricer for sure. the original reason for reving a car was to clear the carb, kids with fuel injected cars picked it up,and it's stupid now. you don't have a 21 year old carb to worry about.
no but my car is badass :-D it pulls long burnouts but cant get anyone to record me doing them becuz if my mom found out she would hit me upside the head
1988 Honda Accord LX-i Coupe 123k miles.
I thought she did that anyway. i wish i had a video camera,you would piss your pants. lol. doing burn outs on bald ass tires doesn't count.no but my car is badass :-D it pulls long burnouts but cant get anyone to record me doing them becuz if my mom found out she would hit me upside the head
only one tire is bald and it dose them on the donut tire too :-D
1988 Honda Accord LX-i Coupe 123k miles.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks