Classic Mustangs List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: mustang (Brandon Peskin)

Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
hatchback?

Thanks in advance for your feedback. I know some of you have them out
there, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Lance (Lance Robaldo)

No, they came in the coupe body style too. I had both a 79 "Ghia" coupe and
an 81 coupe as I was growing up.

I personally would go for a 93 fox if I really wanted one. That was the
final year of that body style and as such, it had the newest technology put
into it.

If possible, I'd shoot for a 93 Cobra as it had the T-5Z transmission which
was the strongest T-5 put into a stock Mustang.

For looks, my favorite fox was the 79 Pace Car edition. I just really like
that gray & black color scheme, those net headrests, and the T-Top. I could
live without the orange horses, but it was the pace car edition, so it's
tolerable.

Unfortunately, I believe it was carbureted....


Lance.



-----Original Message-----
From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of Brandon
Peskin
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:40 AM
To: Lance at robaldo.com
Subject: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...

Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
hatchback?

Thanks in advance for your feedback. I know some of you have them out
there, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.
_______________________________________________

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: ckelly (Chris Kelly)

I prefer the 85-86 cars. 4 cylinder, cheap - then put what you want in it.


>No, they came in the coupe body style too. I had both a 79 "Ghia" coupe and
>an 81 coupe as I was growing up.
>
>I personally would go for a 93 fox if I really wanted one. That was the
>final year of that body style and as such, it had the newest technology put
>into it.
>
>If possible, I'd shoot for a 93 Cobra as it had the T-5Z transmission which
>was the strongest T-5 put into a stock Mustang.
>
>For looks, my favorite fox was the 79 Pace Car edition. I just really like
>that gray & black color scheme, those net headrests, and the T-Top. I could
>live without the orange horses, but it was the pace car edition, so it's
>tolerable.
>
>Unfortunately, I believe it was carbureted....
>
>
>Lance.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
>[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of Brandon
>Peskin
>Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:40 AM
>To: Lance at robaldo.com
>Subject: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...
>
>Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
>I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
>help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
>past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
>hatchback?
>
>Thanks in advance for your feedback. I know some of you have them out
>there, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Classic-mustangs mailing list
>Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
>lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
>Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/



--
=====================================
Chris Kelly - ckelly at raceabilene.com
raceabilene.com/kelly/hotrod
Merkel, Texas
Member:
International Hot Rod Association
Abilene Performance Car Association
Falcon Club of America
=====================================

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: jem (John Miller)

> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
> hatchback?

Broadly speaking, the later the better, but they're all more alike than
different.

'93s have a number of subtle changes, '91 IIRC was the first year for
the larger front-fender openings to clear the 16in wheels and larger
tires. Then you're back to '87 for the next previous major update.

Coupe is lighter, hatchback more useful. Weight distribution (the Fox
platform was, after all, engineered to accept FWD) and chassis stiffness
(avoid any car with T-tops, think hard about adding some good weld-on
subframe connectors) sucks in all of them but then any car is a grab-bag
of strengths and weaknesses.

John.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: walt (Walt Boeninger)



Brandon Peskin wrote:

> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
> hatchback?

I agree with Lance. A '93 if you want a 5.0, and the coupe appeals
to me more than the GT Fastback. I've owned an 86, 88 and currently
have a 2002.

Brief rundown: 85 Last carbureted 5.0, (except the ATs got CFI. 86 they
were all SEFI. 89 they went to MAF (88 in California) 91 (IIRC) they
got 16" Pony wheels. 5.0s were available as a GT Hatchback or Convert,
or a non GT coupe or Convert (no fru-fru trim) HP maxed at 225 in '87-93
Previous year was 200 or 210. 86 used lousy heads, the 87 got better
heads and you could tell the diff easily. I had both the 86 and 88 at
the same time.. I ran the 86 at Riverside Raceway .. twice... stock...
the new Goodyears did not appreciate that at all ...

A 93 Cobra will cost more of course....

We usually have several for sale in the club, but I only see two race cars
right now, and a very nice 91

norcal-saac.org/listings/carpart.htm

--

Regards
--------------
Walt Boeninger
mailto:webmaster at norcal-saac.org
norcal-saac.org

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: varnmk (varnmk

I bought a new '85 hatchback GT but had to get rid of it because my family outgrew it. I bought the car knowing it was the last year for carburetion thinking at the time it might be collectable. I really did like the looks of the chrome air breather and it ran pretty good but did have a stumble at the bottom. I fixed that by swapping to 3:45 gears in the rearend! I know fuel injections is "better", but there is something about a having a holley 4bbl under the hood...

It seems most folks do not think the carbureted version is the way to go, but the highway patrol drove them in NC and they were hard to beat.

>
> From: John Miller <jem at milleredp.com>
> Date: 2006/08/21 Mon PM 12:10:40 EDT
> To: MarkV <varnmk at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...
>
> > Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
> > I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
> > help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
> > past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
> > hatchback?
>
> Broadly speaking, the later the better, but they're all more alike than
> different.
>
> '93s have a number of subtle changes, '91 IIRC was the first year for
> the larger front-fender openings to clear the 16in wheels and larger
> tires. Then you're back to '87 for the next previous major update.
>
> Coupe is lighter, hatchback more useful. Weight distribution (the Fox
> platform was, after all, engineered to accept FWD) and chassis stiffness
> (avoid any car with T-tops, think hard about adding some good weld-on
> subframe connectors) sucks in all of them but then any car is a grab-bag
> of strengths and weaknesses.
>
> John.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: james.w.butler (james.w.butler

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060821/cb7ebdba/attachment.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: james.w.butler (james.w.butler

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060821/e22046c8/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060821/e22046c8/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: echase3rd (Edward Chase)

I had an '84 LX 5.0 hatchback and a '93 LX 5.0 coupe. Between the two,
I'd pick the '93 without hesitation. It had more HP, it was less
thirsty and I think it looked better inside and out.






