Hated those Rustangs.

Discussion in '1983 Ford Mustang SVO' started by DANVM, Nov 11, 2002.

  1. Looked like a ryceburner.
     
  2. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    how so? It doesn't look like a rycer, and it existed long before the whole rycer craze, so by your definition all rycers look like this, not the other way around.
     
  3. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    No, that's not what I'm saying, and rycers have been in the US for a few decs
     
  4. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    bottom line, you're still an idiot for calling it a ryceburner. this car was pretty decent for the day, look at the stats. well, dont, cuz you obviously cant interpret them correctly.
     
  5. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    told
     
  6. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    I'm not calling it a ryceburner! And I read all the stats on every car! Man alive! Those crazy communists.
     
  7. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    Your retarded, go away.
     
  8. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    and calling it a ryceburner at the top of your thread is not calling it a ryceburner? you're pretty stupid. and if u read all the stats you'd know it wasnt a bad car. you're really stupid. Man alive! those crazy idiots.
     
  9. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    I said it looked like one.
     
  10. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    Reparted?
     
  11. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    Anyone else want to smack him?
     
  12. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    equally stupid for thinking it looks like one.
     
  13. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    How can it look like a rycer when it's got stock body panels and facia?
     
  14. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    Slow as sin... No matter what it looks like, for a SVO car, it's slow as sin, for a 'muscle-car' it's slow as sin, pretty much overall... sin is this slow.
     
  15. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    Have you ever driven one? Have you ever seen one in a race? It's not slow, I'm sorry. And remember, this is a mid eighties sports car. Not many of them (in it's price range) could pull 0-60 in 8.5. And it's not a muscle car, it hasn't been one in a long time.
     
  16. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    Bottom line guys, It was a mustang with a 4 banger, it wasn't all that fast and it was uglier then shit, the mustang was a decent car, this was a mistake. It looked like an ugly mustang THAT'S IT. Not the first time ford messed up, won't be the last.
     
  17. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    wasnt fast? sure hell of a lot faster than most mid-late 70's mustangs. this wasnt a mistake. TRACK car.
     
  18. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    Wow, your right, 0-60 in like what 8 seconds, Blistering. And it's still UGLY! Come on there is no way you can defend this car. It was really reliable to? This site is called SUPERCARS. Something this car is not.I like your passion, but come on, this is no Grand National.Even the 4 banger Talon would eat this for breakfast. I know different time but it's still a turbo 4. They should never throw lawnmower engines in muscle cars. Did you ever see what they did to the Nova and Charger. Chevette competition, a disgrace.
     
  19. Re: Hated those Rustangs.

    I've eaten TSi's myself with this engine. People have to get over this anti-4banger thing. There is a replacement for displacement, and it's called boost. And 8 seconds was an achievement in the early 80's.
     

Share This Page