The RSR's were pretty lightweight so that gives it a big advantage right there. The old Camaros handle like oil tankers in a hurricane - you need to go for a complete tube frame setup for them to handle remotely well. I like the way the RSR gets hauled back in on the few straights were there's not that much traffic Sad fact is, you could probably get a 2003 Boxster S, sell that engine and for a few $'s more bolt in a Carrera 3.6 motor. That'd probably take down both of those cars... I'd need to get my rear gear changed before contemplating a track day - it tops out around 110 mph but if I did that it'd mean that I'd actually have to start using 2nd and 3rd on the street. I like being lazy and relying on the torque to allow me to just go 1st to 4th at times and not even having to rev the engine much in 1st either. On the plus side. The back is getting better - might be able to get something done this week. It might just be getting the fuel tank in and making/running the fuel lines (all work done laying on my back and not bending over) but it'd be a start. I might just go pull the tank out of the box and stick 12V on it to hear the pump run for a second. Mmmm. Toyspaulambry said:Bit hard to see how much faster the Porsche is with so much (retarded) traffic on the track. Love the way it becomes a dot on the big sweeper.
I like the original Mustangs, especially the fastback. Not sure what prices are like of the late 60s ones that weren't considered collectable a few years back.531Aussie said:This is probably blasphemy, but I don't like the old Mustangs that sit high at the front. Â
gplama said:yES!Jono L said:
gplama said:On Reddit there is a dude called "a wild sketch appeared"... who draws random **** from comments. I need this drawn.paulambry said:Â I'd rather staple my **** to a burning building.
How does **** off sound?swampy1970 said:So which one is Jono? :devil:
Until a few minutes ago, I was under the impression that they all cost a fortune down here, but I was wrongOriginally Posted by swampy1970
I like the original Mustangs, especially the fastback. Not sure what prices are like of the late 60s ones that weren't considered collectable a few years back.
"It was, and always shall be, a 5.75 liter motor that in 1971 was capable of competing on equal ground with hemi headed 7 liter motors. With the same 0.6" lift endurance cams, at the same rpm, with the same carburetion, the 351 cubic inch Ford made equal horsepower as the FE427, the Boss 429, the 426 Hemi and the 421 Super Duty. It could power a Torino around the super ovals like Taladega and Daytona at equal speed, and with equal reliability as the big blocks. It could cruise around a super oval at 7200 rpm all day long without breaking. It did this with a thin cast block, no side oiling, no steel crank. The 351C 4V was assembled on an assembly line at 20% of the cost of a Boss 429 or the 427 FE." - 351Cleveland.net forum.Originally Posted by swampy1970
A 351 Cleveland motor, nice. One of my wife's best friends married a Ford fanboy - he had a Mach 1 Mustang with a 351c in it. Apparently, it accelerated that fast that it ripped the drivers seat off the seat rails and it ended up in a tree... The replacement Mach1 (the second year, with out functional brake scoops) wasn't quite so heavily modified. I had a ride in that one back in 2001. It kinda got me hooked on old school cars.
Interesting intake you have on that. Going for high rpm HP? I'd like something interesting like that but I just don't have the bonnet clearance.
The engine I have is a ZZ502 crate motor. Literally, it was delivered in a crate with everything preassembled. Dizzy had to come out and the oil filter had to be removed - but it's a modern incarnation of a Mark IV chevy big block. The stamped steel rockers came with it but alas roller rockers won't fit the stock valve covers. The stock valve covers barely clear the brake booster... You can see where I'm going with this...
Those rockers are good for 800hp, more than enough for me. The EFI is good for 850hp. I'm just going for the EFI for throttle response - the torque curve is already near linear and flat with about 4,000 rpm over 500 lb/ft. The rear end is good for 1300 lb/ft of torque at the wheels in 1st gear - which is more than I'll make at the flywheel.
I have plans to replace the front disk brakes and brake booster at "some point" (sometime between now and dinosaurs re-roaming the earth). An oddity - the rear drums are sized for a Ford Gran Torino - the largest passenger drum brakes commonly available. Going for that sleeper look.
Never. He's not THAT ghey. Does that help?classic1 said:I'm confused. When did Jono get a fixy?
Just goes to show... too much is never enough. Ree-****-lee-ous!Regarding the 502 Chev, my first experience with them was in the late 80's when I skied behind this boat. It had something like 1200 hp. Up until then it was just 454 Chevs. The blocks were always Mercruiser blocks.
A looooong time.... took me a while to remember my password. Look forward to seeing you GPL.... it's good to back in TAN.Originally Posted by gplama
So who's coming to Fiji in a few weeks? Time to rock the Tour of Fiji.... and get in a holiday, and warm weather!
Looks like I might finally get to meet @::dom:: too (who hasn't used these forums in a LONG time, so hopefully this summons him back to the TAN
hah! My magic worked! Can't wait to get over there.Originally Posted by ::dom::
A looooong time.... took me a while to remember my password. Look forward to seeing you GPL.... it's good to back in TAN.
Jesus, a little fcuking touchy are we?Jono L said:How does **** off sound?
Nice cars, but the GT - it comes down to whether you "need" to have the real deal or would prefer to use modern stuff and some well placed stickers down the side of the car and have something that looks about the same but drives and goes better.531Aussie said:Until a few minutes ago, I was under the impression that they all cost a fortune down here, but I was wrong This one's 42 grand http://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/Ford-Mustang-1965/SSE-AD-3009163/?gts=SSE-AD-3009163>ssaleid=SSE-AD-3009163 $19,000: http://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/Ford-Mustang-1966/SSE-AD-2535686/?Cr=0&sdmvc=1 $35,000: http://www.carsales.com.au/dealer/details/Ford-Mustang-1966/AGC-AD-16500501/?Cr=1&sdmvc=1 $33,000 http://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/Ford-Mustang-1966/SSE-AD-3025209/?Cr=2&sdmvc=1 $25,000 http://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/Ford-Mustang-1967/SSE-AD-2914975/?Cr=3&sdmvc=1 $65,000: http://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/Ford-Mustang-1968/SSE-AD-2222730/?Cr=5&sdmvc=1 But this gt is $185,000 http://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/Ford-Mustang-1967/SSE-AD-2885529/?Cr=4&sdmvc=1 Etc, etc:Â http://www.carsales.com.au/all-cars/results.aspx?silo=stock&q=((((((((SiloType%3d%5bBrand+new+cars+in+stock%5d)%7c(SiloType%3d%5bBrand+new+cars+available%5d))%7c(SiloType%3d%5bDemo+and+near+new+cars%5d))%7c(SiloType%3d%5bDealer+used+cars%5d))%7c(SiloType%3d%5bDemo+and+near+new+cars%5d))%7c(SiloType%3d%5bPrivate+seller+cars%5d))%26(Service%3d%5bCarsales%5d))%26(CarAll%3dkeyword%5bmustang%5d))&vertical=car&sortby=TopDeal
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.