2011-2014 mustang v6 fake 305 hp - Page 2 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 V6 Mustang



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 09-29-2014, 11:02 PM   #36
Registered Member
Regular
 
fordcrashdummy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorB3 View Post
Yes making a car lighter gives a car more horses. 🙊😋
in a way your right. replacing our two piece driveshaft with an aluminum one will lower the rotational mass. rotational mass is the biggest taxer on any car as it is hard to start rotation something heavy(which is why even lightweight rims help). but in the case of the driveshaft it also reduces the loss of hp from the crank to the differential guaranteeing more of that 305 hp gets to the ground

Sent from my LG-E980 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
fordcrashdummy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-29-2014, 11:56 PM   #37
Registered Member
Regular
 
Sakib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnie948 View Post
It was designed for Nascar Racing but was never used due to Ford pulling out. It was put in Mustangs but made the Mustangs so front heavy it worked against the performance.
They sure bring a lot of $$$$$ if you can find one.
I forget the name of the company but they got license from Ford to manufacture the Boss 429 engines. I'll try to find out the name of the company when I go to Breakfast with my Street Rod friends Saturday morning.
The 428 Cobra jet worked much better in the Mustangs. It was good for everything except handling because it was heavy too.
The 351 engines always did work the all around best in Mustangs and Comets back in those days for all around performance. The were much lighter and still produced a good amount of power.
That was the good old days when Tires, Brakes, etc. just plain sucked. But it was really fun for us Car people back then.
Ronnie
The name of the company you are thinking of is Kar Kraft Engineering out of Brighton, Michigan. The Boss 429 and 302 were bring developed at the same time in 1969 by Kar Kraft and Ford, respectively. 429 was intended for NASCAR, like you said. Actually they did run it in NASCAR. David Pearson and Richard Petty finished one and two, BOTH driving Boss Talladegas! But yes, then Ford pulled out of NASCAR.

I got all this info from my coffee table book "The Complete Book of Mustang". Relevant pages attached.

Sent from my HTCONE using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1412052877666.jpg
Views:	70
Size:	344.9 KB
ID:	167101   Click image for larger version

Name:	1412052910812.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	322.3 KB
ID:	167102  

Click image for larger version

Name:	1412052943995.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	369.4 KB
ID:	167103   Click image for larger version

Name:	1412052962416.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	369.8 KB
ID:	167104  

Sakib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 12:30 AM   #38
Registered Member
Regular
 
Midnight2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: So Cal
Region: California
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soccerluvr4 View Post
That's what it's rated at. But I know for a fact it is one of the most under rated cars ford ever produced


Bullitts are better than Bullets

Under rated in HP ratings but not 1/4 mile times. Insurance companies during that period rated by Horsepower not how fast it went.


Sent from my iPad using Mustang Evolution
Midnight2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-30-2014, 07:16 AM   #39
Evolution's Finest
Supporter
 
ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Daytona Beach
Region: Florida
Posts: 3,960
Thanks Sakib

I was just going by memory.
I was selling Ford's back then and you could actually get any engine in almost all of the Fords. A guy came in and ordered a Galaxy with no options at all. He ordered it with the Boss 429 and four speed. Black outside and inside. I often wonder what ever became of that super rare car. It has to be the only one ever made by Ford.
Ronnie
__________________
2012-candy red- V-6 MCA, Automatic Trans. CFM Valve cover breather. MMD blackTail light trim.Magnaflow axle back street mufflers, JLT oil catch can.MMD hood struts.
Airaid Cold Air intake. red caliper covers, 3.7L performance engine cover, Flat black hood spears.Boss 302 strut brace, CDC rear panel, Trunk Cargo net,--Dash carpet cover,
Viser stickers to cover ugly yellow warning crap,Aluminum driveshafft and Swarr Bar.
ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 07:33 AM   #40
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Martinsburg
Region: West Virgina
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight2012 View Post
Now that little 256 HP 390 had tons more torque, yet only running high 14s in a quarter mile. There was a history of under rating HP figures for insurance purposes but not by a lot in most cases.


