Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Gallery
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-07-2009, 03:42 AM   #4291
Golden Master
 
alvino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,967
Send a message via AIM to alvino
Default Re: Car Thread!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabbs View Post
Mustangs/Camaro's aren't worth buying if you aren't gonna get the V8 versions.
Agreed. QFT.
__________________

alvino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 11:21 AM   #4292
Golden Master
 
superman22x's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,903
Send a message via MSN to superman22x Send a message via Yahoo to superman22x
Default Re: Car Thread!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabbs View Post
Mustangs/Camaro's aren't worth buying if you aren't gonna get the V8 versions.
That's true. Especially the newer ones where they weigh around 4k for the mid 90s, and around 3500 for the 5th gen models. The Notchbacks could be pushed along with the 2.3T engine fairly well though. But it's the 351 where it's at...
__________________

__________________
“Adults are just obsolete children and the hell with them.” - Dr. Suess
superman22x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 11:28 AM   #4293
pud
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 133
Default Re: Car Thread!

there are exceptions to every rule....I do agree, but I would love to get me an SVO mustang. 2.3L I4 turbocharged, Ive seen them hit 11s and lower in the 1/4 mile on stock shortblocks.
edit: 408w is where its at!
pud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 12:49 PM   #4294
Golden Master
 
superman22x's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,903
Send a message via MSN to superman22x Send a message via Yahoo to superman22x
Default Re: Car Thread!

408w, that would be nice, haha. What kind of mileage did you get in that 351w truck?
__________________
“Adults are just obsolete children and the hell with them.” - Dr. Suess
superman22x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 07:31 PM   #4295
pud
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 133
Default Re: Car Thread!

it was my bro's truck. Dunno the mpg, all I could tell you is "bad" lol...maybe 12mpg downhill in nuetral with a tailwind .

Have you check out therangerstation.com? good site. All bout rangers.
pud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2009, 09:09 PM   #4296
Golden Master
 
Cabbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,912
Send a message via AIM to Cabbs
Default Re: Car Thread!

Yeah, those SVO's are nice. I'd drive one.
__________________
=Like anime? Come to AnimeAppeal.com!=
||DFI UT P35||Q9550@3400 Mhz||Geil 4GB RAM||Radeon 5770||
Cabbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 01:35 PM   #4297
pud
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 133
Default Re: Car Thread!

I photoshopped these a couple years ago, mustang II coupe. I always thought they were just plain ugly, but there was something about them that I liked....like a glimmer of hope to look kinda cool. So I took some pics in photoshop and tried to make something cool out of em.




Im not so great at photoshop, and I dont really dig the colors...but those look pretty cool I think.

I did this one in paint, before I found photoshop
pud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 01:58 PM   #4298
Golden Master
 
superman22x's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,903
Send a message via MSN to superman22x Send a message via Yahoo to superman22x
Default Re: Car Thread!

They are pretty good photoshops. At least a helluva lot better then I could've done.

I go on therangerstation all the time, along with RangerPowerSports.com It's because of those sites I am now making my goal 300hp and more in torque, haha. I am still contemplating what to do... A 351 from a late 80s or early 90s, a 302 from the same year, or maybe fab up an m90... A 351 and 302 will fit about the same, since they are basically the same engine, 351 would have gobs of torque with that extra stroke though. And I've heard a 351 ends up with around the same mpg as a 302 because of hte low-end torque, it runs at a lower RPM, but uses a bit more gas per RPM because it is bigger.
I am also unsure about the transmission... I want a Manual, which would leave me with only a T-5, but it may be easier to start out with an automatic. I don't want a C-4 as that is only a 3 speed, and the final drive ratio is 1:1, I want something like .67:1 to match my 3.08 gears so when cuising at 60 mph, I am running at like 1500 rpm... which may be even too low for cruising on a 302... Don't want to lug the engine. And AOD has a 4th gear ratio of .67, but I've heard there is a lot of power loss in that transmission...
__________________
“Adults are just obsolete children and the hell with them.” - Dr. Suess
superman22x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 03:07 PM   #4299
Golden Master
 
alvino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,967
Send a message via AIM to alvino
Default Re: Car Thread!

I almost misread therangerstation for theANGERstation.
alvino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2009, 04:37 PM   #4300
pud
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 133
Default Re: Car Thread!

I post on TRS as pud as well.

the AOD, some people love it, others hate it. I wouldnt put one behind a performance engine personally. But for a stock motor, cruiser it is a great tranny.

You could do an M5OD 5 speed manny trans from an F150/bronco also.

As Im sure you know, the 351w is 1.297" (351w -9.503", 302 -8.206") taller than the 302 which also makes it wider. Thats why the W has more issues with the heater box clearance in tah rangers.

if t'was my ranger, Id find an explorer 5.0L and dump it in there then save for a s/c. No point in pissing around with bolt on's when by the time youre done you couldve bought a blower and been higher on the hp/tq #'s AND had a MUCH better torque curve.
More power =more fuel. More fuel requires more air. More air requires larger ports and valves in the heads, more lift & duration on the cam and longer runners in the intake. ALL of which will lower air velocity through the intake into the cylinders. This will kill efficiency and your low end power.
The exact opposite is true if you want low end power, you have to sacrifice top end.
Now enter the world of superchargers and you always have more air, thus requiring more fuel and creating more power...without really having to settle for a happy medium in your power-rpm range trade off.

Now IMO its better to run less boost on higher flowing heads, than more boost on poorer flowing heads. Boost is a positive pressure in the intake and trying to add more volume into a positive pressure atmosphere creates resistance, in return robbing HP.
__________________

pud is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0