Fordnatics List Archive

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

Tom,

> Sadly, there exists the strong possibilty that my next car may not be a
> Mustang. I am holding my judgement for a year or two, as we see how the
> final results turn out with the 4.6 engines. My fear is that they will be
> good engines, but the pricing is getting ridiculous on the Mustang, resulting
> in a $26-28k Cobra that may still get it's butt kicked soundly by a $20k
> Camaro.

I have a couple of things about the Cobras and 4.6L engines. First of all,
I have read and an article about the 4.6DOHC engines in Mustangs out at Ford's
proving ground. The authors were generally impressed with car and felt that
it may would add a lot of refinement as well as power. Such that the Mustang
may be able to compete directly with the Corvette as well as stomping the
Camaro. I really hope that it does put the Mustang in the class with the
Corvette(I feel the Vette has had too much reign at the top). As for price, I
feel that it will increase considerably...However, if it can stomp a Corvette...
I would pay it.

As for the Camaro and its pricing, GM is on a gamble with that car and that
engine. The only reason that the 5.7L was used was because the 5.0L would not
meet emiss. The profit margin is very small on the F-bodies and I feel that GM
is hoping to get enough of them out there and then have brand loyalty carry them
through increasing prices. Ford did this already with the Mustang and eventually
started losing the market because people wanted things the Mustang did not have.
Ford fixed the gripes with the Stang and primed it for more. Mustang sales have
not lapsed even though it is "underpowered", besides the aftermarket is available.

> If at the time of my next car purchase, I could afford the $26-28k Cobra
> (unless things change radically - I probably would) my sensibilities would
> not allow me to pay $6-8k more for the car. If I'm gonna pay nearly $30k for
> a car, I'm gonna start looking for a better car than the Mustang. Or more
> likely, I'll drive a Camaro for the first time in my life.

> -Tom

Personally, I feel that Ford should run this line in the Mustang...
the 3.8 as a base engine, 4.0L to combat Chevy's 200hp 3.8 or competitive price the
4.6L SOHC 225hp in base GT, 5.7L Gearhead and Race Cobra, 4.6 DOHC Cobra.

This would give the base a strong stance against the base F-bodies, A more
powerful base to combat the "mid not yet V8 F-bodies", A base V8 that people
are comfortable with and don't plan to tinker, An old iron option that would
allow people to tinker all they want and meet the F-bodies on their turf and
cubic inches, A hightech refined Mustang wreaking havoc on the Corvettes and
the like. Combine these with competitive pricing and Ford will hit a home run
like they did in 64 1/2.

Just my $.02( well maybe its more like $.03)

Later,

Scott Douglass
93 SHO 5-speed

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Eugene Y C Chu <(email redacted)>

Scott Douglass proposed some interesting engine options for the new Mustangs.
However, I believe, as I'm sure many on this list do as well, that while
a well refined high power engine adds a lot to the car, it won't be the
only thing that will make it truely competitive (to dust the
competition, as it were). I would like to see more emphasis on refining
the suspension; get rid of that poor excuse of an existing suspension.
At least the F-bodies are using a double arm set up in front now. I
think I would prefer the front end design along the lines of the Mustang II
(Pinto) with coil over shock in between the control arms. (I'm not
saying duplicate it, but start with its design.) In the rear, I would
also prefer some kind of independent set up, possibly a double arm as well.
Off of the top of may head, I can't think of what design I would prefer to
start with.

If you want to make the Mustang a truely competitive car, you must make
it handle at least as well as the competition (Corvette?). Its current
suspension design simply will not cut it, even with all the band-aids
that are available now.

eyc

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Chuck Fry <(email redacted)>


Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 12:08:16 -0700
From: Eugene Y C Chu <(email redacted)>

If you want to make the Mustang a truely competitive car, you must make
it handle at least as well as the competition (Corvette?). Its current
suspension design simply will not cut it, even with all the band-aids
that are available now.

Why does everyone want Ford to turn the Mustang into a Corvette-class
car? It never was and never will be, and if in fact they ever do it, it
will be too expensive to sell in Mustang-like quantities. The real
competition is the Camarobird, and has been since '67.

