oh the 80's oh the shame

Discussion in '1982 Ford Mustang GT' started by FORDFORD, Feb 10, 2003.

  1. 80's were so gay, lucky i was born 1987, i only had to live thru them when i was still a lil tike, crap music crap cars, excluding the detomaso pantera GT5, and crap, everything!
     
  2. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    The 80's were a bad year for American car makers. The low budget on America caused Ford, Chevy, and Dodge to make some shitty-ass, ugly cars.

    I was born in 1987 too. That makes us 15-year olds.
     
  3. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    I really hate the way the 80's Mustangs look. They've got to be the worst ones ever.
     
  4. Re:

    The 80's sucked for American cars,especially fords,but Euro and Asian cars were still awesome in the 80's.Example,Porsche had their 911 turbos,
    944 turbos and 928s models,Ferrari had 328GTS,512BBi,Testarossa,288GTO
    and ofcourse the mighty F40,Lamborghini had the Countach.

    From the Asian side there were the Nissan 300ZX turbo,Toyota Supra turbo
    and of course RX-7 turbo.to name a few...But man look at this thing(mustang)it's disgusting!lol
     
  5. Re: Re:

    Hell yeah!!! Ford made some "ghetto" cars in the 80's. Those cars were so ghetto, they broke in half when the crossed a railroad track!
     
  6. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    some of u people need to get a life. have you seen the mustang 2. its the worst mustang ever made. the specifications on this car are wrong. my dad had the exact same car. it would do well over 118 mph and had more horses. so the gut that says his moms minivan can go faster, can kiss my ass.
     
  7. Ish!!!!

    one word....Ugly!!!!
     
  8. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    I'm not surprised. When I talk to most of you it sounds like you're all born in 1987.

    This wasn't a bad car for the time. And some of the Mustangs best years were the EFI 5.0's in 1987+.
     
  9. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    You haven'theard of the Jiotto Caspita, circa 1989, have you.

    But yeah, it was crap music (Vanilla Ice. That sums it up...
     
  10. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    wow, i just had a nightmare of vanilla ice driving this car...i'm scarred for life, seriously...
     
  11. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    With '88 Mustangs the situation improved, but the78-87 ones really sucked, they had little and fake hood scoops and other fake things.
     
  12. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    87 started the new body style...the fox III
     
  13. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    I'm not surprised. When I talk to most of you it sounds like you're all born in 1987.

    This wasn't a bad car for the time. And some of the Mustangs best years were the EFI 5.0's in 1987+.

    I'm not from '87 , I'm from '81 and while I respect 80's cars like the ones I mentioned in a previous post , this thing is just a piece of crap.

    I don't see why they put this thing on here but they didn't pust something that's way better in everyway shape or form and it's not exotic or way expensive like this thing.

    The car I'm talking about is something like a 80's Nissan 300ZX turbo,
    Toyota Supra turbo , Mazda Rx-7 turbo II and so on...

    All of these cars amongst others would spank this 'stang ,and not to mention they all look like decent enough cars unlike this pos.
     
  14. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    ok all you poor kids born in 1987. just a little update for you.
    in 1982 this slow 157 horsepower 1st mustang gt in the fox body was the fastest production car. also i love you little kids that dont even have cars ;rating them,what a joke. also for the moron rating rx7 turbos 300z turbos ect. these cars weren't even built until the mid to late 80s those that were produced in 82 were no competition. now if you want to talk about the later mustangs against these cars i'll be glad to give you actual accounts of my 89 lx 5.0 beating most of these cars at the local 8th mile track. oh yeh these days i buy and sell cars for a living. i love these new cars but there really is no substitute for the growl of a real live v-8 under the hood.
     
  15. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    Metallica made the 80's not suck too much
     
  16. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    "just a little update for you.
    in 1982 this slow 157 horsepower 1st mustang gt in the fox body was the fastest production car" LOL, R U on glue? it was far from the fastest production car.


    "also for the moron rating rx7 turbos 300z turbos ect. these cars weren't even built until the mid to late 80s those that were produced in 82 were no competition." I suppose then that the 1979 RX-7 is completely non-existent?? I think you just made apparent who the true MORON is here. And even the 1976 RX-7 was faster than this Mustang, and handled exceptionally better.

