This car rocks

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

  1. Re: this car sucks

    looks like american shit...want a real car? get a porsche...
     
  2. Re: this car sucks

    Their specs are way off! I have a 82 GT. Looks exactly the same as this car. With the 4spd and everything. And im telling you my car romps. It'll do the quarter in about 13.5 14 seconds. It acerates to 60 as fast as you can shift to 2nd gear. Im sorry but it doesnt do 118 tho. I have had mine up to nearly NOT close to being topped out 130 NOT close to being topped out . You do the math. Overdrive with 3.55 gears will do 150 or more. The MK1 GT 40 had direct drive and the same rear end gear and it does 220!. No it dont weight 6900lbs either. It weights 2900!!!! They screwed all up DOnt believe a word they say. I have a VIN # to prove it if ya'll want. Mine was wrecked alittle in the front and all abused and mine is still fast as hell. Its got posi and everything. I have 100ft burnout goin up my street just from letting off the gas and gass'in it alone. Oh ya I have a bad carb too. All that is WAY off. They need to come research my car. I'll show them an actually mustang. They must have tested like the 4 cylinder with like 3000lbs of junk metal in it. Or should have taken the parking brake off. That makes me so mad they would screw up so bad. And insult my car like that.
     
  3. Re: this car sucks

    521 mustang is right. My 82GT weighs less than 3000lbs; less than alot of new import four bangers. And hey, it was 1982, 21 years ago. Look at the technology then compared to now. Of course the car is going to be alot less refined than cars today. However, lets look at the cost to make a few modifications. For less than $500 my 82GT runs mid 13s in the quarter, and all of the work was done in my driveway(except for the exhaust welding). Let's see you do that with a car made in the last 5 years. The car serves it's purpose, low cost, easy to maintain, reliable, and fun. I think that it was the nicest looking stang built in the 80's(but of course I'm a bit biased), and the sound of real V8 power pounding through the glasspacks is enough to send buzzy little imports running for cover. In 1982 there was only 1 new car in North America with a 0-60 time faster than the Mustang and it was a Porsche. But don't get too excited German sports car fans, according to the magazines at the time, the mustang handled better. You can't compare apples to oranges, I think the 82GT is worthy of this page when you compare what was available at the time.

    You guys can yap all you want about what car runs the best 1/4 mile, but the fastest full-bodied car in the world in the 1/4 mile is a Mustang. John Force has the official record to prove it.
     
  4. Re: this car sucks

    This is one of the worst car I've ever seen !!!

    Ugly
    low powered
    very heavy
     
  5. Re: this car sucks

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 82agbulit</i>
    <b>521 mustang:
    The GT came with 3.07 rear end standard, and although the tranny does have overdrive, there is no way you could get a stock 82GT to go much faster than 115 or 120mph. My 82GT has a fresh 306, Weiand dual plane intake, full 2 1/2 exhaust(no cats, glasspacks), holley 4150, underdrive pulleys, etc, and I maxed it out at 140mph. That was not according to the speedo, that was calculated using (tire circumference
    x final gear ratio x RPM) Using a stock speedometer for trying to find your top speed is completely useless. They just aren't accurate, especially one that is 21 years old. Don't bother explaining to these people that the car doesn't weigh 7000 lbs, they don't seem to read previous posts before typing. For some reason supercar.net messed up and quoted the curb weight as 3130kg instead of 3130lbs. In regards to your turbo statement, yes you could get a 1982 mustang GT turbo, but it was a 4 cylinder turbo(which later spawned the 83-86 SVO mustangs) but it only made about 115hp. From what I understand the 82GT turbo is fairly rare in the US but isn't all that rare in Canada, in fact someone owns one just down my street. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->


    Hey ! May you, please, attach the pick of your car in your next note ?

    I like the pic and I would like to get a copy ! Please ! Where it is (below your name) I can't copy !

    Thanks !<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. Re: this car sucks

    Here you go:
    The Black 1982 GT is my dad's that he bouught brand new in 82.
    The silver one is mine. I've had it for about 5 years.
    We also have a 1985 GT convertible, and a 1984 GT350 convertible.
     
  7. #32 82agbulit, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: this car sucks

    Go to:
    www.uwinnipeg.ca/~pburnett
    It's my university web page that I'm building right now. It's not really finished, but the pictures are there. The black 82 GT is my dad's that he ordered from the factory. The silver one is mine that I bought about 5 years ago. We also own a 1985 GT 'vert, and a 1984 GT350 'vert. Pics of those are on the page too. Enjoy.......

    -Paul
     
  8. this car Rocks !