The closest Ford ever came to a 'Vette class car was the original 2-seat
Thunderbird. At the time, both had live axle rear suspensions.
Remember, this was the mid-'50s.
-- Chuck

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: KEN CANIGLIA 703-604-3900x5938 <(email redacted)>

> The closest Ford ever came to a 'Vette class car was the original 2-seat
> Thunderbird. At the time, both had live axle rear suspensions.
> Remember, this was the mid-'50s.
> -- Chuck

And then Ford (Shelby) built the Cobra and beet the pants off of the Corvettes.
Since that day the Corvetttes have gone the luxury sports car route. The
Mustang was never intended to be a luxury sports car. It was built for the
populist to have fun with. One of the few goods thinks to come out of Ford.

Ken Caniglia
65' Mustang Fastback
93' Mustang GT

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

> Scott Douglass proposed some interesting engine options for the new Mustangs.
> However, I believe, as I'm sure many on this list do as well, that while
> a well refined high power engine adds a lot to the car, it won't be the
> only thing that will make it truely competitive (to dust the
> competition, as it were). I would like to see more emphasis on refining
> the suspension; get rid of that poor excuse of an existing suspension.

<snip>

> eyc

Amen. I was hyped up in the engine stuff that I forgot to mention that. I
would personally give up straight-line performance for a better handling car.

Scott Douglass

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Carl D. Morris II" <(email redacted)>

>> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 12:08:16 -0700
>> From: Eugene Y C Chu <(email redacted)>
>>
>> If you want to make the Mustang a truely competitive car, you must make
>> it handle at least as well as the competition (Corvette?). Its current
>> suspension design simply will not cut it, even with all the band-aids
>> that are available now.

>Why does everyone want Ford to turn the Mustang into a Corvette-class
>car? It never was and never will be, and if in fact they ever do it, it
>will be too expensive to sell in Mustang-like quantities. The real
>competition is the Camarobird, and has been since '67.
>
>The closest Ford ever came to a 'Vette class car was the original 2-seat
>Thunderbird. At the time, both had live axle rear suspensions.
>Remember, this was the mid-'50s.
> -- Chuck

I agree with Chuck here. The mustang is a muscle-car, which to
me means cheap, but with drag strip potential. I think it's great that
some of us try to turn them into Corvette class cars, but it's only the
radical fringe (by most peoples standards) that does this. If the Mustang
were turned into exactly what we really want, 99% of us won't buy one.
I know I'm stating the obvious, but it would be EXPENSIVE. That's probably
the biggest reason we're having this conversation on Fordnatics instead of
Ferrarinatics ;-). If it weren't for CAFE (and safety, and EPA...)
regulations, the mustang could make a LOT more profit for Ford by going
the cheaper route. If they built a drum-brake-cheap-seats-no-airbag-
low-quality-10-mile-per-gallon 325hp 460ci Mustang for about $10,000
(it could be done, just not legally), we would call it junk, but buy
SCADS of them. I think the stock Mustang is close to where it belongs,
but I strongly feel it should do what it takes to regain its drag strip
bang-for-the-buck leadership that it held in the 80's.

-- Carl

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Kelly Murray <(email redacted)>


> Why does everyone want Ford to turn the Mustang into a Corvette-class
> car? It never was and never will be, and if in fact they ever do it, it
> will be too expensive to sell in Mustang-like quantities. The real
> competition is the Camarobird, and has been since '67.

I'm sure everyone would like to buy a corvette-class car at a
Mustang-class price, which just isn't possible for a brand-new car.

But for all those with $40,000 burning a hole in their pockets,
FORD has been showing a 2-seater Thunderbird that looked fantastic --
If enough people stopped by the display with their checkbooks open,
FORD might even sell them..

-Kelly

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

Scott Douglass writes:

>>I have a couple of things about the Cobras and 4.6L engines. First of all,
I have read and an article about the 4.6DOHC engines in Mustangs out at
Ford's
proving ground. The authors were generally impressed with car and felt that
it may would add a lot of refinement as well as power. Such that the Mustang
may be able to compete directly with the Corvette as well as stomping the
Camaro. I really hope that it does put the Mustang in the class with the
Corvette(I feel the Vette has had too much reign at the top). As for price,
I
feel that it will increase considerably...However, if it can stomp a
Corvette...
I would pay it.<<

Well, first off - in a straight line - I was able to beat Vettes with my
stock 93 Cobra. It wasn't a stomping, as the cars were very equal - but I
did beat them.