    Ha ha, the 80's lx was a POS, my dorm roommate's 1984 LX barely reached 140, couldn't accelerate worth Shite (my EF chassis Civic was considerably faster even in acceleration (much faster in fact), and at least it's capable of reaching beyond 200 km/h (stock of course), despite having 3.4litres less displacement.

    His LX also blew its engine when he revved it up to 5000rpm on the highway one day....w-e-a-k
     
  17. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    I have to say it bothers me that some of you that rate cars and whine about the horsepower numbers, have never actually driven a car, owned a car, raced a car, or have so much as cracked a valve cover off a car. Horsepower isn't everything. increasing a engine's torque output will give you better acceleration provided you also raise the final drive ratio. top speed also increases. Likewise, while engineering can replace displacement, good engineering applied to decent amounts of displacement results in mind boggling performance. when you take super-tuning to an extreme, you essentially destroy longevity of the engine...I'd much rather drive a 5.0 for 200,000 miles, than have a 1.8 turbo/nos whizbang motor blow up at 60k because it's spinning 2500rpm faster. BTW, horsepower/weight ratio has more of an effect on a car than most would like to believe. Why do you think a lotus is so damn fast? Cars aren't magic!! there's a mechanical reason for everything. You never get "something for nothing"...you get power from burning gas. Figure out how to burn more gas efficiently , and you get more power. Speed is a culmination of power/weight/gearing...not how much shiny aluminum you have under the hood.
     
  18. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    I assume that since you're referring to my sig, you're also referring to me when you talk about lack of driving, owning, racing, and mechanic work on a car. Well, when I first got my car it was in pretty good condition, but, wanting to learn how it all worked, me and a friend of my father's tore it apart, and rebuilt it from the ground up, allowing for a few durability modifications in the process. I've been driving for five years, and I rally race at an amateur level, granted I've only competed in one legal race, and ran checkpoints for another (my co-driver got in an accident just a couple days before the race, so I ran checkpoints instead), but it's more where I live than anything else that keeps me from racing more regularly (it's an 8 hour drive to where most of the nearest rallies are held).

    So if you are in fact referring to me, then you can just go to hell.


    "Likewise, while engineering can replace displacement, good engineering applied to decent amounts of displacement results in mind boggling performance" Yes, and we all know how a 1500kg Formula 1 car would decimate its 900kg competition <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/disappointed.gif"></A> The purpose for using small displacement engines in racing cars and decently performing cars is to keep the vehicle light, and help distribute the weight better. There's more to performance than just power, why do you think racing cars with 500hp often beat cars running 800hp. Hell, look at Group B rally cars, in a class in which most cars had around 600-800hp (normally about 550-700lbft torque), the fastest (Lancia Delta Integrale, Audi Quattro, etc.) only had around 350-450hp (normally around 250-400lbft torque). Why do you think that is? it's because they were better balanced in all areas of performance, the car worked quite well altogether. Hell, the Lancia Delta Integrale once ran a lap around a formula one course fast enough to qualify for 6th position in the next race that was to be held there. This from a 2.0 litre I4. So, unless you're drag racing, it's useless to engineer a large displacement engine well.

    Hate to break it to you, but the F20C (2.0 litre producing 250hp, and redlines at 9000rpm) is a far more reliable engine than ANY 5.0 I've ever seen, what 5.0 EVER won a "best engine" award (C&D), or received exceptionally high ratings for its power, efficiency, AND durability three years in a row?

    See, the reason Import manufacturers are good isn't because they can get large amounts of power out of a small displacement engine, anybody can do that, just increase the compression, and rpm that it runs to, and you can effectively get good power out of it. The reason American manufacturers stay away from this is because they are not good at making high performance, small displacement engines that are as reliable as any other car. The reason Japanese manufacturers are good in engine design, is that they excel at making a high performance, small displacement engine, that is just as reliable (if not more so) as the best cars you'll find in production.

    I dunno whether your an idiot, but I think everybody here knows power-weight is very important.

