What's /o/'s thoughts on the foxbody? I've seen

>>17252309
FPBP

File: ltd1.jpg (104KB, 645x451px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 645x451px

Ford LTD Mustang a gud, GUD. Looks almost like an Aussie Falcon.

its literally garbage.

im sure someone is going to come in here and tell you it's good "as long as you change literally everything about it".

2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th gen mustangs deserve to be forgotten in junkyards
>this triggers the redneck

>>17252312
>tfw you keep forgetting pictures with your posts and having to delete them today
>tfw people keep replying to you within a minute

One of the worst cars ever built.
>Very heavy
>Slow
>Shiftily built
>Terrible handling
>Wet noodle chassis
But dumb rednecks in trailers will pretend it's a god machine because it's the only v8 they could afford, and v8 means fast despite it making barely over 200hp while weighing about 3200lbs. If they do acknowledge it's a piece of shit they'll tell you "it's a good tuning platform" which is not because everything about it is awful and aforementioned noodle chassis.

Most mind boggling of all is they weren't even that cheap because of all the trailer park delusions of grandeur have driven up the price.

>>17252321
*Shittily built
This is what I get for phone posting

File: ok.gif (916KB, 245x285px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 245x285px

>>17252321
>between 3000 and 3200lb
>Very heavy

>>17252303
what a embarrassment to the Mustang name

>>17252348
>Stupid rednecks think 3000+lbs is acceptable for something with 200hp
Lmao

>>17252303
>Did you mean the 2 door ford escort

>>17252362
Lmao fucking Jap lover go jerk off to some hentai, first of all it is lighter than any other mustang preceding that's why it is light, secondly it was produced terribly as a change in ownership of the company had occured so that's why it was possibly shittily built. All in all though it's not a half bad car.

>>17252722
>Gives objective reasons why the car is or isn't shit
>Jap loving tard doesn't know what to say to combat it or even agree or disagree
>Just says assmad

Ok bud

i love it. at least it stands out from all the modern soap shit cars

File: 1452821063657.gif (1MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x225px

Spot the one that doesnt belong.

>>17252303
I love em.
the good:
>relatively powerful and very torquey v8
>easy to work on
>easy to modify (and you will end up modding it)
>surprisingly roomy inside, I'm 6'5" and I fit in it but not a similarly sized miata.
>gets a lot of respect/interest
>cheap to buy/insure

the bad:
>gas guzzler
>terrible handling
>30 years old
>looks (acquired taste)
>normies will think it's a Honda

I smoke these in my ws6.
All day bro. If they have their girl in the car, I bet on her panties.
Guess what. I got a lot of girly panties in my back seat bro.
Smokin niggas all day.
Cotton panies to sniff to wack my fucking dick off

>>17252303
They're so ugly that it doesn't even matter how fast you make it

File: 28swimp.png (417KB, 800x389px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 800x389px

>>17252303
Best platform ever made.

>>17252717
>S-since you dare call one of the worst sports cars ever built garbage you are a meanie head that only likes Japanese c-cars!

>Everything about it is terrible, b-but it's not half bad!

What do you know, rednecks and mongoloids responding as predicted.

>>17252303
To me, it doesn't really look like a sports car. It looks like a mid-level hot hatch. I'm not saying it looks bad - far from it, I love the design and it's quite timeless, but it just doesn't strike me as a car people should be ricing out and cramming V8's into. I'd honestly rather have the 4 cylinder version so I could get decent mileage as a DD.

>>17253759
>relatively powerful and very torquey v8
Ahahaha 220hp from a 5.0 V8.
>easy to work on
Like clockwork
>easy to modify (and you will end up modding it)
As predicted
>gets a lot of respect/interest
Lmfao, from who? Dudes with mullets or the occasional nigger?
>cheap to buy/insure
Wrong again. Every hillfucker has driven prices up on these turds.

File: 1459785541521.jpg (439KB, 2550x1650px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 2550x1650px

its a truly awful ugly pile of shit

the only redeeming value it has is aftermarket and thats because its so garbage it needs it

its the American S chassis but probably even more floppy and much worse handling

>>17253851
hey now

its a 4.9L V8

go easy on the laughter

>>17253844
The problem is the 4 cylinder is dangerously slow. 105hp and 2800lbs.
>11 second 0-60
>20mpg
Truly an astoundingly shit car.

It's the only mustang I like, truly a guilty pleasure

>>17252737
>""""""""Objective reasons"""""""""
>Durrr it weighs less than other fatass mustangs so it's good even though it's shit engine and garbage chassis can't take advantage of it
>It was shit because a change of ownership! That makes it better!
These retards will defend these turds until they die.