As to your willingness to pay Corvette prices for a Mustang: How long have
you been a Mustang enthusiast/owner? The whole idea behind the Mustang was
that it was a bang for the buck car. We could pay under $18,000 for a 93 LX
5.0 Coupe, add a couple of thousand dollars in mods and for $10,000 less than
a Vette, stomp all over them in a straight line, and another couple of grand
in suspension and race non-straightline versions of the sport pretty well.

If Ford wants to build a Vette killer, that's fine - but don't use the
Mustang platform to do it. Make a new car worthy of Vette pricing. Ford has
always needed a "Corvette", but using the Mustang to do it would be akin to
Chevy using the Camaro to be a Vette and killing the Camaro in the process -
thus, eliminating those of us who, unlike you, can't or don't want to pay
$30,000+ for our base car.

Another thing - If I spend $30,000 for a car - I want people to know I spent
$30,000 on it! If I drive a vette, people look and see money. If I have a
$30,000 Mustang, people see a Mustang - nice car - but you can't see the
_money_. That may sound shallow, and might be - if it were why I would buy a
Vette, but the point is that I would buy a vette based on merits, and expect
the bonus of the "status" that comes with it. I'm not sure if the Mustang
will command the status of a $30,000+ car.

Finally, I don't want to sit here and complain about the direction, but I
also don't want to be the guy who "didn't vote" and thus has no right to
complain. I see a lot of people saying - "I don't mind going slower if it
handles better/looks nicer/has better brakes/whatever". That's fine - but I
want my opinion public too. I _do_ mind! My opinion is that if Chevy can
build an $18,000-$20,000 car that runs low 14's/high 13's and Ford want's me
to buy a high 14/low 15 (optimistically speaking - judging from what I have
seen at the track with 94/95 Mustangs) car for $4,000-$6,000 more - Ford can
stuff it. And while I may like the DOHC Cobra, if it costs $26-$28k - then
you gotta start asking yourself questions about what you want. At that point
you can get 300ZX's that require merely a chip and wastegate valve and go
fast and handle great. Same for 3000GT. A Vette that won't require any
suspension mods and only a little tweaking of the motor for serious
performance (and that status). RX-7's - the point is, at that price - Ford
jumps into a market it hasn't competed in - in the recent past.

In summary - keep it cheap and fast.

-Tom

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Kelly Murray <(email redacted)>


> But for all those with $40,000 burning a hole in their pockets,
> FORD has been showing a 2-seater Thunderbird that looked fantastic --

Oops, it is a 2-seater Lincoln Mark VIII. Sorry about that.

-Kelly Murray

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Barry Wayne Freese, 314/822-7637" <(email redacted)>

On Wed, 26 Apr 1995, Chuck Fry wrote:
>
> From: Eugene Y C Chu <(email redacted)>
>
> If you want to make the Mustang a truely competitive car, you must make
> it handle at least as well as the competition (Corvette?).
>
> The closest Ford ever came to a 'Vette class car was the original 2-seat
> Thunderbird. At the time, both had live axle rear suspensions.

...And all the T-bird did was out sell the Blue Flame Vette by
twenty-something to one, and then force chebby to put an eight in the
thing along the way!

B.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barry Wayne Freese `68 Mustang GT Fastback `88 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Friends come and go; enemies accumulate."

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

Hey everyone,

I would like to clarify myself on the Mustang vs Corvette etc. What I stated
was that in a magazine article that I read, it was stated that the 4.6 DOHC
engine available in the Mustang would possibly be a Corvette competitor. And
that personally I would like to see Ford go after the Vette. Whether it is in
with the Mustang or something else I don't care. I feel that Ford has left this
market alone too long. As for the Stang, I know as well as anybody that the car
is a muscle car and was never meant to be much more. Same as the Camaro. Do
you think I like the fact that the current Stock Mustang GT will lose to the
Camaro LT-1? My 93 SHO is capable of taking down a Stock 94-95 GT at a
stoplight. The sad thing is I paid less for my SHO (used) than a bottom line
GT. Do you think that I like the fact that the GT's price has hit 17-20k when
back in 87 an LX 5.0 could be had for as low as 11,500? I am on this list
because I am a "Fordnatic" after all.

