Fastest stock mustang. - Page 2 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > Ford Mustang | Wrenching, Care and General Topics > General Mustang Discussion



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 04-07-2013, 04:08 PM   #36
Registered Member
Regular
 
mrkrabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 767
I can see where this is going...so....
mrkrabz is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-07-2013, 06:11 PM   #37
Registered Member
Regular
 
shsfresh87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Region: West Virgina
Posts: 814
Mmmmm i love buttered popcorn
shsfresh87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 06:12 PM   #38
Registered Member
Regular
 
2300turboford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: london
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 2,903
79 king cobra !!!!! 179hp
__________________
"Racing is life ,anything before or after is just waiting "-the king of cool -Steve McQueen
2300turboford is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-07-2013, 06:13 PM   #39
Registered Member
Regular
 
theweekday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 569
-______-
theweekday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 06:41 PM   #40
Registered Member
Regular
 
gladiatoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna BC
Region: Canada
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkrabz View Post
Fastest stock? That would easily be the GT500. Best handling stock would be the Boss 302. Best value would be the v6. Best overall/most popular would be the GT.


gladiatoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 07:26 PM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
Doe_Rae_mi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Region: South Carolina
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2300turboford
79 king cobra !!!!! 179hp
Lol
Doe_Rae_mi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 07:32 PM   #42
Registered Member
Regular
 
madGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Chester County
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2300turboford View Post
79 king cobra !!!!! 179hp
Priceless!
madGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 09:09 AM   #43
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lakeland
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,699
Send a message via AIM to Borii
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkrabz View Post
Really? That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Ok, so V6 is most popular, but I still think that the GT would be best overall. (I own a v6 btw)
Since the beginning of time (sarcasm) the lower models sell wayyy more than the better or more desirable model. Without V6 sales there would be NO GT. Without Ralliart sales, there would be no EVO etc.
__________________
SOLD - 06 GT 371WHP/332WTQ


Sold - 1998 Camaro SS
Sold - 2001 Audi S4
Borii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 09:38 AM   #44
Registered Member
Regular
 
gladiatoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna BC
Region: Canada
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii View Post
Since the beginning of time (sarcasm) the lower models sell wayyy more than the better or more desirable model. Without V6 sales there would be NO GT. Without Ralliart sales, there would be no EVO etc.
V6 Mustangs are much cheaper the main reason they sell more. Simple economics.
gladiatoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 09:43 AM   #45
Registered Member
Regular
 
StangRick65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Lockbourne
Region: Ohio
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight2012 View Post

Its a good compromise between a GT500 and the V6 I suppose. In late model 65 you had a coupe with an inline 6 and 3 V8 options. All 289 V8's. the HiPo 289 being designated GT. and you hade a fastback with the same options. Today's Mustang has a base model called a coupe with a V6 more powerful than 65s HiPo GT. (it's really a fastback based by 65 designation). Today's GT is a race car equal in 1/4 mile times to the 68 Corvette 427. Fun indeed but not necessary.
Least that's how I see it. The GT 500 a monster. Mines not the fastest car I've ever driven but its the fastest I've ever personally owned. I guess there were always other priorities in life.
The new v6 may be more powerful than an old hipo but stock the the old hipo motor in the little 2700 pound 65 stang was a powerhouse it could take out the new v6 no problem I've got a hipo in my 65 and its mildly built I'm 17 and pay for it all with a minimum wage job I mean I couldn't buy a new one i tried but my point is the old stangs may not have the power on paper but don't underestimate it until you drive it you cant talk crap till ya drive one
StangRick65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 09:58 AM   #46
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lakeland
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,699
Send a message via AIM to Borii
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladiatoro View Post
V6 Mustangs are much cheaper the main reason they sell more. Simple economics.
A little deeper than that. Sport models of cars are sold at a loss or very small profit. The V6 vs V8 sales are very lopsided. But I agree, Them being cheaper obviously also appeals to people who want the Mustang with out the need for absolute speed
__________________
SOLD - 06 GT 371WHP/332WTQ


Sold - 1998 Camaro SS
Sold - 2001 Audi S4
Borii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 11:11 AM   #47
Registered Member
Regular
 
Midnight2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: So Cal
Region: California
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by StangRick65 View Post