I'm surprised hardly anyone has defended it considering people defend shit cars on this board to their death.
Personally I've always thought they were trash compared with what you can get instead.
Having a massive aftermarket doesn't really excuse the fact that you have to utilize everything offered to make it even decent.
I don't even think it's a good drag car and all you need to be a good strong car is a strong axle.

>>17252755
>Foxbody after 4th gen
>neither SN95 or New Edge show up at all

Foxbody is a project car. Not a daily driver. Not a car to impress your date. It's old. It's ugly. It's meant to be put in a garage or in the backyard on the lawn because it's an old rusted pile of shit by now.

But it's fast and most importantly it reminds people of a simpler time.

Coolest, smallest mustang.

>>17253922
>Fast
It's not.

>>17253929
its not the smallest and it damn sure isnt the coolest hell its probably the lamest Mustang

>>17253922
>But it's fast
I don't think so tim

>>17253952
What is the smallest? To me it's the coolest tho.

>>17253964
mustang II? you fuckin casual

>>17253964
Mustang II is smaller

early first gens are narrower and shorter but like 2 inches longer

both are lighter

>>17253976
>>17253987
I see. For some reason the foxbody just looked smaller to me going off photos, but it is a bit longer than the II. It's a bit more narrow, though.

File: 88KAT.jpg (93KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 960x540px

>>17252303
best platform

File: 12108806_10105558121052788_5666666973417300470_n.jpg (34KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 720x480px

They're the best, you can make them do anything.

What do you want? A coupe, hatchback, sedan or station wagon?

What do you want it to do?

Theres so much aftermarket shit for them that you can literally make a fox platform car do whatever you want

Drag race? Yep.
Handle? That too
Drift? Yeah
DD that can do it all within reason? Yep

>>17254078
Damn dude I thought you left. Good to see you're still here, even if the sites just gotten shittier.

>>17254078
>tfw i sold my foxbody when they were worthless


fug

>>17254339
Good news is SN95s are still cheap. Pick up a 94 or 95 and it'll even still have the 5.0.

File: 00909_qxJHOUCTd5_600x450.jpg (47KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x450px

>>17252362
>200hp
lmao indeed

>>17254407
Good news is they're stupid cheap to unchoke.

>>17254485
and still make shitty power

>>17254490
I don't get why one of the other guys in here was being stupidly argumentative, but 300+ crank hp is respectable enough for cheap. More if you put a cam in it. It wasn't until DI, other fun stuff that we got a lot more out of N/A motors here in murica. Considering the design of the block dates back to the 50s as well, it's not all that bad. Not to mention you don't want to put much more than 300 wheel through the stock trans if you ever run drag slicks.

I don't care about them much either way. They aren't particularly great so much as they're easy to work on and have an aftermarket that's extensive.

Not only that there's a foxbody for every occasion like >>17254078 said. You can make them do anything with a bit of time and money and work.

I can see the appeal but I can see why people don't like them as they're not stellar out of the box. Would I own one? Honestly maybe if I could find a decent shape Capri, or anything with the 2.3 because I like the SVO and turbo bird for some reason.

File: Torker II Edelbrock.jpg (2MB, 1920x2560px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x2560px

>>17254485
I'm aware

>>17254507
yes 300hp from a modded 4.9l engine is impressive

>It wasn't until DI, other fun stuff that we got a lot more out of N/A motors here in murica

nah just Ford

Ford V8s have always been shit without forced induction

>>17252755
what the fuck is that one before the foxbody

File: 1978-mustang-II-109-.jpg (215KB, 2040x1360px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 2040x1360px

>>17254520
a ruined Mustang II

>>17253812
>Best platform
that's not the Panther platform or the FN platform

>>17254525
what the fuck is that and why is it in a lineup of official ford mustang lineup?

>>17254561
It's a cherrypicked video. That II has the worthless excursion v10 in it too, lol.

File: $.jpg (78KB, 620x414px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 620x414px

>>17254561
because when it was being showed off at car shows people ate it up

personally I think its ugly as hell and for whatever reason they used a Triton V10

its being rebuilt now since it was in this trailer

>>17254519
It's by no means impressive, but again, it's *cheap*. You can get a fox to over 300 crank for much less than an S197 GT costs to buy. If all you want is straight line speed, or have a lower starting budget but are willing to wrench and put money into a car, it's not a half-bad option.