The mustang has always been my favorite in the Ford lineup. The ability to
tinker and make them faster then Vettes, Porsches(one case 928 S4), has always
been its strong suit. Probably the only reason that I am not driving one now
is that I bought my SHO for 15k with only 14,000 miles. I openly admit that
I am a fan of the 4.6L and the technology involved. Even the Vette "with all its
glory" does not yet have that level of technology available as an option as Ford
has in the T-Bird,Mark VIII, and soon in the Mustang. The problems with this
engine right now is there is not much of an aftermarket, and it is not as easy
to tweak as the 5.0. That is why my engine selections included a "old iron"
option. I do believe that I mentioned competitive pricing to the GM F-bodies
as well as comparable Vette if the car and engine can bring those numbers.
Basically what I suggested is that Ford meet the F-bodies on their turf with
the cubic inches and price while attacking other markets as well...Not to
simply make the Mustang to go after the Vette. Besides, if they attempt it and
it does not work there will another Collectable Mustang for the future. (Boss
302s,Boss 429s,Boss 351s,Shelby's, SVOs, SVTs, ASC Mclaren's,etc..etc...)

Also in case you didn't know Chevy is seriously looking at a cheaper Corvette(in
addition to the normal Vette) that will be available in the future. I have
read about it both in publication and at the Motor City site on upcoming
information. Plus currently there are cars like Steve Saleen Mustangs,Steeda
that deliver greater performance than the stock Mustangs, offer near or better
Corvette Performance, exclusivity, and all at about 30-35K.

Last of all, Since we really can't make Ford do anything unless we get all Ford-
natics, and all other Ford Consumers together and put something in writing(
similiar to a petition) and submit it to Ford. I doubt that it would work, but
after all we are the people that pay their salaries, etc. we should be entitle
to what we want. So all we will probably do is sit and wait and see what Ford
does with the beloved Ponycar and either praise them or curse them out and
stay with what we have or buy elsewhere. I already am cursing Ford about the
new 96 SHO because it is slower, has no 5-speed, and with its new V8--outproduces
the Current SHO V6 by a whopping 5 hp(225 vs 220)...did I mention that the car
gained another 300-500 pounds. I am not pleased, I hope Ford does better with
the Mustang or T-bird.

Scott Douglass
93 SHO 5-speed

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Chuck Fry <(email redacted)>

Re making your voices heard: Yes, you can write, phone, petition, and
holler all you want. But the voices Ford hears loudest are those of
dead presidents. You can ask for anything you want, but if the sales
volume isn't there, Ford isn't going to build them.

I seem to recall reading in an interview with one of the top managers
that Ford isn't going to build a car they can't sell in volumes of 20K
cars/year or more. Ford just isn't set up to make smaller volumes
profitably.

And you might note that every "driver's car" Ford has built in the last
decade, with the exception of the 5.0 Mustang and the blown/turbo'd
'Birds, has been a hard sell. The magazine writers loved them, but the
buyers stayed away in droves! The Mustang SVO went on sale just when
gas was getting cheap again. The Taurus SHO was a loss leader for the
first few years, because most of the folks buying Taurus-class cars
wanted an automatic transmission, and the SHO was only available with a
5-speed until the '94 model year.

But don't despair. IMHO, the new SOHC 4.6L engine has a lot of
potential that won't be tapped for a while. The DOHC version sounds
really sexy, but even the SOHC makes more power per cubic inch than, and
almost as much total HP as, the base Mustang 5.0. And it's dramatically
quieter to boot! Look for the single-cam version of the 4.6 to be the
budget hot-rodder's engine of the late '90s and early 21st century. I
suspect you will see a LOT of Mustangs sold with that engine, and as the
car sales go, so go the aftermarket parts.
-- Chuck

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

Chucko (da man in charge) writes:

>>Re making your voices heard: Yes, you can write, phone, petition, and
holler all you want. But the voices Ford hears loudest are those of
dead presidents. You can ask for anything you want, but if the sales
volume isn't there, Ford isn't going to build them<<

True, but statistics (as they say) can be made to say whatever you want. I
don't have them so I can't prove my point, but let's at least consider some
influencing factors on Mustang sales.