Brandon Peskin wrote:
> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
> hatchback?
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback. I know some of you have them out
> there, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: PSAWYER (Paul Sawyer)

If I were going to get a Fox body--and one will, probably, be my next
daily driver--I'd get a SSP (Special Service Package). They were
typically used as the pursuit mustangs.

Mmmmmmm. . . . .


On Aug 21, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Edward Chase wrote:

> I had an '84 LX 5.0 hatchback and a '93 LX 5.0 coupe. Between the
> two,
> I'd pick the '93 without hesitation. It had more HP, it was less
> thirsty and I think it looked better inside and out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brandon Peskin wrote:
>> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
>> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
>> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
>> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
>> hatchback?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your feedback. I know some of you have them out
>> there, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: jkessell (James Kessell)

As far as drivability the 91 -93 GT's are a hoot! Kind of depends
what you want to do with the car. The LX models still get you the 5.0
and they are a little lighter than the GT's. I just have a preference
for the cars with the pony (5 spoke) wheels. I have 2 boys, one born
in 91 and 93 . Got the 91 GT in the garage now, and still looking for
a 93. I watched a 93 GT hatchback go on ebay two weeks ago with under
1000 miles in it go for $14,475. Relatively easy to work on and loads
of parts available. Insurance is pretty steep. I have my 91 on my
Hagerty policy or it wouldn't be tagged. If I didn't have a 15 year
old in the house I'd have one now for a daily driver. Convertibles
are noisy on the road - not fun after a couple of hours. More wind
noise than my 66. If I were buying a driver I'd buy a hardtop, only
because I have a convertible to enjoy all ready and the frame/body
structure is stiffer. It's surprising how much the cars flex coming
out of a parking lot curb cut. As everyone has noted, the Cobra's are
pricey. I think the 92's have a little more horsepower than the 93's,
a small change was made.

Check out or subscribe to 50mustangandsuperfords.com, a decent mag.

BTW, I have told my boys not to expect the cars until they graduate
college or turn 25.

Jim

On Aug 21, 2006, at 4:39 AM, Brandon Peskin wrote:

> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
> hatchback?
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback. I know some of you have them out
> there, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/



Jim Kessell
Hyndman. PA

65 Conv, Arcadian Blue, 289, Auto
66 Conv. Nightmist Blue, 289, Auto, Air
66 Coupe, Candyapple Red, Parchment Pony,
289, Auto, Air
91 GT Conv, 3200 miles, Auto



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060821/b8fb356a/attachment.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: SSEXSMITH (Sexsmith, Scott)

I think the CHP here in California used to run those in the 80's. I
remember the poster with the CHP Mustang and the logo "These cars chase
Porches for a living" or something to that effect. Do they ever come up
for sale?

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of Paul
Sawyer
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:41 PM
To: Sexsmith, Scott
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...

If I were going to get a Fox body--and one will, probably, be my next
daily driver--I'd get a SSP (Special Service Package). They were
typically used as the pursuit mustangs.

Mmmmmmm. . . . .


On Aug 21, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Edward Chase wrote:

> I had an '84 LX 5.0 hatchback and a '93 LX 5.0 coupe. Between the
> two,
> I'd pick the '93 without hesitation. It had more HP, it was less
> thirsty and I think it looked better inside and out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brandon Peskin wrote:
>> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
>> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
>> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
>> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
>> hatchback?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your feedback. I know some of you have them out
>> there, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>

_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/


This communication and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it constitute an electronic communication within the scope of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510. This communication may contain non-public, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s). The unlawful interception, use or disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited under 18 USCA 2511 and any applicable laws.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: mahilly (Mike H)

I got ticketed by one of those CHP mustangs on I5 in Nor Cal about 12 or
13 years ago. He had no appreciation for the fact that I was driving a 67.
I'll never forget what he told me when he pulled me over - he said he was
chasing me, weaving in and out of traffic for ten miles before he finally
caught up to me. And, if he had to chase me any longer he would have
arrested me for evasion. Then he wrote me a ticket for going 83 in a 65
(maybe it was still a 55 at the time - can't remember). Anyway, the guy was
full of S*%#. If he can't catch me going going 83 then something is wrong.
Besides, I pulled over as soon as I saw his lights in my rear view...I was
weaving in an out of traffic though;>

On 8/21/06, Sexsmith, Scott <SSEXSMITH at capousd.org> wrote:
>
> I think the CHP here in California used to run those in the 80's. I
> remember the poster with the CHP Mustang and the logo "These cars chase
> Porches for a living" or something to that effect. Do they ever come up
> for sale?
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
> [mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of Paul
> Sawyer
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:41 PM
> To: Sexsmith, Scott
> Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...
>
> If I were going to get a Fox body--and one will, probably, be my next
> daily driver--I'd get a SSP (Special Service Package). They were
> typically used as the pursuit mustangs.
>
> Mmmmmmm. . . . .
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Edward Chase wrote:
>
> > I had an '84 LX 5.0 hatchback and a '93 LX 5.0 coupe. Between the
> > two,
> > I'd pick the '93 without hesitation. It had more HP, it was less
> > thirsty and I think it looked better inside and out.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brandon Peskin wrote:
> >> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
> >> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
> >> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
> >> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
> >> hatchback?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance for your feedback. I know some of you have them out
> >> there, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Classic-mustangs mailing list
> > Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> > lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
> >
> > Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>
>
> This communication and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages
> attached to it constitute an electronic communication within the scope of
> the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510. This communication
> may contain non-public, confidential, or legally privileged information
> intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s). The unlawful
> interception, use or disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited
> under 18 USCA 2511 and any applicable laws.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060822/2eee8726/attachment.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: keven (Coates, Keven)

Yes, they used to come up for sale all the time. They don't last too
long as police vehicles (police vehicles obviously get a lot of
use/abuse, and the Mustangs don't last much longer than other cars).

