IMPORTS SUCK

Discussion in '1982 Ford Mustang GT' started by tozilla1, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    if there was a gas crisis they should not have made it 5L! or a V6! they could have made a 157HP 3L V6, that would use less gas. or a turbo I4 (i know in the 80's motors where not as good, but a turbo 2l 4cyl could make 157HP) and both of those would use less gas. hell even a 4L V8 would be better for gas.

    so if this car is bad because of the gas crisis, they could have made a smaller motor with better MPG, and the same HP.
     
  2. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    This thread is stupid. Both attacks on American and Imports are stupid. Yes american muscle cars are good, but that dosent mean that other countries can build good cars. Personlay i think both Ford Mustangs and Merces SL's kicks ass! So stop flaming eachother (bet somone is going to flame me and say that American or imports suck.. hehe...)
     
  3. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    That is true, but torque will always be an important factor, my friend. You say torque is useless, and high RPM's are more important.
    You need to have enough torque to get you launching to those RPM's. If I were to drive a 600 HP car that has a redline of 8000 RPM, the max torque output better be at least four-hundred ft/lbs. at 6800 RPM or something.
    Come on now, if I have a high HP car that revs at 9000 RPM, what good is the power if I don't have the torque to redline it quickly?
     
  4. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    I see so much ignorance in this forum. Let me clear this up.
    HP/liter is not important, was never important, and will never be important, performance wise, or economically.
    A car with high HP/l is a car with extremely high revs, but no torque. It also wastes fuel faster, since the engine works faster.

    I still do agree that 157 HP from that much displacement is pathetic. At least HP in the low 200's would have been okay, but what do you expect, it's the 80's.
     
  5. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    Ok Ford didnt need to make a smaller engine. If ur gonna bash this Mustang, why not the 76 or 77. Those had 302 engines w/ around 122 horsepower. Its because of the emissions standards, not because Ford couldnt make a powerful engine.
     
  6. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    Actually, he's half right...SALEEN ROUSH MUSTANG!
     
  7. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    if u didnt realize this, the 1924 Mercedes Monza was a straight 8 not a V8 and it also didnt have any kinds of emmision controls which is what really killed the late 70's and early 80's mustangs. Plus this mustang, and many other american cars that were still recovering from the harsh emmision controls that were instated in the mid 70's, were big improvements from previous models such as the Mustang II in this case. Plus its doesnt take much to make this of any other 5.0 Ford incredibly fast. And just to let you know even though the monza had more horsepower and weighs over 5000lbs less than this mustang, the mustang is still faster than it.
     
  8. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    The reason Ford used the 5.0L was becasue it was the smallest V8 motor they produced at that time and for the Ford Mustang the initials GT always signifies that the car is V8. They weren't going to put a 351, 390, or a 427 in it and make 157HP and they definitely didnt want to have to design a new block.
     
  9. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    What about the 170hp 900kg Honda City TurboIIR? That was a damn quick little car, designed to be a daily driver AND beginner's race car, it dominated its class for 5 years. Then there was The Civic RS, the Corolla GTi (AE86), Celica GTS, RX-7, Datsun 510, Datsun 280z, Nissan Skyline GTR, and a whole slew of others I can't think of right now.

    Those are some of the amazing cars that "jap crap" companies had produced by 1982. EVERY SINGLE one of those cars were faster than the 1982 Mustang, AND produced far fewer emissions, AND were more fuel efficient, so think before you talk smack next time, OK?
     
  10. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    american cars dont suck a$$ you do
     
  11. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    imports do not suck but neither do american cars they both have their good things and bad but neither of them suck
     
  12. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    "before criticizeing someone, walk a mile in there shose, that way, you are a mile away from them, and you have there shose." Yeah, but then you won't be able to criticize them, and if you're wearing their shoes, you might get athlete's foot. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  13. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    mustangs will always suck.
     

  14. Re:
    IMPORTS SUCK


    mustangs will always rock the best cars ever made so shut up i love mustangs and all but this things pathetic and will still kik import ass!!!! if you dont like mustangs you can stay the hell off the mustang forums!!!!!!!! ass holes<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  15. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    Stop speaking with your a$$ and see some facts. Don't make pointless arguments like yours that have no facts in them at all. Oh wait... there were some facts... like the '82 Mustang's ungodly powerful 157hp V8 or just saying that all imports suck.
     
  16. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    "will still kik import ass" it will huh? then why don't you look at my post 7 posts above this one, all of those cars (of the same time) would easily kick this one's ass, and they all had MUCH smaller engines, and most had more horsepower.
     
  17. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    Yes and that's why 5.0L Mustangs can be made to run the quatermile under 9 seconds. Really it doesn't take much to moddify a stang. Even replacing the headers alone can give an extra 75 hp and an extra 60 lbs torque at minimal prices for about $1000. And the Mustang's engine is small. 5.0L is small for a V8. Big blocks in today's world are nearly non-existant. It's really not very hard to make a Mustang run circles around any other car in the quatermile or on track and for less as well. A quick look through any Mustang 5.0L magazine can tell you that. And the later 87' version had 225 hp and 320 lbs torque. If you want to tell me thoose figures are bad for a stock car, I'd like you to consider the non-existant torque output on your 4 bangers.
     
  18. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    so what do you drive a civic?protege? probably with a extra hot muffler oooooh!
     
  19. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    oh look this guy has read a bunch of car and drivers ooooooh so impressed really easy to own a porsche online!
     
  20. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    BUILDING AN IMPORT IS LIKE STANDING IN FRONT OF A FAN AND PISSING AND TRYING TO STAY URINE FREE. YOU JUST CANT MAKE A 9 SEC STREET CAR OUT OF A CAROLLA DOG!!!!
     
  21. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    Yeah, cuz we've all seen 9sec. 1982 Mustangs everywhere we go.

    I don't think there even is a 1982 Mustang GT that can run under 12sec. (still pretty good).

    Well, considering most 4bangers weight as much as 1/3 less (and considering torque is useless for anything other than for fools who don't know how to drive to show off), the "non-existent torque" is still about the same ratio to its weight, as the ratio for your (overrated) figures for the 87 Mustang GT.
     
  22. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    So what about the V6 GT?
     
  23. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    my friend... there is no such thing as a v6 gt...
     
  24. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    I believe there was an 84 V6


    Edit: GT
     
  25. Re: IMPORTS SUCK

    really... coulda fooled me... well i dont doubt that there was, it just wasnt called "v6 gt".... all mustang gt's have sported a v8
     

Share This Page