Mustang sales were extremely high the past two years. How high, I don't
know, but everyone keeps talking about them. Well, after 15+ years of the
same body style, it's not all that surprising that sales might have been
declining (don't know this for a fact) and that a new body might freshen
things up.

As to "if sales volume isn't there, Ford isn't going to build them", correct
me if I'm wrong, but sales volume _was_ there with the old Mustang. They
sold like crazy - did they not? LX's, GT's -seems thay all did well.

Another point, everyone talks about the camaro sales - I wonder how much that
the difficulty GM was having with production could have affected sales.
Everyone knows that anyone wanting a 6-speed had to wait 6+ months. Again,
I freely admit that I have no access to numbers, so these are just questions
based on observations, but my point is, that we _did_ buy the Mustangs.

I think the GTS (LX) is a good example of complaining possibly getting
results. It's a start anyway. The only real dissapointment there is the
wheels. And the price still ain't _cheap_. Closer to the old GT than LX.

>>But don't despair. IMHO, the new SOHC 4.6L engine has a lot of
potential that won't be tapped for a while. The DOHC version sounds
really sexy, but even the SOHC makes more power per cubic inch than, and
almost as much total HP as, the base Mustang 5.0. <<

All agreed - but the price?!?

>>And it's dramatically quieter to boot!<<

Please take this in the glib way it's intended - but who cares?

-Tom

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Chuck Fry <(email redacted)>


From: (email redacted)
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 16:15:11 -0400

Chucko (da man in charge) writes:

Hey, I just make sure the mail gets through. Me? In charge?! Ha!

As to "if sales volume isn't there, Ford isn't going to build them", correct
me if I'm wrong, but sales volume _was_ there with the old Mustang. They
sold like crazy - did they not? LX's, GT's -seems thay all did well.

Yes, they sold very well during the mid-'80s. But sales peaked at '89
or so and slid down from there, until the marketing department's efforts
on the '94 paid off. Some of the slump could be blamed on anticipation
of the '94 model, of course.

I think the GTS (LX) is a good example of complaining possibly getting
results. It's a start anyway. The only real dissapointment there is the
wheels. And the price still ain't _cheap_. Closer to the old GT than LX.

Ah. Here's my point. Asking Ford to build cars like the Mustang GTS --
basically a GT without the gingerbread, much like previous years' 5.0 LX
- -- is likely to get results. Detroit can always find a way to repackage
options (in this case, by leaving them off) for a car that can be sold
in volume.

But asking Ford to build a Corvette-beater at a Mustang price is likely
to fail. If they do, how many of us here have the means *and* the
desire to buy it? I'd love to see such a car, but I can't even afford
to buy a GTS right now. I'd bet many of those clamoring for a
'Vette-beater can't afford it either. The recent history of cars like
the Miata and the ZR-1 'Vette suggests there would be tremendous demand
in the first year, but it would quickly peter out, and dealers would be
selling them for a loss after the 2nd or 3rd year.

And remember that the Mustang has *always* been based on an economy car
chassis (first the Falcon, then the Pinto, finally the unlamented
Fairmont). Turning such a chassis into a world-class handler won't be
easy, if it can be done at all.

>>But don't despair. IMHO, the new SOHC 4.6L engine has a lot of
potential that won't be tapped for a while. The DOHC version sounds
really sexy, but even the SOHC makes more power per cubic inch than, and
almost as much total HP as, the base Mustang 5.0. <<

All agreed - but the price?!?

Check the fleet prices on Crown Vics for an idea. The 4.6 is Ford's
small-block V8 for the 21st century; it's a volume production engine,
unlike the DOHC version.

>>And it's dramatically quieter to boot!<<

Please take this in the glib way it's intended - but who cares?

Tom, it's not that it doesn't make *any* noise, it doesn't make the
wrong *kinds* of noises -- buzzes, groans, rattles, etc. You can always
modify the exhaust system if you want to hear the proper sound of a
high-performance V8.

Hey, don't take this the wrong way. I too wish Ford could build a
successful 'Vette-beater. But I don't think they will, and I don't
really care if that ever happens. OTOH, I'd sure like to see Ford build
a Camarobird beater, or a car that could be turned into one with little
effort -- and I think that *is* a realistic hope.