It's been a while since I've seen a Mustang police car. Now they're
mostly crown vics and SUVs here. I see the crown vics come up often at
the state public auctions.

If there are any police Mustangs in your area, you can bet they come up
for auction fairly regularly as they wear out beyond economical repair.
They're often pretty ragged out, but they're cheap. They're a good
source of otherwise expensive police parts (although the parts may be
worn out), but you'd have to plan on replacing/overhauling some major
stuff. Sometimes you can get lucky by getting a police mustang that
wasn't used for chase (only used by a state official or neighborhood
cruiser).

They remove the emblems before they're sold of course, but often they're
still white or black and white. You can have a lot of fun with that if
they don't make you repaint it.

I've never bought one, but this is what I've heard.

Keven

-----Original Message-----
From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of
Sexsmith, Scott
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 7:58 PM
To: Coates, Keven
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...

I think the CHP here in California used to run those in the 80's. I
remember the poster with the CHP Mustang and the logo "These cars chase
Porches for a living" or something to that effect. Do they ever come up
for sale?

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of Paul
Sawyer
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:41 PM
To: Sexsmith, Scott
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...

If I were going to get a Fox body--and one will, probably, be my next
daily driver--I'd get a SSP (Special Service Package). They were
typically used as the pursuit mustangs.

Mmmmmmm. . . . .


On Aug 21, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Edward Chase wrote:

> I had an '84 LX 5.0 hatchback and a '93 LX 5.0 coupe. Between the
> two,
> I'd pick the '93 without hesitation. It had more HP, it was less
> thirsty and I think it looked better inside and out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brandon Peskin wrote:
>> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
>> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
>> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
>> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
>> hatchback?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your feedback. I know some of you have them out
>> there, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>

_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/


This communication and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages
attached to it constitute an electronic communication within the scope
of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510. This
communication may contain non-public, confidential, or legally
privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated
recipient(s). The unlawful interception, use or disclosure of such
information is strictly prohibited under 18 USCA 2511 and any applicable
laws.

_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: cjk22 (Christian Kronenwetter)

My wife and I recently took a trip to DC and on 95 we saw a new Mustang with
jet black paint and dark tint on all the windows that had someone pulled
over. It was cool to see a mustang with all the lights on it but it's scary
too because you wouldn't think that the mustang ridding your tail is a cop.
On the way back we saw the same thing but it was a Dodge Charger. Very
tricky those police.

-----Original Message-----
From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of Coates,
Keven
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:05 AM
To: Christian
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...

Yes, they used to come up for sale all the time. They don't last too
long as police vehicles (police vehicles obviously get a lot of
use/abuse, and the Mustangs don't last much longer than other cars).

It's been a while since I've seen a Mustang police car. Now they're
mostly crown vics and SUVs here. I see the crown vics come up often at
the state public auctions.

If there are any police Mustangs in your area, you can bet they come up
for auction fairly regularly as they wear out beyond economical repair.
They're often pretty ragged out, but they're cheap. They're a good
source of otherwise expensive police parts (although the parts may be
worn out), but you'd have to plan on replacing/overhauling some major
stuff. Sometimes you can get lucky by getting a police mustang that
wasn't used for chase (only used by a state official or neighborhood
cruiser).

They remove the emblems before they're sold of course, but often they're
still white or black and white. You can have a lot of fun with that if
they don't make you repaint it.

I've never bought one, but this is what I've heard.

Keven

-----Original Message-----
From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of
Sexsmith, Scott
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 7:58 PM
To: Coates, Keven
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...

I think the CHP here in California used to run those in the 80's. I
remember the poster with the CHP Mustang and the logo "These cars chase
Porches for a living" or something to that effect. Do they ever come up
for sale?

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of Paul
Sawyer
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:41 PM
To: Sexsmith, Scott
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...

If I were going to get a Fox body--and one will, probably, be my next
daily driver--I'd get a SSP (Special Service Package). They were
typically used as the pursuit mustangs.

Mmmmmmm. . . . .


On Aug 21, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Edward Chase wrote:

> I had an '84 LX 5.0 hatchback and a '93 LX 5.0 coupe. Between the
> two,
> I'd pick the '93 without hesitation. It had more HP, it was less
> thirsty and I think it looked better inside and out.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brandon Peskin wrote:
>> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
>> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
>> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
>> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
>> hatchback?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your feedback. I know some of you have them out
>> there, and I'm very interested in your thoughts.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>

_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/


This communication and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages
attached to it constitute an electronic communication within the scope
of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510. This
communication may contain non-public, confidential, or legally
privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated
recipient(s). The unlawful interception, use or disclosure of such
information is strictly prohibited under 18 USCA 2511 and any applicable
laws.

_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: abesfate (Abraham Miller)

If your goal is playing with the stock 5.0.

I'd grab a '92 GT.

In 93, they changed out the forged piston for hypereuretics - so if you planned on adding a blower - they'd have to go. 92 still has the world class tranny and lighter body than the later SN95 style.

SN95's, unless in later Cobra modes, were usually overweight and underpowered.

I know nothing of the later "box" foxes... FOr some reason they just feel wrong to drive. (Obviously just an opinion)

If you going for a swap and have the dough:
If you have the patience for it, a 93 4-cyl would be a great option for swapping to a v8 if only because the frame shouldn't be very stressed and due to its younger age - less decayed.