    Thanks !<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. Re: this car sucks

    I gave up on reading this thread after the first page. People, I agree it's slow in stock form. But it's a fuggin 5.0. The king of aftermarket support. Pick up a copy of 5.0 mustangs, or MM&FF, you'll see a street legal '79 in the 10s in every issue. By the way, I don't know how many of you are familiar with the mid-70s to mid-80s, but ALL performance cars sucked then.<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. Re: this car sucks

    Mustangs rule chevy shut ur mouth ford + shelby rule they got the history there classics v8's rule the sound the smell the power!!!!!
     
  11. Re: this car sucks

    I never want to have this car; low hp, high weight.
     
  12. Re: this car sucks

    WTF r you talking about, they have porsches with over 1600HP, from the stock block! and would kill your 9-10sec. 1/4 rustang. and so you know, talking about 4 cyls, bigger motors do put out more power, most of the time, but better built motors put out more power too! toyota tested a 500HP 4 cyl na. and if you look at the newest modle of the supra, it came out in 1993, compare the 320HP TT6cyl to the '93 stangs 205HP V8? the supra rules the mustang, ok, take off the turbo's, the STD 6 cyl supra is 220HP vs the 205HP v8, and in both TT and na. the supra is 100 lb's lighter. Ps. the supra is the best looking car of all time <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>

    also, most people take 4cyl's and tune them, because they are cheap, reliable, and very light weight as every true racer knows, weight is the key to every thing. to prove it, there is a '60's bug around where i live with a nissan maxima motor, 255HP, but it's weight is only around 1200lb's, and it runs flat 11's in the 1/4 mile! thats why people go with 4cyls because the weight is so much less!
     
  13. Re: this car sucks

    No one bought 'em? That's why Mustang has always outsold Camaro's? That's why Camaro is cancelled due to poor sales and Mustang's next generation is in the final design stages?
    Come on, dude, and get REAL!
    (The funny thing is, it has always been the more base model ‘Stangs that have made the sales, even though the “hot rods” get more press. The ‘Stang that’s sent the competition to the glue factory has been the base model 4 & 6-cyl, and to a lesser degree more recently, the mid-range 8’s. The GT’s, Z/28’s, et all are just good image building, and good press. Sorry, I like “super cars” as much as the next guy, but in the real world, the “grocery getters” really pay the bills for carmakers.)
    Mustangs and Camaro's have had some incarnations that are considered "super cars" by people who's bank accounts aren't even bigger than their ego's.
    And, not to be rude to some of the folks that have made really lop-sided comparisons, but it is idiotic to judge a car from an era when regulations nearly KILLED performance by the standards of today, and say it bites.
    Rare and expensive cars had better be fast, or someone wasted their money. The 1982-1993 5.0 was an affordable GT for the “regular guy”. Could it beat a Ferrari? No. But how many GT ‘Stangs could you buy for the price of one Ferrari? Do the math.
    Let’s take some of those Vipers and others brought up, and let ‘em take on a 1965 Shelby Mustang GT 350R with the Paxton super-charger option. Then we’ll see who sucks, rare and expensive to rare and expensive.
    I remember the late 70's and early '80's. It was a time when even if you could still get a big block in a few cars, it was down-rated to a weak-suck 139hp or something. Insurance corporatism and the EPA had nearly managed, for all intents and purposes, to outlaw factory performance. Ford comes out with an "H.O." V-8 that could meet the EPA and other government requirements had heavy-duty fittings for those with "aggressive driving styles", and 157hp. In those days, it was the Holy Grail! Nothing short of a priceless exotic or expensive import had more power. Every year or two Ford upped the ante until by 1993 the top of the line version of the ol' pushrod 5.0 had 240hp stock, naturally aspirated. It actually put out about as much torque as the dual overhead cam 4.6, prior to the new supercharged Cobra.
    The GT was King, in it's day. Late on, Chevy did whip out the rare and pricey 5.7 TPI, but that was at the end of the day, with the 4.6 already on the horizon.
    Wanna slam the GT 5.0? Fine. List some stock factory cars from the SAME time period that could whip its butt, in the SAME price range:
    ………………………………(Crickets chirp, all is quiet……….)………
     
  14. Re: this car sucks

    The top of the line ’93 ‘Stang was the Cobra. It had 240hp, naturally aspirated. More than the Supra naturally aspirated.
    The 4.6 DOHC V-8 in the Cobra has had 320 hp, also N.A.
    The new supercharged model has nearly 400 hp.
    The Supra IS good-looking, but its a matter of opinion that it is better looking than the 'Stang. The Next Generation 'Stang is being designed from the ground up to integrate a more performance oriented platform, and will be available with even more power. For what those TT/supercharged imports cost, it will be possible to buy top of the line Mustangs with comparable, if not even better performance.
    Mustang has come of age, and is now available in versions that are true sports coupes, not just stoplight racers.
    The imports have REAL competition, now.
    (And, American cars now offer high-tech and V-8 in one potent package.
    Most imports don't. Imagine that Supra with the DOHC V-8 from the SC-400, and a supercharger.......)