>>17254525
>Ruined Mustang II

There wasn't much to ruin honestly.

>>17254566
>>17254572
>Mustang with a V10
>Mustang with anything but a V8
is this supposed to bother me? Because it does

I dont mind a V6 poor option, but a V10?

>Itt: Hondabois pretending to forget that you can modify engines.
It's ok to talk about mods when you're doing it to your jap shitbox but fox body mustangs are doomed to have 200hp and no mods allowed.

File: 1978_00076_01.jpg (47KB, 400x539px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 400x539px

>>17254580
yeah but you can just cheaply boost an import these days

and Foxbody prices arent exactly cheap anymore (unless you want to count the SN95)

theyre not that good for the money anymore

>>17254583
nah but they couldve made it look better and not used a fucking Triton

hell they couldve used the Monroe Handler and had a vintage build

>>17254586
The v10 itself isn't the problem, the fact that it's the Triton is the problem. Dude went full brandfag instead of putting a viper or whatever engine into it.

>>17254604
to be fair, putting a dodge engine in a ford car feels blasphemous too

>>17254602
This is true, they've escalated in price but they're still a solid buy for cheap, much like old civics. I'd argue they're cheaper to add power to and boosting something as well, because the cheap route is literally junkyard parts, an exhaust, and a head rebuild kit for said junkyard parts.

>>17254609
Oh you're really gonna hate this
https://youtu.be/glgiiBHVc1A
>>17254614
*than boosting something

>>17254602
I agree that the thing is shit and using a Triton was stupid, unique but stupid.

I'm just saying though, while I don't like what they did, at least they did it to a II instead of an early first generation or something

>>17254590
>If you do enough work to a car that's terrible in every way, it won't be terrible anymore!
Or, you know, you could get something that isn't straight garbage to start with.

It's almost like most of the haters in this thread don't know how easy it was to increase the power on these old V8 engines. 210hp stock, 350hp easily. 500 with more money.

File: 50b9d3d372457e7caed42c8384eaebaa.jpg (46KB, 668x409px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 668x409px

>>17254614
people junkyard build imports all the time

440whp from a junkyard diesel HX35 on an ancient Mazda 2.2 with stock bottom end and shit

I dunno I just think the Foxbody is past the point of being a cheap goto car

it and the Miata are both beyond that now

>>17254625
first gens get EV conversions

>>17254633
yeah 350 when you swap out intake heads headers exhaust and cam

302s are shit engines man

>>17254661
It's not the engine's fault it was choked stock.
>>17254631
What in these things' (former) price range was faster?
>>17254633
>putting 500 through a WC T5
>500 from a 302 without a cradle

>>17254661
You can get 320-330 without the cam and the rest of that stuff is dirt cheap and easy.

>>17254631
>NO MODIFICATION ALLOWED UNLESS HONDA CIVIC

>>17254661
>yeah 350 when you swap out intake heads headers exhaust and cam
>302s are shit engines man
So what's your point? You're talking $500 in parts. People spend more than $500 on an intake and exhaust for japshit to make 26 extra horsepower.

>>17254690
Maybe a bit more than 500, and import cars are allowed junkyard parts as well. All depends of what quality of parts you want and your fabrication and wrenching skills.

File: Banter stops.jpg (94KB, 602x709px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 602x709px

>>17254661
>first gens get EV conversions
I don't want to live in this timeline anymore.

>>17254683
its more that the 302 is garbage and you have to replace everything to make any power

thats what hes saying

>>17254690
$500 my ass

you cant play that game when I gained 30whp for $10 at a Home Depot

turbo motherfucker

>>17254703
I think EV conversions can be cool if done right.
>>17254705
>>17254690
You both are idiots talking out of your ass. Right now, go and make parts lists of things you'd do to x engines and we'll see how much it costs.

>>17254710
I dont think itd be $500 to get it to 350 unless youre counting nitrous

I do believe youre the one talking out of your ass

>>17254722
Where the fuck are you going to find headers, the rest of the exhaust, and a cam for like 200? Gt40 intake and heads with a rebuild kit for higher rpm will be around 300.

File: 6198577+_3eb98b5d2f1a7ffe67a4ef0793314e61.jpg (6KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 200x200px

>>17252314
>>17252321

>>17254705
A R34 Skyline is garbage 270 hp and piglard heavy stock.
A MK4 Supra is garbage 300 lb and piglard heavy stock.
An FD RX7 is weak 255 hp and no torque garbage stock.
A 1995 honda civic is a cheap junky 100hp economy car.
A 95 MR2 is an asthmatic 200hp car with twitchy as fuck handling.