BUT, I'd hesitate with that route due to emissions compliance factors... still stuck with swapping in a bunch of smog equipment for that biannual test.

FWIW
Abe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060822/256bd4e5/attachment.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: jdettori (John Dettori)

On Monday, August 21, 2006 4:39 AM,
"Brandon Peskin" <mustang at peskin.org> wrote (to the Classic Mustang List):
Subject: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...


> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
> hatchback?

Few will probably agree with me, but there is only one Fox body choice
to even consider, IMHO: the 1984-86 SVO Mustang. Here's why:

It's rare, light and fast, with aggressive looks, everyday driveability/comfort,
and guaranteed collectibility. Considering the performance of the day, this
car was a hot-rodder's dream with 4-wheel disk brakes, 16x8" aluminum rims
shod with 50-series Goodyear Eagles, adjustable Koni struts & shocks,
a Hurst Shifter, dual exhaust, and cool comfortable seats accentuating an
upscale interior.

The heart of this package was the 4 cylinder turbocharged, intercooled, and
steriod injected 2.3 litre - the very same block that Indy and GTP cars of the
day used as a basis for 700bhp engines. It's an OHC design, with huge
valves and ports ala 351 Cleveland. Would you expect any less from Ford's
Special Vehicle Operations? Throw in a bi-plane spoiler and off-center
intake scoop for good measure.

Obviously, I like it. With only 9,844 made, they're all collectible, but the
1985-1/2 and 1986 have 200+ bhp, better gearing, and hotter computers.
You could tune and tweak this car from mild to wild; I've seen reliable 400+bhp
cars that can handle an autocross. While it was never designed to be a stop-light
racer, you could make impressive quarter mile times if you wanted to. A stock '84 -
'86 GT is not it's equal in most performance categories. Popular Hot Rodding
did a comparison test in the July 1985 issue. Car & Driver called it the "best Mustang
ever built" in December 1985.

If you buy David LaRocque's book "SVO Mustang: The Machine Speaks
For Itself", there's a wealth of information from the Ford engineers that conceived
and built the car. Dave is the president of the SVO Owners Association.

Hope this shed some light, offering a different perspective ...

John Dettori 2001 SVT Cobra
Smithtown, NY 11787 1986 Mustang SVO
jdettori at optonline.net 1967 Mustang GT Vert
1967 Shelby GT350

Hop
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060823/7ab5d4fd/attachment.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: PSAWYER (Paul Sawyer)

Anyone know why Ford pulled the plug on the turbo charged 4 in the
Mustang? I always had heard that although they went like a cruise
missile, that they were pretty finicky. Any truth to that?

--Paul

On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:45 PM, John Dettori wrote:

> On Monday, August 21, 2006 4:39 AM,
> "Brandon Peskin" <mustang at peskin.org> wrote (to the Classic
> Mustang List):
> Subject: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...
>
> > Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
> > I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I
> could
> > help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
> > past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
> > hatchback?
> Few will probably agree with me, but there is only one Fox body choice
> to even consider, IMHO: the 1984-86 SVO Mustang. Here's why:
>
> It's rare, light and fast, with aggressive looks, everyday
> driveability/comfort,
> and guaranteed collectibility. Considering the performance of the
> day, this
> car was a hot-rodder's dream with 4-wheel disk brakes, 16x8"
> aluminum rims
> shod with 50-series Goodyear Eagles, adjustable Koni struts & shocks,
> a Hurst Shifter, dual exhaust, and cool comfortable seats
> accentuating an
> upscale interior.
>
> The heart of this package was the 4 cylinder turbocharged,
> intercooled, and
> steriod injected 2.3 litre - the very same block that Indy and GTP
> cars of the
> day used as a basis for 700bhp engines. It's an OHC design, with huge
> valves and ports ala 351 Cleveland. Would you expect any less from
> Ford's
> Special Vehicle Operations? Throw in a bi-plane spoiler and off-
> center
> intake scoop for good measure.
>
> Obviously, I like it. With only 9,844 made, they're all
> collectible, but the
> 1985-1/2 and 1986 have 200+ bhp, better gearing, and hotter computers.
> You could tune and tweak this car from mild to wild; I've seen
> reliable 400+bhp
> cars that can handle an autocross. While it was never designed to
> be a stop-light
> racer, you could make impressive quarter mile times if you wanted
> to. A stock '84 -
> '86 GT is not it's equal in most performance categories. Popular
> Hot Rodding
> did a comparison test in the July 1985 issue. Car & Driver called
> it the "best Mustang
> ever built" in December 1985.
>
> If you buy David LaRocque's book "SVO Mustang: The Machine Speaks
> For Itself", there's a wealth of information from the Ford
> engineers that conceived
> and built the car. Dave is the president of the SVO Owners
> Association.
>
> Hope this shed some light, offering a different perspective ...
>
> John
> Dettori
> 2001 SVT Cobra
> Smithtown, NY
> 11787 1986
> Mustang SVO
> jdettori at optonline.net
> 1967 Mustang GT Vert
>
> 1967 Shelby GT350
>
> Hop
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060823/9096187e/attachment.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: dschmi (Dave)

Like John, I (well, my wife) owns an '86 SVO. It is a great car, and
not what I would consider finicky.
The SVO handles great, when you want power just kick in the turbo;
otherwise you're only putting gas into 4 cyl.
The SVO is a real blast to autocross, and having owned a '97 GT with 17"
wheels, I can say that the SVO handles better than the GT I had.

I believe they stopped production of the turbocharged 4 because it just
didn't sell (look at the production numbers on the SVO). Most people
who wanted a Mustang wanted the 302.

When gas hit $3 per gallon, it was kind of nice to have a 4 cylinder
Mustang!