    BTW - have you heard of a little thing called negative Supercharging that an aftermarket company is doing for an exhorbitantly high price in the States? Well, the basic concept is a kit that programs the exhaust valves to open right at the end of combustion instead of afterwards, the result is the end of the combustion forces the exhaust gases out through the valve, the valve then closes, effectively creating a vacuum in the cylinder, when fuel and air are added, more air comes in, fuel is mixed more evenly, and greater pressures are created in the cylinder (essentially the same effect as a supercharger, only it sucks instead of blowing the additional pressure into the cylinder, and it's clean air rather than spent exhaust gases) with greater combustible volume. The end result is more power, greater fuel efficiency, and more thoroughly combusted exhaust gases. And guess what? this only recently started being used in North America (I believe in 1999), however it is exactly what Honda has been doing to their engines since the introduction of the D16A6, with their Civic Dragster concept, using the 3.2 litre engine from the NSX, a higher tuned version of the above mentioned engineering method, and a turbocharger, the car produces over 1000hp.

    And yes, Japanese manufacturers have figured out how to burn more gas efficiently (hybrids that outrun Corvettes??? wow, and yet, hybrids are old news now, even though we have yet to see one from a North American manufacturer), I think you're actually trying to be ignorant, and assume that people are claiming import manufacturers to "magically" get "something for nothing".

    The ironic thing is, you yourself named just a few of the things that Japanese manufacturers have developed well, and use to produce high output engines from a small package.
     
  19. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    "This from a 2.0 litre I4. So, unless you're drag racing, it's useless to engineer a large displacement engine well."

    The mustang is built for drag racing, that's the point. So it has been designed exactly for it's purpose. 5.0 powered mustangs have held several NHRA drag racing records in STOCK classes, meaning that the 5.0 in STOCK trim, when matched to the Mustang, is an outstanding drag race car compared to other STOCK cars. Granted this has nothing to do with engineering, putting a strong V8 in a light chassis is really a no-brainer. Point being the car/engine does exactly what it is supposed to do, go fast in a straight line as cheap as possible.



    "Hate to break it to you, but the F20C (2.0 litre producing 250hp, and redlines at 9000rpm) is a far more reliable engine than ANY 5.0 I've ever seen, what 5.0 EVER won a "best engine" award (C&D), or received exceptionally high ratings for its power, efficiency, AND durability three years in a row?"

    The 5.0 never won any Car&Driver awards, but it did win best engine in 1987 in Hot Rod Magazine.


    "See, the reason Import manufacturers are good isn't because they can get large amounts of power out of a small displacement engine, anybody can do that, just increase the compression, and rpm that it runs to, and you can effectively get good power out of it. The reason American manufacturers stay away from this is because they are not good at making high performance, small displacement engines that are as reliable as any other car. The reason Japanese manufacturers are good in engine design, is that they excel at making a high performance, small displacement engine, that is just as reliable (if not more so) as the best cars you'll find in production."

    It's not like Import manufacturers are the only people that can do this. It's a matter of money. Gas is so cheap in North America, why bother putting in an expensive engine that is designed for better economy, when you can just throw a cheap engine in there and make more profit? It's the American way. And it will distroy their economy in the long run if it continues.


    "BTW - have you heard of a little thing called negative Supercharging that an aftermarket company is doing for an exhorbitantly high price in the States? Well, the basic concept is a kit that programs the exhaust valves to open right at the end of combustion instead of afterwards, the result is the end of the combustion forces the exhaust gases out through the valve, the valve then closes, effectively creating a vacuum in the cylinder, when fuel and air are added, more air comes in, fuel is mixed more evenly, and greater pressures are created in the cylinder (essentially the same effect as a supercharger, only it sucks instead of blowing the addit...bla, bla, bla"

    You could buy camshafts back in the 60's that did this. This is far from new technology. I bought a camshaft for my car that does this for $100.
     
  20. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    157hp? How can you argue with that?! This things a freakin beast!!! Nothing from the 90's up touches this thing!!! American muscle baby! Built FORD TOUGH!!!
     
  21. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    "You could buy camshafts back in the 60's that did this. This is far from new technology. I bought a camshaft for my car that does this for $100."