Sent from my iPad using Mustang Evolution
Poor times were mostly due to narrow bias ply tires that came on most cars back then.
__________________
2014 Sterling gray GT 6M
Paxton Novi 2200, DW1000 injectors, JMS BAP, ATI damper
Lethal ORP, MGW shifter, BMR upper and lowers, Spicer 1 piece DS, Ram Single disk clutch with aluminum flywheel, Power leather seat conversion. Staggered wheels.
605 RWHP on a safe tune
scott9050 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 07:35 AM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Martinsburg
Region: West Virgina
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmac3 View Post
The 302ci in an original 1979 Fox body didn't put out but 140hp. It didn't get to 225hp until 1987. That number was later dropped in 1989 to 205hp until the advent of the 1993 Cobra with a whopping 235hp. Woohoo!
The number did not drop to 205 hp until 1993, and that change was on paper only. The only change was to hypereutectic pistons from TRW forged which did not affect horsepower numbers. It was speculated that the drop was to make the 215 number on the '94 models look better, though Ford denied that as the reason.
__________________
2014 Sterling gray GT 6M
Paxton Novi 2200, DW1000 injectors, JMS BAP, ATI damper
Lethal ORP, MGW shifter, BMR upper and lowers, Spicer 1 piece DS, Ram Single disk clutch with aluminum flywheel, Power leather seat conversion. Staggered wheels.
605 RWHP on a safe tune
scott9050 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 08:30 AM   #42
Registered Member
Regular
 
Sakib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bryan
Region: Texas
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott9050 View Post
The number did not drop to 205 hp until 1993, and that change was on paper only. The only change was to hypereutectic pistons from TRW forged which did not affect horsepower numbers. It was speculated that the drop was to make the 215 number on the '94 models look better, though Ford denied that as the reason.
Hmmm, sounds familiar huh.... (Cough ecoboost cough)

Sent from my HTCONE using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Sakib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 08:43 AM   #43
Registered Member
Regular
 
Ish416's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Winchester
Region: Indiana
Posts: 1,209
The old muscle cars with their huge displacement engines, in all honesty, didn't make crap for horsepower.

Look at this article - Chevrolet Muscle Car Dyno Wars - 1970 LS6 Chevelle - Super Chevy Magazine

It's an LS6 Chevelle, it was still under-rated at 450 hp in it's day (was actually over 500 hp then) and was one of the fastest factory cars you could buy back then.

It was dyno'd on a dynojet and put down 283 whp @ 5600 rpm and 320 rwtq @ 3900 rpm. That is far from it's original rating of 450 hp @ 5600 rpm and 500 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm and less than most stock LS1 Fbodys.

That car today, with modern tires at the drag strip will run a low 13 @ 103 or so. Those cars just weren't fast. They had massive potential but stock, they sucked.



As for the crank vs whp, they are two different methods of measuring the same thing. The at the wheel measurement is what your car is putting down to the ground. The crank measurement is good for comparing hp between factory cars.
__________________
99 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 M6 - 6.676 @ 103 in 1/8, 10.512 @ 130.2 on street tires, H/C/I
93 Eagle Talon TSI AWD 5spd - Built 6 Bolt, 16G Evo3, HKS 272 Cams - under construction
Ish416 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 08:51 AM   #44
Evolution's Finest
Supporter
 
bigmac3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Cleburne
Region: Texas
Posts: 1,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish416 View Post
The old muscle cars with their huge displacement engines, in all honesty, didn't make crap for horsepower.