See the thing is, "youve to to replace everything to make power then it's awesome"
Why are you all of the sudden pretending that there is some kind of imaginary line when it comes to modifications?

>>17254745
Didn't MR2s make 130? Or are you talking turbo?

>>17254752
>>17254745
Also FDs were and are still hella expensive, but approaching 10/1 power-weight ratio isn't terrible. And because it revs high, you can get torque back from gearing low.

>>17254710
>I think EV conversions can be cool if done right.
not on a fucking mustang it can't

I liked the EV DeLorean, because it really worked with the whole futurist angle the car is famous for, but a Mustang is a Mustang. You don't ruin perfection

>>17254745
R34 GTR - 330-350hp stock - makes over 350whp with just upped boost

MK4 Supra makes 320hp stock - makes 450whp with exhaust and boost

FD RX7 makes 255-280hp - makes over 300whp with exhaust and boost

1995 Honda Civic - 100-160hp - runs 12s for a couple grand using an ebay turbo

95 MR2 - 200hp - makes 300whp with exhaust and boost

Foxbody - 200hp - makes 350 crank hp with heads intake cam headers and exhaust

>>17254772
>12s for a couple grand using an eBay turbo

>>17254710
>I think EV conversions can be cool if done right.

No thanks.

I like some electric cars, and find them interesting sure, but I don't see much of a reason to start doing swaps on cars especially older ones.

File: missing-the-point.gif (975KB, 255x182px) Image search: [Google]

975KB, 255x182px

>>17254772
>trying this hard to be stupid

>>17254778
>>17254788
lol

Foxbody fags btfo

keep defending your collASSal shit

>>17254772
>runs 12s for a couple grand using an ebay turbo
you'd need like 500hp to run 12s in a civic.

>>17254795
no the fuck you dont

a 500hp Civic is like a 9-10 second car

it doesnt even take 300hp for a Civic to run 12s

>>17254793
I'm supposed to take you seriously when your argument is "lol teh tarbo enjins r moar simpler 2 mayke powher juss rays the boos"

No
Shit
Famalam

That has fuck all to do with the point.
You fucking summerfags have literally got to be spoonfed everything.

>>17254795
>you'd need like 500hp to run 12s in a civic.>>

lel

>>17254683
>Pathetic strawman

>>17254808
kek

sorry your engine is shit and cant make any power

>>17254741
>This triggers the redneck
Prophecy fulfilled.

>>17254829
rednecks drive 8,000 pound cars with 200hp v8's you dumbfuck

Remember when we used to be able to have nice threads?

>>17252362
>le few simple mods on applies to civics

>>17254827
I'm not even a v8 guy retard, I drive a 2008 MS3. I just know a stupid argument when I see one. To further my point
>Put $5000 into a stock mk4 supra
>Put $5000 into a stock late 80s foxbody mustang
I'll guarantee you that race will be much closer than you think.

http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/mmfp-0910-building-400hp-into-a-5-0-l-small-block-engine/
$1000 into a 5.0 ford engine, including the cost of the engine.
>399 whp.
>not already knowing this shit

>>17254862
>Strawmanning this hard
No one was talking about civics. It's not a surprise a redneck has trouble avoiding logical fallacies.

File: 20140122_161827_Richtone(HDR).jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

Had an 84 GT. Garbage. Interior was trash, handled like crap, the 302s are crap, the T5 was okay but the shifter was crap.

Their only use is cheap RWD v8 base for mawds, which are inexpensive and plentiful.

Good cars if you want to learn about cars, bad if you actually want to drive them.

Pulled the engine, trans and 9" and sold them for $500, scrapped the rest of the turd.

>>17254871
>whp
>engine not even in a car
>its not even hooked up to accessories

you sure have a valid opinion on cars dont ya fucktard

so basically $1000 to make like 300whp

fucking wow its a shit

>>17254888
I urge you to give the t5 another try with a short shifter. Throws are short, pattern is tight, overall good feel. 5th is super long so you keep good highway mpg even with different rear end gears. What didn't you like about the 302?

The 3rd and 4th gen Camaro and Firebird are better along with the Grand National

>>17254910
Can't get a manual without being stuck with the 305. They did have a better chassis though.

File: 16bn9mb.jpg (28KB, 550x366px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x366px

>>17254871
>$5000 into a fox body

>>17254914
4th gen though

>>17254947
Oops, you're right.