The new v6 may be more powerful than an old hipo but stock the the old hipo motor in the little 2700 pound 65 stang was a powerhouse it could take out the new v6 no problem I've got a hipo in my 65 and its mildly built I'm 17 and pay for it all with a minimum wage job I mean I couldn't buy a new one i tried but my point is the old stangs may not have the power on paper but don't underestimate it until you drive it you cant talk crap till ya drive one
Who's talking crap? I've driven plenty of them. Brand new ones. Excellent low end torque and hella fun. But it's still in the 15 sec range in a 1/4 mile. And that 271 Horsepower by today's standards is around 217. A stock K code 65 Mustang HiPo will not beat a stock 2011 V6 in a quarter mile.
Midnight2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 11:23 AM   #48
Registered Member
Regular
 
garbill2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 914
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2300turboford View Post
79 king cobra !!!!! 179hp
Hey now I have a 79 cobra
garbill2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 11:27 AM   #49
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lakeland
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,699
Send a message via AIM to Borii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight2012 View Post
Who's talking crap? I've driven plenty of them. Brand new ones. Excellent low end torque and hella fun. But it's still in the 15 sec range in a 1/4 mile. And that 271 Horsepower by today's standards is around 217. A stock K code 65 Mustang HiPo will not beat a stock 2011 V6 in a quarter mile.
It MAY be a close race in a 1/4. The V6 is still faster but the k car is worth more than a 15 second 1/4 when fresh. At 2800 lbs it would probably run a low 14. Unfortunately though, that is at it's best because one thing the kid isn't considering is even though it is 271 HP, the Power bands were literally non existent when compared to today's cars stock for stock. Secondly, cars were almost ALL over rated until sometime in the 70s.
__________________
SOLD - 06 GT 371WHP/332WTQ


Sold - 1998 Camaro SS
Sold - 2001 Audi S4
Borii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 11:38 AM   #50
Registered Member
Regular
 
Midnight2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: So Cal
Region: California
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii View Post

It MAY be a close race in a 1/4. The V6 is still faster but the k car is worth more than a 15 second 1/4 when fresh. At 2800 lbs it would probably run a low 14. Unfortunately though, that is at it's best because one thing the kid isn't considering is even though it is 271 HP, the Power bands were literally non existent when compared to today's cars stock for stock. Secondly, cars were almost ALL over rated until sometime in the 70s.
Back in the day I hung with guys with the 289 HiPo, the 65 Cuda 275 hp, 67 390 Stang, 440 Chargers and 383 Roadrunners.
The HiPo Mustang and Cudas could NOT beat the 383 Roadrunner in a quarter. Close but no cigar. Todays V6 stock for stock will out run the Roadrunner. Granted tires back then were a huge problem. With today's tires and the Magnums torque Ill give it the nod but the HiPo is still going to come in behind the V6. I've driven all of these mentioned cars on the drag strip and was a better driver than the owners. I'd guestimate that HiPo around 14.5. But I tell ya in an 1/8 mile hang onto your hat cause that torque is what makes it fun.
Midnight2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:13 PM   #51
Registered Member
Regular
 
StangRick65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Lockbourne
Region: Ohio
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight2012 View Post

Who's talking crap? I've driven plenty of them. Brand new ones. Excellent low end torque and hella fun. But it's still in the 15 sec range in a 1/4 mile. And that 271 Horsepower by today's standards is around 217. A stock K code 65 Mustang HiPo will not beat a stock 2011 V6 in a quarter mile.
I beg to differ and if you compare the prices of top of the line cars back then to what people pay for a v6 now a days it's a huge difference even if you were to compare what a dollar was worth back then to now your v6 mustang weighs what 4000 pounds with all it's plastic and stuff idk anything about new mustangs I just know they are complicated weigh alot and are over priced
StangRick65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:17 PM   #52
Registered Member
Regular
 
mrkrabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by StangRick65 View Post
I beg to differ and if you compare the prices of top of the line cars back then to what people pay for a v6 now a days it's a huge difference even if you were to compare what a dollar was worth back then to now your v6 mustang weighs what 4000 pounds with all it's plastic and stuff idk anything about new mustangs I just know they are complicated weigh alot and are over priced
That's not true at all. The conversion rate is almost exact. The first mustang was about $3400 in 1964. That is equal to about $25000 in today's money. The price of a base v6. The higher charges are all electronic now. Which wasn't available in the 60's
mrkrabz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:24 PM   #53
Registered Member
Regular
 