Just my 2 cents.

BTW, my other Mustangs are a '66 coupe and a '70 Boss 302

Dave

Paul Sawyer wrote:

> Anyone know why Ford pulled the plug on the turbo charged 4 in the
> Mustang? I always had heard that although they went like a cruise
> missile, that they were pretty finicky. Any truth to that?
>
> --Paul
>
> On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:45 PM, John Dettori wrote:
>
>> On Monday, August 21, 2006 4:39 AM,
>> "Brandon Peskin" <mustang at peskin.org
>> <mailto:mustang at peskin.org>> wrote (to the Classic Mustang List):
>> Subject: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...
>>
>> > Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
>> > I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
>> > help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
>> > past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
>> > hatchback?
>> Few will probably agree with me, but there is only one Fox body choice
>> to even consider, IMHO: the 1984-86 SVO Mustang. Here's why:
>>
>> It's rare, light and fast, with aggressive looks, everyday
>> driveability/comfort,
>> and guaranteed collectibility. Considering the performance of the
>> day, this
>> car was a hot-rodder's dream with 4-wheel disk brakes, 16x8" aluminum
>> rims
>> shod with 50-series Goodyear Eagles, adjustable Koni struts & shocks,
>> a Hurst Shifter, dual exhaust, and cool comfortable seats
>> accentuating an
>> upscale interior.
>>
>> The heart of this package was the 4 cylinder turbocharged,
>> intercooled, and
>> steriod injected 2.3 litre - the very same block that Indy and GTP
>> cars of the
>> day used as a basis for 700bhp engines. It's an OHC design, with huge
>> valves and ports ala 351 Cleveland. Would you expect any less from
>> Ford's
>> Special Vehicle Operations? Throw in a bi-plane spoiler and off-center
>> intake scoop for good measure.
>>
>> Obviously, I like it. With only 9,844 made, they're all collectible,
>> but the
>> 1985-1/2 and 1986 have 200+ bhp, better gearing, and hotter computers.
>> You could tune and tweak this car from mild to wild; I've seen
>> reliable 400+bhp
>> cars that can handle an autocross. While it was never designed to be
>> a stop-light
>> racer, you could make impressive quarter mile times if you wanted
>> to. A stock '84 -
>> '86 GT is not it's equal in most performance categories. Popular Hot
>> Rodding
>> did a comparison test in the July 1985 issue. Car & Driver called it
>> the "best Mustang
>> ever built" in December 1985.
>>
>> If you buy David LaRocque's book "SVO Mustang: The Machine Speaks
>> For Itself", there's a wealth of information from the Ford engineers
>> that conceived
>> and built the car. Dave is the president of the SVO Owners Association.
>>
>> Hope this shed some light, offering a different perspective ...
>>
>> John
>> Dettori
>> 2001 SVT Cobra
>> Smithtown, NY
>> 11787 1986
>> Mustang SVO
>> jdettori at optonline.net 1967
>> Mustang GT Vert
>> 1967
>> Shelby GT350
>>
>> Hop
>> _______________________________________________
>> Classic-mustangs mailing list
>> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
>> <mailto:Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca>
>> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>>
>> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>> <sauce.donair.org/%7Ecm/>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Classic-mustangs mailing list
>Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
>lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
>Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060823/47faa7b8/attachment-0001.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: PSAWYER (Paul Sawyer)

D--

Well, shows you what I know! I agree that you just don't see them
around. And, putting gas in at $3 a gallon--while having to run the
AC so you don't cook--a 4 cylinder would be nice now.

Next time I see one at a show, I'll have to pay attention!

--Paul

On Aug 23, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Dave wrote:

> Like John, I (well, my wife) owns an '86 SVO. It is a great car,
> and not what I would consider finicky.
> The SVO handles great, when you want power just kick in the turbo;
> otherwise you're only putting gas into 4 cyl.
> The SVO is a real blast to autocross, and having owned a '97 GT
> with 17" wheels, I can say that the SVO handles better than the GT
> I had.
>
> I believe they stopped production of the turbocharged 4 because it
> just didn't sell (look at the production numbers on the SVO). Most
> people who wanted a Mustang wanted the 302.
>
> When gas hit $3 per gallon, it was kind of nice to have a 4
> cylinder Mustang!
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> BTW, my other Mustangs are a '66 coupe and a '70 Boss 302
>
> Dave
>
> Paul Sawyer wrote:
>> Anyone know why Ford pulled the plug on the turbo charged 4 in the
>> Mustang? I always had heard that although they went like a cruise
>> missile, that they were pretty finicky. Any truth to that?
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:45 PM, John Dettori wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, August 21, 2006 4:39 AM,
>>> "Brandon Peskin" <mustang at peskin.org> wrote (to the Classic
>>> Mustang List):
>>> Subject: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...
>>>
>>> > Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
>>> > I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I
>>> could
>>> > help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
>>> > past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are
>>> convertible and
>>> > hatchback?
>>> Few will probably agree with me, but there is only one Fox body
>>> choice
>>> to even consider, IMHO: the 1984-86 SVO Mustang. Here's why:
>>>
>>> It's rare, light and fast, with aggressive looks, everyday
>>> driveability/comfort,
>>> and guaranteed collectibility. Considering the performance of
>>> the day, this
>>> car was a hot-rodder's dream with 4-wheel disk brakes, 16x8"
>>> aluminum rims
>>> shod with 50-series Goodyear Eagles, adjustable Koni struts &
>>> shocks,
>>> a Hurst Shifter, dual exhaust, and cool comfortable seats
>>> accentuating an
>>> upscale interior.
>>>
>>> The heart of this package was the 4 cylinder turbocharged,
>>> intercooled, and
>>> steriod injected 2.3 litre - the very same block that Indy and
>>> GTP cars of the
>>> day used as a basis for 700bhp engines. It's an OHC design, with
>>> huge
>>> valves and ports ala 351 Cleveland. Would you expect any less
>>> from Ford's
>>> Special Vehicle Operations? Throw in a bi-plane spoiler and off-
>>> center
>>> intake scoop for good measure.
>>>
>>> Obviously, I like it. With only 9,844 made, they're all
>>> collectible, but the
>>> 1985-1/2 and 1986 have 200+ bhp, better gearing, and hotter
>>> computers.
>>> You could tune and tweak this car from mild to wild; I've seen
>>> reliable 400+bhp
>>> cars that can handle an autocross. While it was never designed
>>> to be a stop-light
>>> racer, you could make impressive quarter mile times if you wanted
>>> to. A stock '84 -
>>> '86 GT is not it's equal in most performance categories. Popular
>>> Hot Rodding
>>> did a comparison test in the July 1985 issue. Car & Driver
>>> called it the "best Mustang
>>> ever built" in December 1985.
>>>
>>> If you buy David LaRocque's book "SVO Mustang: The Machine Speaks
>>> For Itself", there's a wealth of information from the Ford
>>> engineers that conceived
>>> and built the car. Dave is the president of the SVO Owners
>>> Association.
>>>
>>> Hope this shed some light, offering a different perspective ...
>>>
>>> John
>>> Dettori
>>> 2001 SVT Cobra
>>> Smithtown, NY
>>> 11787 1986
>>> Mustang SVO
>>> jdettori at optonline.net
>>> 1967 Mustang GT Vert
>>>
>>> 1967 Shelby GT350
>>>
>>> Hop
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Classic-mustangs mailing list
>>> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
>>> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>>>
>>> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Classic-mustangs mailing list
>> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
>> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>>
>> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060823/4c124851/attachment.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: jem (John Miller)