>>17254793
>rice fags THIS butthurt
I don't even like foxbody's but I love weebs getting btfo

>>17254876
>what is a meme
>what is projection
You apparently don't understand either.

>>17252303
The Fox body is proof you can polish a turd. Unfortunately, the turd has turned and nice ones appear to be appreciating which makes them much less appealing. The biggest tragedy about the fox body is the notchback. It looks like complete shit compared to the fastback but is better because it's lighter and stiffer-ish. I drive by one for sale every day and it continues to look like shit.

Rear suspension sucks and likes to bind. The front has positive camber problems and also sucks. You need to throw away everything in the front and do a lot in the rear, (properly set up Panhard bar or Watts link, springs, shocks) to make it work and then you have the unibody which is very very very very not stiff. Subframe Connectors and anything else that stiffens the car up is your friend. The 302 is ok. It will make ok power for not a lot of money if you throw away everything on it and do the usual bolt-ons. Transmission is glass, the motor also likes to split in half if it makes more than i can't remember but i think about 400HP.

The best thing about the Fox is the aftermarket. The aftermarket is SO vast that all of the Fox bodies deficiencies have an off the shelf remedy. There are fast mustangs. They probably make good drag cars, but making one handle costs quite a bit. There may have been a time when they were a good buy but that time has passed. The fastbacks still look good to me though... SN95 is a better car and cheaper. It just looks like shit.

>>17254772
now tell me what all of those cost to buy and then look at cheapo fox body prices. Also Civic lol

>>17254971
>Must insult something as a defense
Pathetic.
Just give up. There's nothing to defend on these abhorrent pieces of shit.

>>17254988
>One of the worst cars ever made is relatively inexpensive!
Wow, neato.

>>17252313
If ford make a LTD mustang I am ready to accept the turbo engines.

File: 12620330_935314709856185_1635954218_o.jpg (383KB, 2048x1158px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 2048x1158px

>>17254334

I poke around now and then, waiting for foxbody threads

>>17254341
But those dont have the forged rotating assembly

>>17254633
Dont even need the V8 for power
>yfw this will make better than 300whp for $1000 all in, including purchasing the car itself

>>17254896

'84, non roller, tiny stock carb, junk cam. Only reasons I can think for disliking a 302

I like the shape but not the headlights

File: 18057742_1552684748084583_4063734787364859633_n.jpg (82KB, 960x768px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 960x768px

>>17255238

Maybe you'd like an older one

File: Capri Mall.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>17255238
How 'bout these

>>17255238
Yeah, they're an acquired taste. And the aftermarket options are only worse.

>>17252303
One of the greatest affordable cars ever made.

>>17252755
Foxbody is the only one that isn't pigfat.

>>17255471
AHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>17253942
Stock? yeah it's not fast. You can make one retardedly fast if you've got the time and the money.

Poor people car which is why the poverty-tier shut-ins rave about it here. When they overinflate the value like they did the miata, the welfare bums on here will find another forgettable underpowered "performance" shitbox to rave about.

Tl;dr
>its not that /o/ likes it, its that they can afford it

>>17254078
The fairmont wagon might honestly be my favorite car ever.

>>17255492
V8, RWD, Infinite aftermarket, Lightweight, Cheap

It's def a contender.

File: 1451444238662.jpg (2MB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1944px

>>17255520

I'd rock a 302/351 + T5 wagon in a hearbeat.

>>17254871
weebfags btfo

File: 16406783_10211150777141438_1651306792837882866_n.jpg (67KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 960x720px

the 2.3T has a huge aftermarket as well, pic related a stock 2.3 only has ONE cam gear

>>17254871

Hell you can crack 400hp with a stock HO cam with a good head/rocker/exhaust combo

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ford-302-v8-engine-buildup/

File: 16473488_10211150777221440_6117267677290437802_n.jpg (105KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 960x720px

>>17255601
under hood shot of that Tbird

File: Pug.jpg (5KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x250px

>>17254604
>Went full branding
>Tows it with a Chevy

>>17254803
>New Type R is in the mid 13's with 306hp. Traction is the issue, not so much the power.

>>17252321
this

Anything a Foxbody can do, an F-body can do, and better.

File: vista-cruiser.jpg (200KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 768x576px

post wagons, all countries and vintages welcome

File: 1973_pinto_squire.jpg (142KB, 600x352px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 600x352px

One day I'll be king shitbox also
Two door wagons are best

File: tumblr_n2wydfUp8I1s0niwgo1_1280.jpg (140KB, 736x489px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 736x489px

>>17253759
Why is the looks in the bad section?? 80s wedge hatchbacks are fucking rad!