-- Chuck

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Eugene Y C Chu <(email redacted)>

Chucko wrote:

>Re making your voices heard: Yes, you can write, phone, petition, and
>holler all you want. But the voices Ford hears loudest are those of
>dead presidents. You can ask for anything you want, but if the sales
>volume isn't there, Ford isn't going to build them.

Well, do any of you remember the rumor back in 1987 that Ford was going
to replace the Mustang with the Probe (the Mazdang) starting in 1988?
Enough Mustang enthusiasts screamed loudly enough (to support further
marketing research) that Ford decided against it, and put out a Probe
along side the Mustang. It was a good move, as the sales of Probes did
not impact the Mustangs at all. That was either because FOrd found out
that there was a great enough demand for both cars, or it was just a
marketing sacm like "New Coke".

>I seem to recall reading in an interview with one of the top managers
>that Ford isn't going to build a car they can't sell in volumes of 20K
>cars/year or more. Ford just isn't set up to make smaller volumes
>profitably.

Yes, they have to be able to make a profit at what they do. (vs GM, who
somehow manages to carry on making only $5.00 per car.)

>And you might note that every "driver's car" Ford has built in the last
>decade, with the exception of the 5.0 Mustang and the blown/turbo'd
>'Birds, has been a hard sell. The magazine writers loved them, but the
>buyers stayed away in droves! The Mustang SVO went on sale just when
>gas was getting cheap again. The Taurus SHO was a loss leader for the
>first few years, because most of the folks buying Taurus-class cars
>wanted an automatic transmission, and the SHO was only available with a
>5-speed until the '94 model year.

It happens to other companies too, like Mazda's RX7 and Honda's NSX.

>But don't despair. IMHO, the new SOHC 4.6L engine has a lot of
>potential that won't be tapped for a while. The DOHC version sounds
>really sexy, but even the SOHC makes more power per cubic inch than, and
>almost as much total HP as, the base Mustang 5.0. And it's dramatically
>quieter to boot! Look for the single-cam version of the 4.6 to be the
>budget hot-rodder's engine of the late '90s and early 21st century. I

Don't forget that the most important aspects of these new engines are
that they are more efficient and run cleaner than the old v8s.

I changed a SOHC on a Honda with a friend once. It was a nightmare. I
can hardly imagine what it would be like to repeat once, or thrice.

eyc

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

The rumor most likly it is a fact is that the ford guys are going to stick
the 96 Mustang with a sohc 4.6. There will be no DOHC 4.6 for the Mustang.
Cost and production limitations come to mind first. Bettter start writing
your letters now. The SOHC 4.6 is not even going to be as fast (ie;Drag
racing and Road racing) as the current 5.0's. I want that DOHC 4.6 otherwise
whats the point!
Philip Roitman

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

Sent from Win95Beta - it's working so far (except I ain't got no sound yet)
Hootie Hoo!

Chucko writes:

>>Hey, don't take this the wrong way. I too wish Ford could build a
successful 'Vette-beater. But I don't think they will, and I don't
really care if that ever happens. OTOH, I'd sure like to see Ford build
a Camarobird beater, or a car that could be turned into one with little
effort -- and I think that *is* a realistic hope.<<

I am with you completely here, you may have me confused with Scott Douglass
who was saying he _would_ like a vette beater and would pay for it. I only
wanna beat them in a straight line. (Which really isn't that hard to do - I
mean the vette is quick, but it's only a low-14/high-13 car). To be honest,
hp performance levels along the lines of the 93 Cobra and prices around that
mark would be fine with me from the factory. From there, we can launch a
nice assault.

Basically, I am asking to be deployed on an even, or very-near-even level
with the Camarobirds, and then we can add on the necessary goodies. But to
have to add goodies just to get even with the F-body and then to add insult
to injury, they are cheaper to begin with is very frustrating.

-Tom

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Kelly Murray <(email redacted)>


> I am with you completely here, you may have me confused with Scott Douglass
> who was saying he _would_ like a vette beater and would pay for it. I only
> wanna beat them in a straight line. (Which really isn't that hard to do - I
> mean the vette is quick, but it's only a low-14/high-13 car).