It's an LS6 Chevelle, it was still under-rated at 450 hp in it's day (was actually over 500 hp then) and was one of the fastest factory cars you could buy back then.
I remember many times going to the strip with my buddies, there were 390 Fairlanes/Torinos, 389/400 GTOs, GS's and 442s, 396 Chevys, and various 383 Mopars. We thought mid 14s was awesome. When you have nothing else to compare to, it seemed pretty fast. Oh to have had today's cars back then. They don't build them like they used to...thank goodness!
__________________
Frank
1989 Blue LX Hatchback
2001 Red SVT Cobra Convertible (Phoenix)
2002 Black/Red GT (Ginger)
2011 Red Candy Metallic V6 (Manfred)
2016 Magnetic Metallic GT (Susie II)
bigmac3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 09:06 AM   #45
Registered Member
Regular
 
2 Stangz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Region: Nevada
Posts: 2,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by IS3 View Post
So in reality a mustang v6 or even say an 08 350z isn't on the 300 hp range. Kind off disappointing...
Not disappointing. It applies for all cars advertised with bhp (horsepower at the crank of the motor) which is all of the US.

You can also use it to your advantage.

ex: 2005 300hp GT manual vs 2011 305hp v6 auto. V6 appears to have more horsepower, at the crank. At the rear wheels (what a dyno # is), the GT has more horsepower.
__________________
2010 GT Premium - Automatic - Torch Red
2 Stangz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 09:24 AM   #46
Registered Member
Regular
 
ponie1992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Lexington
Region: South Carolina
Posts: 1,052
Quote:

ex: 2005 300hp GT manual vs 2011 305hp v6 auto. V6 appears to have more horsepower, at the crank. At the rear wheels (what a dyno # is), the GT has more horsepower.
You may want to reword that. 305 is greater than 300 any day. The GT would only have more HP at the wheels if the drivetrain is more efficient than that of the V6.



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
Jeremy
2016 Ruby Red PP GT
ponie1992 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 11:36 AM   #47
Registered Member
Regular
 
Midnight2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: So Cal
Region: California
Posts: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott9050 View Post
Poor times were mostly due to narrow bias ply tires that came on most cars back then.

Except that everyone put wider tires on their cars which didn't help much.


Sent from my iPad using Mustang Evolution
Midnight2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 12:00 PM   #48
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Martinsburg
Region: West Virgina
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish416 View Post
The old muscle cars with their huge displacement engines, in all honesty, didn't make crap for horsepower.

Look at this article - Chevrolet Muscle Car Dyno Wars - 1970 LS6 Chevelle - Super Chevy Magazine

It's an LS6 Chevelle, it was still under-rated at 450 hp in it's day (was actually over 500 hp then) and was one of the fastest factory cars you could buy back then.

It was dyno'd on a dynojet and put down 283 whp @ 5600 rpm and 320 rwtq @ 3900 rpm. That is far from it's original rating of 450 hp @ 5600 rpm and 500 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm and less than most stock LS1 Fbodys.

That car today, with modern tires at the drag strip will run a low 13 @ 103 or so. Those cars just weren't fast. They had massive potential but stock, they sucked.



As for the crank vs whp, they are two different methods of measuring the same thing. The at the wheel measurement is what your car is putting down to the ground. The crank measurement is good for comparing hp between factory cars.
Remember though that the change from gross hp to net hp happened in '72.
There were still some good performance cars in that era that lived up to expectations (L89 Vette comes to mind). It is interesting to see what people are running today:

__________________
2014 Sterling gray GT 6M
Paxton Novi 2200, DW1000 injectors, JMS BAP, ATI damper
Lethal ORP, MGW shifter, BMR upper and lowers, Spicer 1 piece DS, Ram Single disk clutch with aluminum flywheel, Power leather seat conversion. Staggered wheels.
605 RWHP on a safe tune
scott9050 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 02:36 PM   #49
Registered Member
Regular
 
2 Stangz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Region: Nevada
Posts: 2,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponie1992 View Post
You may want to reword that. 305 is greater than 300 any day. The GT would only have more HP at the wheels if the drivetrain is more efficient than that of the V6.
Can you not read? In my example the GT does have a more efficient drivetrain...
__________________
2010 GT Premium - Automatic - Torch Red
2 Stangz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 02:43 PM   #50
Registered Member
Regular
 
Voltwings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 3,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Stangz View Post
Can you not read? In my example the GT does have a more efficient drivetrain...