> Anyone know why Ford pulled the plug on the turbo charged 4 in the
> Mustang? I always had heard that although they went like a cruise
> missile, that they were pretty finicky. Any truth to that?

Why did Ford pull the plug? Simple. The SVO Mustang had all kinds of
nice stuff on it, but it was expensive to build and carried a fairly
steep pricetag. The V8 Mustang GT and LX cost a lot less to build (and
sold commensurately cheaper), went faster, and sold better.

Personal opinion: the Ford 2.3 SOHC was a piece of junk, heavy, noisy,
and shaky; the turbo versions were the classic definition of
turd-polishing.

Every Ford 2.3 I've ever wrenched on was in the process of shaking
itself apart, some combination of accessory bracket bolts, turbo bolts,
exhaust manifold bolts, and intake manifold bolts were no more than
finger-tight.

Yes, I know, if you throw money and tweaking at them you can make them
go fast, but that's true of most engines. And you'll never make it smooth.

A 5-liter GT/LX with the SVO suspension and seats (or an SVO with the
5-liter V8) would have been a very nice car for its day...

John.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: draftercorp (Draftercorp)

I believe that they didn't perform well in hot weather. At least my buddies didn't. It lost power as the temps went up.
Andy Walker

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Sawyer
To: draftercorp at ajwalkerdesign.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...


Anyone know why Ford pulled the plug on the turbo charged 4 in the Mustang? I always had heard that although they went like a cruise missile, that they were pretty finicky. Any truth to that?


--Paul


On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:45 PM, John Dettori wrote:


On Monday, August 21, 2006 4:39 AM,
"Brandon Peskin" <mustang at peskin.org> wrote (to the Classic Mustang List):
Subject: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...


> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
> hatchback?

Few will probably agree with me, but there is only one Fox body choice
to even consider, IMHO: the 1984-86 SVO Mustang. Here's why:

It's rare, light and fast, with aggressive looks, everyday driveability/comfort,
and guaranteed collectibility. Considering the performance of the day, this
car was a hot-rodder's dream with 4-wheel disk brakes, 16x8" aluminum rims
shod with 50-series Goodyear Eagles, adjustable Koni struts & shocks,
a Hurst Shifter, dual exhaust, and cool comfortable seats accentuating an
upscale interior.

The heart of this package was the 4 cylinder turbocharged, intercooled, and
steriod injected 2.3 litre - the very same block that Indy and GTP cars of the
day used as a basis for 700bhp engines. It's an OHC design, with huge
valves and ports ala 351 Cleveland. Would you expect any less from Ford's
Special Vehicle Operations? Throw in a bi-plane spoiler and off-center
intake scoop for good measure.

Obviously, I like it. With only 9,844 made, they're all collectible, but the
1985-1/2 and 1986 have 200+ bhp, better gearing, and hotter computers.
You could tune and tweak this car from mild to wild; I've seen reliable 400+bhp
cars that can handle an autocross. While it was never designed to be a stop-light
racer, you could make impressive quarter mile times if you wanted to. A stock '84 -
'86 GT is not it's equal in most performance categories. Popular Hot Rodding
did a comparison test in the July 1985 issue. Car & Driver called it the "best Mustang
ever built" in December 1985.

If you buy David LaRocque's book "SVO Mustang: The Machine Speaks
For Itself", there's a wealth of information from the Ford engineers that conceived
and built the car. Dave is the president of the SVO Owners Association.

Hope this shed some light, offering a different perspective ...

John Dettori 2001 SVT Cobra
Smithtown, NY 11787 1986 Mustang SVO
jdettori at optonline.net 1967 Mustang GT Vert
1967 Shelby GT350

Hop
_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs


Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 8/23/2006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060824/f21847ce/attachment-0001.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Linc (Linc)

<SNIP>
Yes, I know, if you throw money and tweaking at them you can make them go
fast, but that's true of most engines. And you'll never make it smooth.
<SNIP>

BS !