    Oh really? on a Carbeurated engine? right, I think you misunderstand how it works, considering it only works for fuel injected engines. Oh, and the only Aftermarket tuner that will do it for cars costs approx. $5000, so $100 would be an awesome deal, I'd think more people would be doing it.
     
  22. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    ok, explain to me how this "negative Supercharging" works. I'd love to hear how the timing of the valves has ANYTHING to do with an engine being fuel injected or Carbureted.
     
  23. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    it was a great performing car at the time. the design still sends chills down my spine at its uglyness though; i'd take a Mustang II any day over a box-body mustang. the 80's were pretty bad all around, except for the music...a lot of the music was damn good lol
     
  24. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    The valves within the cylinder, through which exhaust gases leave the cylinder? R U joking?
     
  25. Re: oh the 80's oh the shame

    "Well, the basic concept is a kit that programs the exhaust valves to open right at the end of combustion instead of afterwards, the result is the end of the combustion forces the exhaust gases out through the valve, the valve then closes, effectively creating a vacuum in the cylinder, wh...."

    "Oh really? on a Carbeurated engine? right, I think you misunderstand how it works, considering it only works for fuel injected engines."

    "The valves within the cylinder, through which exhaust gases leave the cylinder? R U joking?"

    No I am not joking. That quote is right out of your post. I would love to hear how the method of mixing air with gasoline has any impact at all on the valve timing.

    To me this "negative supercharging" sounds like "cylinder scavenging", something that has been around for over 50 years. Allow me to explain this amazing "new" technology that some "tuner" is charging a stupid amount of money for.....


    After the fuel/air mixture is ignited, the expansion of the burning gases will be complete prior to the piston reaching BDC, but there will still be pressure contained in the cylinder. When the exhaust valve starts to open prior to the piston reaching BDC (sound fimiliar? It should, it's exactly what you posted), some of the pressure in the cylinder will flow past the exhaust valve into the head’s exhaust port. As the piston starts its’ travel back up the cylinder, the piston forces the remaining gasses in the cylinder out through the exhaust port. The velocity of the exhaust gasses flowing past the valve into the port creates a negative pressure (vacuum) in the combustion chamber. Prior to the piston reaching TDC, the intake valve starts to open. The previously created vacuum in the combustion chamber will draw fresh air/fuel mixture into the combustion chamber and some will even escape into the exhaust port. This will ensure that all of the spent gasses are removed from the combustion chamber. This process is called "scavenging". When the piston reaches TDC and starts its’ travel back down the cylinder, the exhaust valve will go fully closed.

    The point in the cycle where the intake valve opens is very important. If the intake valve opens too late in the cycle, the initial amount of fuel/air mixture draw into the combustion chamber is reduced and spent gasses will not be effectively flushed from the chamber. If the intake valve opens too early in the cycle, vacuum will be reduced and exhaust gasses will be forced into the intake manifold. When exhaust gasses are forced into the intake manifold, vacuum is adversely affected and the intake runners will soot up. This effect is called "reversion".

    The point where the exhaust valve goes fully shut is also important. If the exhaust valve closes too late in the cycle, the combustion chamber will be "over-scavenged". This will cause an excessive amount of fuel/air mixture to escape into the exhaust port because the intake valve is still partially open. If the exhaust valve closes too soon, the scavenging effect will be reduced, trapping exhaust gasses in the combustion chamber.

    As you can see, valve overlap is a touchy time frame in the piston’s travel. Cam grinders have spent countless hours of research trying to get it just right.

    "The basic concept of the kit" as you put it, is just that. Basic. It's just clever marketing. Re-packaging something that has been around for decades. This is the heart and soul of the "tuner" market; Just recycling old ideas that hot-rodders have been doing for a long time, and then charging too much money for it. Like I said, go online and check out how much a camshaft, intake, and headers for a 350 Chev V8 costs, and it'll do the same thing your $5000 "tuner" kit does.

    There is nothing wrong with learning how engines work, or how to get more power out of them, just don't fall into the trap of thinking that all this stuff is "new", because as you can see, it really isn't. Do some research, and if you can find something in the "tuner" market that is truely new and innovative, I'd be seriously impressed.

    People get so sucked in by marketing hype, it's not even funny.
     

Share This Page