Why would it? Both cars have similar transmissions, 8.8 rears, wheels ... thats really just being nit picky and coming down to dyno variance at that point? Unless i also am misunderstanding something.
Voltwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 03:00 PM   #51
Registered Member
Regular
 
2 Stangz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Region: Nevada
Posts: 2,093
With a 5 horsepower difference, yes I am being nit picky. It was just an example.
__________________
2010 GT Premium - Automatic - Torch Red
2 Stangz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 03:47 PM   #52
Registered Member
Regular
 
ponie1992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Lexington
Region: South Carolina
Posts: 1,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Stangz View Post
Can you not read? In my example the GT does have a more efficient drivetrain...
If I'm not mistaken, the new autos are just as effifcient as older manuals. But, you can always compare cars with the same transmission. If not, the results are worthless imo.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
Jeremy
2016 Ruby Red PP GT
ponie1992 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 04:49 PM   #53
Registered Member
Regular
 
2 Stangz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Region: Nevada
Posts: 2,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponie1992 View Post
If I'm not mistaken, the new autos are just as effifcient as older manuals.
I've yet to hear about that. Gonna have to look into it. Of course Google can pull dyno numbers, but nothing consistent.
__________________
2010 GT Premium - Automatic - Torch Red
2 Stangz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 06:25 PM   #54
IS3
Registered Member
Regular
 
IS3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: SoCal
Region: California
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakib View Post
The name of the company you are thinking of is Kar Kraft Engineering out of Brighton, Michigan. The Boss 429 and 302 were bring developed at the same time in 1969 by Kar Kraft and Ford, respectively. 429 was intended for NASCAR, like you said. Actually they did run it in NASCAR. David Pearson and Richard Petty finished one and two, BOTH driving Boss Talladegas! But yes, then Ford pulled out of NASCAR.

I got all this info from my coffee table book "The Complete Book of Mustang". Relevant pages attached.

Sent from my HTCONE using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Correct me if I'm wrong but i read that the Boss 429 has 7.0L V8 engine
IS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 06:28 PM   #55
VIG
Registered Member
Regular
 
VIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Wilmington
Region: Delaware
Posts: 1,238
2011-2014 mustang v6 fake 305 hp

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponie1992 View Post
If I'm not mistaken, the new autos are just as effifcient as older manuals. But, you can always compare cars with the same transmission. If not, the results are worthless imo.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Mustang Evolution mobile app

They're as efficient MPG-wise due to torque converter lock up. When the torque converter locks, it's essentially the same as having your foot all the way off the clutch in a manual.

If you're doing a dyno run the torque converter won't be locking, meaning there's going to be some loss since there won't be a direct connection between the motor and the wheels like there is in a manual. There will be some slippage and that will convert to heat rather than horsepower.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
__________________
IG: workshardplayshard
VIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 06:31 PM   #56
VIG
Registered Member
Regular
 
VIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Wilmington
Region: Delaware
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by IS3 View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong but i read that the Boss 429 has 7.0L V8 engine

Yep. 429 cubic inches = 7 liters (7 and some change actually)


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
__________________
IG: workshardplayshard
VIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 06:31 PM   #57
Registered Member
Regular
 
mustangz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Virginia
Region: Virginia
Posts: 4,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by IS3 View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong but i read that the Boss 429 has 7.0L V8 engine
Not wrong.
__________________
2013 GT Premium, Red Candy Metallic, Recaro seats, Electronic package, Strut tower brace, Sway bars, SHR flush mounted window louvers, RTR street-spec axleback exhaust, Ford Racing Boss 302 Side Exhaust, RTR wheels, 50/35% Window tint, Steeda black shorty antenna, and Ford OE Matte Hood Vents.
mustangz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 06:35 PM   #58
IS3
Registered Member
Regular
 
IS3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: SoCal
Region: California
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIG View Post
Yep. 429 cubic inches = 7 liters (7 and some change actually)