I too wrenched for years and seen many a 2.3 in disarray. But like any
engine, it is only as good as the owner who cares for it. Since the majority
of 2.3 engines would be found in economy-box cars from owners who may very
well be barely able to afford them. Do you think that they are maintained
very well? The answer is 'no many of them'. Smooth, brother you don't know
what your talking about. The early 2.3 was an economy engine so it never
received
refinements that were later put into it in later years. Time would prove
you wrong as later Turbo Coupes got ALL of the SVO refinements as did
the Ranger after that.

After my rebuild in 87 my 2.3 Turbo would turn 8500 RPM and still sound like
it was running at 3000 RPM with nothing ever falling off the car or
loosening
up. And 'all kinds of money' was not thrown at it, a simple rebuild with one
exception. That exception was to have actual spin balancing done out to 10k
for an added cost of $93.55 (have receipt still) That was the best $100 ever
spent during a rebuild. Total cost for the rebuild in 87 was $688.43 but
does not include fluids and such used during the install, just the machine
time and parts necessary.

Where the 2.3 may not be a fantastic motor to some, it has stood the test of
time and installed in Millions of vehicles that have seen many miles. I
don't
think that it deserves the negative spin you put on it.

Having said all that, I think I would still rather have a V8, and an FE to
boot.

Linc

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: keven (Coates, Keven)

>From what I understand, all turbo cars are very sensitive to the
temperature. I hear they're a real blast to drive in cold weather, but
then you're traction limited!



Keven

________________________________

From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of
Draftercorp
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:56 PM
To: Coates, Keven
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...



I believe that they didn't perform well in hot weather. At least my
buddies didn't. It lost power as the temps went up.

Andy Walker



----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Sawyer <mailtoSAWYER at i-55.com>

To: draftercorp at ajwalkerdesign.com

Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:44 PM

Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...



Anyone know why Ford pulled the plug on the turbo charged 4 in
the Mustang? I always had heard that although they went like a cruise
missile, that they were pretty finicky. Any truth to that?



--Paul



On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:45 PM, John Dettori wrote:





On Monday, August 21, 2006 4:39 AM,

"Brandon Peskin" <mustang at peskin.org
<mailto:mustang at peskin.org> > wrote (to the Classic Mustang List):

Subject: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...



> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your
opinions?
> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if
I could
> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about
anything
> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are
convertible and
> hatchback?

Few will probably agree with me, but there is only one Fox body
choice

to even consider, IMHO: the 1984-86 SVO Mustang. Here's why:



It's rare, light and fast, with aggressive looks, everyday
driveability/comfort,

and guaranteed collectibility. Considering the performance of
the day, this

car was a hot-rodder's dream with 4-wheel disk brakes, 16x8"
aluminum rims

shod with 50-series Goodyear Eagles, adjustable Koni struts &
shocks,

a Hurst Shifter, dual exhaust, and cool comfortable seats
accentuating an

upscale interior.



The heart of this package was the 4 cylinder turbocharged,
intercooled, and

steriod injected 2.3 litre - the very same block that Indy and
GTP cars of the

day used as a basis for 700bhp engines. It's an OHC design,
with huge

valves and ports ala 351 Cleveland. Would you expect any less
from Ford's

Special Vehicle Operations? Throw in a bi-plane spoiler and
off-center

intake scoop for good measure.



Obviously, I like it. With only 9,844 made, they're all
collectible, but the

1985-1/2 and 1986 have 200+ bhp, better gearing, and hotter
computers.

You could tune and tweak this car from mild to wild; I've seen
reliable 400+bhp

cars that can handle an autocross. While it was never designed
to be a stop-light

racer, you could make impressive quarter mile times if you
wanted to. A stock '84 -

'86 GT is not it's equal in most performance categories.
Popular Hot Rodding

did a comparison test in the July 1985 issue. Car & Driver
called it the "best Mustang

ever built" in December 1985.



If you buy David LaRocque's book "SVO Mustang: The Machine
Speaks

For Itself", there's a wealth of information from the Ford
engineers that conceived

and built the car. Dave is the president of the SVO Owners
Association.



Hope this shed some light, offering a different perspective ...



John Dettori
2001 SVT Cobra

Smithtown, NY 11787
1986 Mustang SVO

jdettori at optonline.net
1967 Mustang GT Vert


1967 Shelby GT350



Hop

_______________________________________________

Classic-mustangs mailing list

Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca


lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs



Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/




________________________________


_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca

lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/


________________________________


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date:
8/23/2006

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060824/a5bd3486/attachment-0001.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: draftercorp (Draftercorp)

True Dat!! I stil like bigger cubes. The power is always there, and of course when that becomes to slow you add the supercharger of choice....
Andy Walker

----- Original Message -----
From: Coates, Keven
To: draftercorp at ajwalkerdesign.com
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...


From what I understand, all turbo cars are very sensitive to the temperature. I hear they're a real blast to drive in cold weather, but then you're traction limited!



Keven


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca [mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of Draftercorp
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:56 PM
To: Coates, Keven
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...



I believe that they didn't perform well in hot weather. At least my buddies didn't. It lost power as the temps went up.

Andy Walker



----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Sawyer

To: draftercorp at ajwalkerdesign.com

Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:44 PM

Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...



Anyone know why Ford pulled the plug on the turbo charged 4 in the Mustang? I always had heard that although they went like a cruise missile, that they were pretty finicky. Any truth to that?



--Paul



On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:45 PM, John Dettori wrote:





On Monday, August 21, 2006 4:39 AM,

"Brandon Peskin" <mustang at peskin.org> wrote (to the Classic Mustang List):

Subject: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...



> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
> hatchback?

Few will probably agree with me, but there is only one Fox body choice

to even consider, IMHO: the 1984-86 SVO Mustang. Here's why:



It's rare, light and fast, with aggressive looks, everyday driveability/comfort,

and guaranteed collectibility. Considering the performance of the day, this

car was a hot-rodder's dream with 4-wheel disk brakes, 16x8" aluminum rims

shod with 50-series Goodyear Eagles, adjustable Koni struts & shocks,

a Hurst Shifter, dual exhaust, and cool comfortable seats accentuating an

upscale interior.



The heart of this package was the 4 cylinder turbocharged, intercooled, and

steriod injected 2.3 litre - the very same block that Indy and GTP cars of the

day used as a basis for 700bhp engines. It's an OHC design, with huge

valves and ports ala 351 Cleveland. Would you expect any less from Ford's

Special Vehicle Operations? Throw in a bi-plane spoiler and off-center

intake scoop for good measure.



Obviously, I like it. With only 9,844 made, they're all collectible, but the

1985-1/2 and 1986 have 200+ bhp, better gearing, and hotter computers.

You could tune and tweak this car from mild to wild; I've seen reliable 400+bhp

cars that can handle an autocross. While it was never designed to be a stop-light

racer, you could make impressive quarter mile times if you wanted to. A stock '84 -

'86 GT is not it's equal in most performance categories. Popular Hot Rodding

did a comparison test in the July 1985 issue. Car & Driver called it the "best Mustang

ever built" in December 1985.



If you buy David LaRocque's book "SVO Mustang: The Machine Speaks

For Itself", there's a wealth of information from the Ford engineers that conceived

and built the car. Dave is the president of the SVO Owners Association.



Hope this shed some light, offering a different perspective ...



John Dettori 2001 SVT Cobra

Smithtown, NY 11787 1986 Mustang SVO

jdettori at optonline.net 1967 Mustang GT Vert

1967 Shelby GT350



Hop

_______________________________________________

Classic-mustangs mailing list

Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca

lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs



Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/




----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 8/23/2006



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/427 - Release Date: 8/24/2006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060825/b48ab133/attachment-0001.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: draftercorp (Draftercorp)

True Dat!! I stil like bigger cubes. The power is always there, and of course when that becomes to slow you add the supercharger of choice....
Andy Walker

----- Original Message -----
From: Coates, Keven
To: draftercorp at ajwalkerdesign.com
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...


From what I understand, all turbo cars are very sensitive to the temperature. I hear they're a real blast to drive in cold weather, but then you're traction limited!



Keven


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca [mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of Draftercorp
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:56 PM
To: Coates, Keven
Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...



I believe that they didn't perform well in hot weather. At least my buddies didn't. It lost power as the temps went up.

Andy Walker



----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Sawyer

To: draftercorp at ajwalkerdesign.com

Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:44 PM

Subject: Re: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...



Anyone know why Ford pulled the plug on the turbo charged 4 in the Mustang? I always had heard that although they went like a cruise missile, that they were pretty finicky. Any truth to that?



--Paul



On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:45 PM, John Dettori wrote:





On Monday, August 21, 2006 4:39 AM,

"Brandon Peskin" <mustang at peskin.org> wrote (to the Classic Mustang List):

Subject: [CM] If I were to buy a Fox Body...



> Which year(s) were the best looking/reliable/etc in your opinions?
> I'd obviously want one with a 5.0 engine and fuel injected if I could
> help it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know jack sh... about anything
> past 1973), but the only choices for body styles are convertible and
> hatchback?

Few will probably agree with me, but there is only one Fox body choice

to even consider, IMHO: the 1984-86 SVO Mustang. Here's why:



It's rare, light and fast, with aggressive looks, everyday driveability/comfort,

and guaranteed collectibility. Considering the performance of the day, this

car was a hot-rodder's dream with 4-wheel disk brakes, 16x8" aluminum rims

shod with 50-series Goodyear Eagles, adjustable Koni struts & shocks,

a Hurst Shifter, dual exhaust, and cool comfortable seats accentuating an

upscale interior.



The heart of this package was the 4 cylinder turbocharged, intercooled, and

steriod injected 2.3 litre - the very same block that Indy and GTP cars of the

day used as a basis for 700bhp engines. It's an OHC design, with huge

valves and ports ala 351 Cleveland. Would you expect any less from Ford's

Special Vehicle Operations? Throw in a bi-plane spoiler and off-center

intake scoop for good measure.



Obviously, I like it. With only 9,844 made, they're all collectible, but the

1985-1/2 and 1986 have 200+ bhp, better gearing, and hotter computers.

You could tune and tweak this car from mild to wild; I've seen reliable 400+bhp

cars that can handle an autocross. While it was never designed to be a stop-light

racer, you could make impressive quarter mile times if you wanted to. A stock '84 -

'86 GT is not it's equal in most performance categories. Popular Hot Rodding

did a comparison test in the July 1985 issue. Car & Driver called it the "best Mustang

ever built" in December 1985.



If you buy David LaRocque's book "SVO Mustang: The Machine Speaks

For Itself", there's a wealth of information from the Ford engineers that conceived

and built the car. Dave is the president of the SVO Owners Association.



Hope this shed some light, offering a different perspective ...



John Dettori 2001 SVT Cobra

Smithtown, NY 11787 1986 Mustang SVO

jdettori at optonline.net 1967 Mustang GT Vert

1967 Shelby GT350



Hop

_______________________________________________

Classic-mustangs mailing list

Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca

lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs



Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/




----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 8/23/2006



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/427 - Release Date: 8/24/2006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20060825/fbdf01d1/attachment-0001.html