StangRick65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Lockbourne
Region: Ohio
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight2012 View Post

Back in the day I hung with guys with the 289 HiPo, the 65 Cuda 275 hp, 67 390 Stang, 440 Chargers and 383 Roadrunners.
The HiPo Mustang and Cudas could NOT beat the 383 Roadrunner in a quarter. Close but no cigar. Todays V6 stock for stock will out run the Roadrunner. Granted tires back then were a huge problem. With today's tires and the Magnums torque Ill give it the nod but the HiPo is still going to come in behind the V6. I've driven all of these mentioned cars on the drag strip and was a better driver than the owners. I'd guestimate that HiPo around 14.5. But I tell ya in an 1/8 mile hang onto your hat cause that torque is what makes it fun.
On top of everything for my last post the hipo mustangs run probably high 13s and befor 67 they didn't really offer cars for "racing" now adays they put prochargers and turbos on every other car outta the door in my opinion also you can't really do much with the new motors i mean tell me man when ur car blows up or you throw a rocker Im sure ur not gunna tear that son of a gun apart and fix it ur gunna go get it fixed by ford not very many people know what's goin on under there if I threw a rocker I could fix it in two minutes I've done it befor but I'm just saying compare everything from old to new not just speed I can put the 35,000 in my car and whoop u down the track and with ur 35,000 u only have enough to buy the new v6 an maybe make it to the track run it and get it home on the cash you have left
StangRick65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:24 PM   #54
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lakeland
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,699
Send a message via AIM to Borii
Quote:
Originally Posted by StangRick65 View Post
I beg to differ and if you compare the prices of top of the line cars back then to what people pay for a v6 now a days it's a huge difference even if you were to compare what a dollar was worth back then to now your v6 mustang weighs what 4000 pounds with all it's plastic and stuff idk anything about new mustangs I just know they are complicated weigh alot and are over priced
A V6 Mustang is no where near 4000 lbs.

3401 lbs for a manual.
__________________
SOLD - 06 GT 371WHP/332WTQ


Sold - 1998 Camaro SS
Sold - 2001 Audi S4
Borii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:26 PM   #55
Registered Member
Regular
 
mrkrabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii View Post
A V6 Mustang is no where near 4000 lbs.

3401 lbs for a manual.
+1
mrkrabz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:31 PM   #56
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lakeland
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,699
Send a message via AIM to Borii
Quote:
Originally Posted by StangRick65 View Post
On top of everything for my last post the hipo mustangs run probably high 13s and befor 67 they didn't really offer cars for "racing" now adays they put prochargers and turbos on every other car outta the door in my opinion also you can't really do much with the new motors i mean tell me man when ur car blows up or you throw a rocker Im sure ur not gunna tear that son of a gun apart and fix it ur gunna go get it fixed by ford not very many people know what's goin on under there if I threw a rocker I could fix it in two minutes I've done it befor but I'm just saying compare everything from old to new not just speed I can put the 35,000 in my car and whoop u down the track and with ur 35,000 u only have enough to buy the new v6 an maybe make it to the track run it and get it home on the cash you have left
This is a ridiculous statement. This WAS relatively engaging conversation but your point is defeated when you say "dump 35k in my car and whoop u".

If I dumped 35k in a 85 CRX it would be equally as fast or faster. A HiPo would never see 13s. Us saying it is a 14 second car is generous because all recorded times you find are in the 15s except for a couple in the high 14s.

And yes we tear our engines down the same. I would never and HAVE never taken my car to a dealer.

Also, nothing can be done with engines no a days? Wow this gets even better. Engines have more potential now than they've ever had.