And what normie would think it's a Honda???

>>17253787
Wtf lol? made me kekkle

>>17252755
Why isn't my new edge in there?

>>17254623
knows the CI of his 2l... k

>>17256590
61ci = 1L, it's not hard.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (131KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1280x720px

>>17256527

>>17256600
He didn't run the math he just knew meaning people keep asking him how many CI is that bro?
Why are people still using CI?

File: 7b549e778454a02142f3704b159e5ad0.jpg (37KB, 600x439px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x439px

Jeezus tit fucking Christ /O/
Wtf is with all this hate?? I thought everyone likes the foxbody nao?

I thought /o/ loves æ e s t h e t i c 80s wedge cars?? I didn't expect THIS many negr/o/ids to hate the fox so damn much, feels like it's theres even more hate for these here than riced out Honda's,

and I don't get the double standard, you can modify ANY car here EXCEPT a foxbody?? Why? The egos some of you have is downright ridiculous and childish,
personally i think they look rad since I love boxxy 80s wedges and they don't take much to make fun peppy little cars out of, and its the closest thing to an S chassis or Ae86 that murica has that's relatively easy to get compared to the former options that are rare and fairly expensive

>>17256622
It's not hard to do math in your head.

>>17256635
It pains me that those flares aren't real.

File: 20150606-DSC_9525-1024x678.jpg (184KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1024x678px

>>17256647
You can find similar flares like in my pic related that are shaped a little different like these

File: IMAG0183~2.jpg (2MB, 3000x2553px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2553px

Because they JUST WERK

and because there's something about driving shitty old v8s that suck gas like no tomorrow

>>17253787
This is the best post on 4chan right now

>>17253911
What did I say that implied that I was defending it.
Also If this is not good muscle car compared to the others of the time or a good car in general please present me a car that is good
And you were saying I was assmad
Kek

The late 90's Thunderbird looked and was better anyway

File: 45645645644.jpg (72KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 960x540px

>>17255209
>>17254896

Car was cammed, aftermarket intake and carb. Bigger heads and valves/springs were some aftermarket stuff. Bought it this way.

Low power ceiling, super picky with timing, thing leaked like a sieve no matter what I did. If the timing was set at factory ford specs, the starter couldn't spin it over. If it was set to a timing range where the starter could spin it, it made doodoo power.

Can't afford to buy a roller motor when things like the 4.6 and LS motors are so cheap but that just means added cost to swap in trans/electrics. Just a shitty compromise all around.

>>17257491
So some guy's fucked engine build shaped your opinion on it?

I kinda want to get a Fairmont sedan as a project desu. 351 Windsor with a big turbo and a 4 speed manual.

>>17253893
Not getting svo turbo

>>17255209
Please tell me how to make a 300hp 2.3t. I kinda want a turbo coupe so I can be the king of the trailer park.

>>17255482
Lol 1st gen and mustang IIs are lighter.

>>17255632
Is that the Volvo head swap?

>>17256758
I know Farrah's fox. The only similar thing is that they're flairs. Then again, they don't look impossible to fiberglass.

>>17252755
Whats the satin black one?

I feel like Foxes are one of the more versatile platforms created. They rolled out the factory weighing in at 3100 lbs and 225 HP at the crank.

The aftermarket is possibly the largest in all of the auto industry. Which only helps its case as well. Because you can then build the car to be whatever you want it to be.

File: SPWP0PA.jpg (581KB, 2660x1476px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 2660x1476px

>>17257821
T3/4 hybrid
Injectors
Fuel pump
Adjustable fuel pressure regulator
Downpipe
Front mount intercooler

Adjust timing, fuel pressure and boost until you're happy

>Bonus points
A gutted upper intake, ported lower, ported head, ported exhaust manifold and a cam would help as well

File: 1420841902952.jpg (441KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1600x1071px

>>17257857

That is a B234F head on a Lima

File: 20160324_175322.jpg (339KB, 1607x1205px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1607x1205px

>>17252321
*raises paw*

I think mine has handled mods and stuff fairly well except for the shitty exhaust job.

>>17252303
Get a turd gen instead, muh sbc/LS

would pre 94 fox body panels and front fit a SN94 ??

can get 94-95 mustangs cheap but i prefer the aesthetics of the older ones.

>>17259969
No. But a 95-98 would fit on a 94.

>>17252303
from the point of veiw of a non american they are infinitely cool