One of my fellow Sportsman Bracket racers has a totally stock
'90's Corvette that has run 13.30's in showroom condition, so the Mustang
has got a lot of catching-up to be competitive...

> To be honest,
> hp performance levels along the lines of the 93 Cobra and prices around that
> mark would be fine with me from the factory. From there, we can launch a
> nice assault.

..but with the money you save buying a Mustang, you can then spend the
rest tricking the car out into what YOU want it to be, and what can be
sweeter than that? As long as Ford provides a good platform at
a low price, I'll swap in my own 5.7 DOHC if I feel the need and have
the budget.

-Kelly Murray (email redacted)
'72 Mustang Mach460 12.96 @ 106mph total cost: under $3,000.

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

Kelly Murray writes:

>>One of my fellow Sportsman Bracket racers has a totally stock
'90's Corvette that has run 13.30's in showroom condition, so the Mustang
has got a lot of catching-up to be competitive...<<

I'd have to know more to comment specifically about your friends "totally
stock" vette. What year exactly? Tires - stock on these runs? Temperature
and humidity? 6-speed or auto? Options - air conditioning? Track location?
What was mph on these runs?

My experiences at the track have the Vette running between 13.6-14.4. The
13.62 was a guy who we believe to be sanbagging about mods done - I think he
has replaced the exhaust, but he isn't too cooperative about letting us look
around. I've got a timeslip with a vette running 14.44 next to me. It was a
hot night, and I was running slower than my best of 13.86, but I still ran a
14.1 and beat him.

I have beaten every vette I have ever raced on the street or track in drag
races. I don't do any curvy racing on the street or track, but would of
course expect to get trounced once the curves got hairy.

I'm sure there are 6-speeds with no a/c (can you even do that on a Vette?)
that may do better than the 13.8-14.2 that I have seen, but 13.30 from the
showroom certainly arouses my suspicions as to what he considered "stock".

Me> To be honest,
Me> hp performance levels along the lines of the 93 Cobra and prices around
that
Me> mark would be fine with me from the factory. From there, we can launch a
Me> nice assault.

Kelly>>..but with the money you save buying a Mustang, you can then spend the
rest tricking the car out into what YOU want it to be, and what can be
sweeter than that? As long as Ford provides a good platform at
a low price, I'll swap in my own 5.7 DOHC if I feel the need and have
the budget.<<

Uhh, yeah - thats what I was saying - _IF_ they give us a good platform at a
low price - that's my point, I am afraid 96 will not bring a
good-platform-low-price car.

re:>>72 Mustang Mach460 12.96 @ 106mph total cost: under $3,000.<<

Very nice - especially the price. But there are many ways to skin a cat and
I want my skinned cat to have A/C, leather, CD player, decent mileage and not
break down. I drive it to work every day. Plus, I don't have time to go to
the track EVERY weekend, so I don't want a second strip-only or
weekend-cruise-only car. If I do that, then I would also have to include
insurance and tags etc... in the above cost.

I'm not jumping you, I assume you are trying to make a point here - and it is
taken - you can go fast cheap if you want (how you did it for $3,000 TOTAL is
beyond me) but you can go quick cheap.

-Tom

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Fontana Peter" <(email redacted)>

> I'll swap in my own 5.7 DOHC if I feel the need and have
> the budget.
Are you expecting this from Ford? - based on the Romeo engine?
I'm not aware of any OCH arrangement for existing Windsor or Cleveland blocks.
The closest I've heard of is a 4v/cyl (still cam-in-block) aluminum head from
Aaro - $6000/complete pair. (!!?!)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (K Porter)

>I'm not aware of any OCH arrangement for existing Windsor or Cleveland blocks.
Yes there is such a beast. It uses a volvo timeing belt or something. Same
general price range as the pushrod 4v. Fits the 302 and windsor. Lots of
money for little benefit really.
> The closest I've heard of is a 4v/cyl (still cam-in-block) aluminum head from
>Aaro - $6000/complete pair. (!!?!)
k.p.
__________________________________________________________________________
(email redacted) |WARNING! Do NOT stare at welding arc
Standard disclaimer area: |with remaining eye!
OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER |
_________________________________________________________________________