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangz View Post
Not wrong.
HOLY $%*(T!!!!! It is like a Dumptruck engine lol
IS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 06:37 PM   #59
Registered Member
Regular
 
mustangz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Virginia
Region: Virginia
Posts: 4,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by IS3 View Post
HOLY $%*(T!!!!! It is like a Dumptruck engine lol
Not really. Plenty of 7.0L engines have been used. The c6 Corvette used an ls7 (7.0L) and it's in the 2014 Z28 Camaro.
__________________
2013 GT Premium, Red Candy Metallic, Recaro seats, Electronic package, Strut tower brace, Sway bars, SHR flush mounted window louvers, RTR street-spec axleback exhaust, Ford Racing Boss 302 Side Exhaust, RTR wheels, 50/35% Window tint, Steeda black shorty antenna, and Ford OE Matte Hood Vents.
mustangz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 06:39 PM   #60
IS3
Registered Member
Regular
 
IS3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: SoCal
Region: California
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangz View Post
Not really. Plenty of 7.0L engines have been used. The c6 Corvette used an ls7 (7.0L) and it's in the 2014 Z28 Camaro.

Man i love all these infos! All you guys ROCK!!!
IS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2014, 09:15 PM   #61
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
http://www.carsdirect.com/car-mainte...-transmissions

Here is a great write up on SAE HP vs whp: http://www.modified.com/tech/modp-10...s/viewall.html

If that automatic lost 2% or more HP from the crank than the manual, it had less HP at the wheels. Though let's be real; HP sells cars. Torque wins races.

Luke 11:9-10 “So I say to you ...*search and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 12:54 AM   #62
Registered Member
Regular
 
Bear376's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Stillwater
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 351
The 429 was not a big engine, but was a semi-hemi design which gave more HP potential. Ford had several notable big blocks. the 427 SOHC, 428, and 460 come to mind. The 427 cammer was often paired with dual carb manifolds. It was a race engine built on the popular 427 side oiler, called that because the first engines were traditional top oilers. I used one of the carbs from a 427 SOHC to run on my 302. GM had several engines of that genre, the 454 Chevy, the 455 Olds, and offered 502 and 572 crate engines. Mopar had the 426 Hemi, but the 426 wedge was no slouch. However, the 440 was the most popular engine, especially the 440 six-pack. It was a strong performer, but three two barrels were a pain to get tune right.

It should also be noted that the lack of the electronics today, meant that most engines were detuned to handle octane variations and other factors that could cause detonation. And drivetrain efficiency was a lot lower. An automatic was three gears which were always using the torque converter. Manuals were not much better. The hottest cars often used a modified C-6 Ford automatic for racing.
__________________
2013 MCA Edition-Sterling Grey
Roush body kit - Splitters/hood scoop
Whiteline suspension w/Koni shocks
Bear376 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 08:08 AM   #63
Registered Member
Regular
 
3.7Muscle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston
Region: Texas
Posts: 544
I love this forum. Awesome to learn something new everyday! I always wondered how "Times" have changed when it came down to HP in cars. Freaking amazing! I cant wait until I am financially able to open up my 3.7 but if time escapes me (usually does) Ill be getting a 5.0 later on!

Ford and Mustangs have opened my eyes to a whole new world of cars and I flippin love it!
3.7Muscle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 4 Cylinder | V6 | Classic Mustangs || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 V6 Mustang

Tags
2014 mustang

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
//////// whos got some nice rear pics with 305 tires //////////// prcmauricio Pictures and Videos 13 04-06-2013 12:29 PM
305 on laguna seca rims?? McQueen 2011-2014 Mustang GT 7 04-02-2013 02:43 PM
2 gt500 wheels with 305/35-18 nitto 555rs godsdisciple85 Mustang Parts for Sale and Wanted 2 02-07-2013 10:57 AM
285,295,305 or 315 for 18x10 rims?? 1hotv6 1996-2004 Mustang GT 21 09-21-2012 11:21 AM
Intimidator 305 wiarumas The Bar 3 09-13-2010 04:56 PM

» Like Us On Facebook



04:43 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.