You're getting defensive about some facts when your opinions are refuted or resisted against.
__________________
SOLD - 06 GT 371WHP/332WTQ


Sold - 1998 Camaro SS
Sold - 2001 Audi S4
Borii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:31 PM   #57
Registered Member
Regular
 
DaBluedude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Region: Canada
Posts: 1,996
What a stupid fn thread. Pass the popcorn.
__________________
2003 Mach 1
DaBluedude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:39 PM   #58
Registered Member
Regular
 
mrkrabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBluedude View Post
What a stupid fn thread. Pass the popcorn.
No problem. There's plenty to go around.
mrkrabz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:47 PM   #59
Registered Member
Regular
 
StangRick65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Lockbourne
Region: Ohio
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii View Post

This is a ridiculous statement. This WAS relatively engaging conversation but your point is defeated when you say "dump 35k in my car and whoop u".

If I dumped 35k in a 85 CRX it would be equally as fast or faster. A HiPo would never see 13s. Us saying it is a 14 second car is generous because all recorded times you find are in the 15s except for a couple in the high 14s.

And yes we tear our engines down the same. I would never and HAVE never taken my car to a dealer.

Also, nothing can be done with engines no a days? Wow this gets even better. Engines have more potential now than they've ever had.

You're getting defensive about some facts when your opinions are refuted or resisted against.
Generous ? Ha I have a carb and cam on my car no internal work I've probably got 1000 dollars under the hood and my car ran a 13.45 and my comment about engines now a days has to do with it all being electro ur car has its own mind mines like a double A battery compared to ur computer....
StangRick65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:00 PM   #60
Registered Member
Regular
 
Midnight2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: So Cal
Region: California
Posts: 790
Seems it became a thread between those with experience and those that have not. A 65 289 HiPo stock never ran in the 13s ever.

The rest has been answered by those with knowledge but I will agree cars were easier to work on but they were not cheaper.
And with 35 K I could buy a GT that would run in the 12s. Besides all the rediculous statements that negated my stock for stock comparison I could take 35 K and build a bicycle to go faster than a 65 Mustang.

Now how about that popcorn!
Midnight2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:01 PM   #61
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lakeland
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,699
Send a message via AIM to Borii
Quote:
Originally Posted by StangRick65 View Post
Generous ? Ha I have a carb and cam on my car no internal work I've probably got 1000 dollars under the hood and my car ran a 13.45 and my comment about engines now a days has to do with it all being electro ur car has its own mind mines like a double A battery compared to ur computer....
Wow, just getting better and better.

You have a cam but NO internal work?

Your comment also does not even apply to your reply of my comment. You using a modded cars time to validate that same car's stock time is like comparing apples to books. Or Batteries to computers. Seriously, you're 17. No matter what you think, you have so much to learn and it is bleeding through comment after comment.
__________________
SOLD - 06 GT 371WHP/332WTQ


Sold - 1998 Camaro SS
Sold - 2001 Audi S4
Borii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:03 PM   #62
Registered Member
Regular
 
Midnight2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: So Cal
Region: California
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii View Post

Wow, just getting better and better.

You have a cam but NO internal work?

Your comment also does not even apply to your reply of my comment. You using a modded cars time to validate that same car's stock time is like comparing apples to books. Or Batteries to computers. Seriously, you're 17. No matter what you think, you have so much to learn and it is bleeding through comment after comment.
+1000
Midnight2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:14 PM   #63
Registered Member
Regular
 
mrkrabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii View Post
Wow, just getting better and better.

You have a cam but NO internal work?

Your comment also does not even apply to your reply of my comment. You using a modded cars time to validate that same car's stock time is like comparing apples to books. Or Batteries to computers. Seriously, you're 17. No matter what you think, you have so much to learn and it is bleeding through comment after comment.


I'm on the edge of my seat!
mrkrabz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:15 PM   #64
Registered Member
Regular
 
Venomouz831's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Seaside
Region: California
Posts: 8,133
No name calling and stay on subject please or the thread will be closed. Thank you.
__________________
)02 Gt, Founder of WE2G
Venomouz831 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:26 PM   #65
Registered Member
Regular
 
StangRick65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Lockbourne
Region: Ohio
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii View Post

Wow, just getting better and better.

You have a cam but NO internal work?