    I do agree about 4-cyl. having potential. The SVO Mustang is not very well liked by fans compared to the 5.0's. Yet, at the time, it offered affordable high performance (essentially comparable to the 5.0) in an overall better-balanced package than the 5.0's.
    However, any modification that can be made to a 4 or 6 cyl. can be made to a V-8, with even more resulting hp. So, the poster that says a 4 can't put out more than an 8 IS correct. And, a normally aspirated V-8 can typically put out as much, if not more, power than a hopped-up small motor, and will be less complex, more reliable, and longer lasting.
    BTW, I've been into cars for a while. I've never met a 1,600 hp Porsche on the street. What dealers stock those? Where can you license that? How much would that COST, anyway. Couple truckloads worth of "rustangs”?
    Get Real! I've seen a full-sized semi at a drag strip with a jet engine. What's that have to do with the real world, and cars that people actually drive?
     
  15. Re: this car sucks

    hey that supra youre comparing with has a 3 liter straight six, and nearly the same power as the 5.0 V8 ... the turbo version has 320 hp stock --- ive seen video of a supra running 874 RWHP on a dyno, hows that for tuning the engine?
     
  16. Re: this car sucks

    If I could afford a Benz I'd buy a Ferrari..lol..anyways this car sucks
    ass!Look at it,it's uglier than Hell and it's slower than a turtle!
     
  17. Re: this car sucks

    You can still make a car with a large engine fast. Look at the Mosler Photon MT900. Light as #$%#, and hangs with the best. Besides, V8's have way more potential that I4's, so don't say anything about I4's being the best when it comes to racing, because everybody knows thei is no replacement for displacement.
     
  18. Re: this car sucks

    Just to let you know, I have a 1984 Mustang GT. Mine has a 5.0L 4V HO engine. It only weighs 3100 pounds. It has a lot more horsepower than what was said. It does 0-60 in like 4 to 5 seconds. My top speed is unknown, because I have a 5 speed manual transmission and in 3rd I have gotten it up to 85 mph. Then I have 4th and then 5th gear, so I know the top speed is a lot over 120 mph. With how light the car is, and with an engine bigger than my dad's full size van, it goes fast. If you don't believe me, than you can come down here and I'll give you a ride.
     
  19. Re: this car sucks

    "It only weighs 3100 pounds. It has a lot more horsepower than what was said. It does 0-60 in like 4 to 5 seconds" it more than likely weighs more than that, it definitely does not have more horsepower (unless you have your own personal dyno how could you possibly know how much power you have) And if your car can get to 100km/h in less than 6 seconds that's astounding, considering the 2001+ Mustang GT takes 6 seconds to get to 60mph.

    No, I don't think you know WTF you're talking about. You're just estimating with a bias.
     
  20. Re: this car sucks

    man i cant believe the owner of a fake porsche would even speak out 944 what a laugh 944 turbo almost as bad sad sad sad
     
  21. Re: this car sucks

    hey i own a 82 gt also and i'm tellin you i've had mine over 120mph bone stock.otherwise i agree with all your other facts 82gt's rock
     
  22. Re: this car sucks

    The new Mustang GT's only have a 4.8L V8, that is why I know that my 5.L V8 with 4V per cylinder, and High Output would beat it.
     
  23. Re: this car sucks

    The new Mustang GT's have a 4.6 litre V8, more power and torque, better power delivery, better gearing, better everything, and is MUCH faster.


    Oh, and my 1990 Civic Si (stock) beat a 1984 GT no problem, and I know my Civic isn't anywhere near as fast as a new Mustang GT.

    I've also driven one of those old Mustang GT's and I must say, I was quite disappointed with how slow they were.

    LOL a buddy of mine owned a 1986 GT, and he couldn't even get it to go past 140km/h. So I think you're FOS.
     
  24. Re: this car sucks

    before i modded my 89 stang, it wasnt the fastest but wasnt slow by any means...mildly modded i ate a 99 gt alive...wen i say mildly modded i mean a fenderwell intake, full exhaust, manual valvebody and thats all...the potential is there it just that ford uses horrible stock components that it restricts flow and such...
     
  25. Re: this car sucks

    *IDEA* I don't doubt that you can get a stock 4-banger with the same power as the stock mustang...just look at honda. So which car has more potential? Lets blow 12 lbs. of boost and a 200 shot of Nitrous Oxide into each and see where the 1/4 times go. Nor do I doubt the existance of a 1600 hp 944...what's the damn thing cost? What if we were to dump the same money and mods into the 'stang? Now who's faster?
    Don't compare a N/A mustang to a car with a blower...compare apples to apples. If you want to ***** about the 'stang...let's talk v-8's.
    Price wise, I'd have to go with the mustang for Hp/dollars/mod potential ratio regardless of the engine.
    Please people, when you're done bullshitting about the cars you don't have, learn to spell.
     

Share This Page