Your comment also does not even apply to your reply of my comment. You using a modded cars time to validate that same car's stock time is like comparing apples to books. Or Batteries to computers. Seriously, you're 17. No matter what you think, you have so much to learn and it is bleeding through comment after comment.
Ok guys maybe ur v6 could beat a stock 289 hipo I've never driven one (v6) idk but I have my opinions you have urs in my opinion older cars are much simpler and get cheaper power an they are what I know I've been tearin em down and rebuilden em with my dad since I was little so maybe my opinion is effected by that but any day 80% of Americans would pick a classic over a new v6 looks and all an that's why you see so many built old mustangs here in Ohio
StangRick65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:27 PM   #66
Registered Member
Regular
 
DaBluedude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Region: Canada
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venomouz831 View Post
No name calling and stay on subject please or the thread will be closed. Thank you.
We're starting to run low on popcorn anyways.
__________________
2003 Mach 1
DaBluedude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:31 PM   #67
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lakeland
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,699
Send a message via AIM to Borii
Quote:
Originally Posted by StangRick65 View Post
Ok guys maybe ur v6 could beat a stock 289 hipo I've never driven one (v6) idk but I have my opinions you have urs in my opinion older cars are much simpler and get cheaper power an they are what I know I've been tearin em down and rebuilden em with my dad since I was little so maybe my opinion is effected by that but any day 80% of Americans would pick a classic over a new v6 looks and all an that's why you see so many built old mustangs here in Ohio
Built because it often reminds people of a different time. Most of these people also know the resale value of these cars. In the year 2060, our cars will have the same lure to an extent. The classics are the originals, they can never be replaced.

Cheaper power isn't true. The parts cost similar in price and the gains are similar on most things but the starting point is so low that many modded older cars reach the level or stock versions of newer models.

Electronics don't do everything for you. There are cars that offer a cake walk ride like a GTR but overall, DRIVING a car has never changed. Get in and shift.

Blame the gub'ment for half of the electronics.
__________________
SOLD - 06 GT 371WHP/332WTQ


Sold - 1998 Camaro SS
Sold - 2001 Audi S4
Borii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:40 PM   #68
Registered Member
Regular
 
Midnight2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: So Cal
Region: California
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by StangRick65 View Post

Ok guys maybe ur v6 could beat a stock 289 hipo I've never driven one (v6) idk but I have my opinions you have urs in my opinion older cars are much simpler and get cheaper power an they are what I know I've been tearin em down and rebuilden em with my dad since I was little so maybe my opinion is effected by that but any day 80% of Americans would pick a classic over a new v6 looks and all an that's why you see so many built old mustangs here in Ohio
Rick,
Love your car. In fact my first love was just like yours, but competition orange. Finally had a 65 2bbl I bought in 78 and never should have sold. But while I'm not a big fan of computers in cars the new ones handle better and are safer to drive. Would I buy a classic instead? No not as a daily driver. Car club and weekend sure but I have other hobbies to keep me occupied.
Glad to see you keeping an original alive! Thanks for your thoughts.
Midnight2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 02:22 PM   #69
ME Bloodhound
Staff
 
Soccerluvr4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacramento/Bay Area
Region: California
Posts: 14,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBluedude View Post

We're starting to run low on popcorn anyways.
Don't worry I got some more
__________________

Bullitt build paused pending graduation

HID end all thread
Soccerluvr4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 02:26 PM   #70
Registered Member
Regular
 
DerekJohnScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Region: Tennessee
Posts: 571
This could be quite the read...
DerekJohnScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > Ford Mustang | Wrenching, Care and General Topics > General Mustang Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to: 4.2L V6 Mustang Engine Swap Danger Dude Pre-2005 V6 Mustang 85 11-14-2015 08:51 PM
Useful Mustang Information - READ THIS FIRST! Trojan Horse 1979-1995 Mustang GT 24 11-19-2012 10:54 PM
For Sale: 2002 Mustang GT - $8000 jimmy_beaner Mustangs for Sale and Wanted 61 09-23-2012 03:44 PM
Cams For 3.8 akeemlucas_1 Pre-2005 V6 Mustang 7 04-25-2012 09:15 AM
Mustang Wheels and Tires FAQ: Come here for questions concerning tire size!! Zim Mustang Wheels & Tires 24 12-25-2010 11:55 PM

» Like Us On Facebook



08:54 AM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.