stupid kid with 97 civic thinks he can beat me hahah lmao

all he says is mines lighter hahaha and 90 hp/tq less LMAO [8D]

if he has a turbo, you are indeed toast. they don't make power but they are light

yeah... if he has a turbo... hahaha if he doesn't he'll be ****ing burnt toast hahah :D

this is not tech, and frankly you have a basically unmodified high 15 to low 16 second car, you better not laugh your ass off to much because it might get handed to you. not necessarily by the civic, but there are a lot of foreign and domestic four bangers that will give you a run for your money.

This is a waste of webspace. Your car is slow, too. It's a stock automatic V6 Mustang. You don't really have bragging rights, either.

haha i know tht but this kid is talking s***. i just find it funny.. i mean i dont go talking **** to GT's... same idea here 1.6 < 3.9

yea u have him but u dont have much more braggin rights

hahah all i said is i will beat some stupid civic bi***. im not saying there arent other cars tht will beat me hahahaha calm down...

1.6l honda motor = 79 hp per liter
3.9l ford motor = 49.5 hp per liter

you shouldn't talk **** unless you know what you are talking about, and posting in tech about how you can beat a civic means you do not know what you are talking about.

which motor is better depends on what you are looking for, so ignorant posts like 1.6 < 3.9 are useless

I noticed you put 1.6 for his engine size? If its a B16 then you will get your ass handed to you!! Sorry to say but all my friends are into honda's i know what they can do. Their power to weight ratio is way better than yours. If its a hatch with a B16 and a good driver, highly capable of high 13's. My friend has a gutted out hatch with a stock B16 and a 75 shot with some slicks and runs 12.3 in the 1/4.

I think the moral of the story is, don't laugh at him until you race him. Granted, a mere 5% of Civic owners actually know what they are doing to make a fast civic. But still, being cocky, esp with a V6 Mustang, isn't the way to go....

ORIGINAL: tightdogal

I think the moral of the story is, don't laugh at him until you race him. Granted, a mere 5% of Civic owners actually know what they are doing to make a fast civic. But still, being cocky, esp with a V6 Mustang, isn't the way to go....


+1000

yeah my friend has a civic hatch with a b16 with a turbo setup on it running low 12's

Orginal poster: Sure you will probably beat him, and he was talking smack, so I understand why you are a little hyped, but be careful with the generaliztions. And a question was your CAI worth it on your car as far as the seat of the pants dyno goes?

And Please do not start comparing motors based on output. You are comparing a DOHC, and aOHV motor, it is so useless when actually racing. I felt like I was reading Motor Trend, all this talk about output, and HP/Weight ratio. Just run them. You can "race" them on paper all day long, but it proves nothing.

I remember a civic actually pulled up next to me on the freeway and reved to go...I laughed so he kept reving.

Needless to say 15 cars later I slowed down as he zipped by with his ricer flyby as I laughed lol

ORIGINAL: Autobadges.com

I remember a civic actually pulled up next to me on the freeway and reved to go...I laughed so he kept reving.

Needless to say 15 cars later I slowed down as he zipped by with his ricer flyby as I laughed lol



now thats a funny story

just out of curosity and im lazy and dont feel like looking it up how much hp do stock 3.9L v6's push? (at the wheels witha 5spd)

193 HP, I believe.

ORIGINAL: 94Blk5.0

Orginal poster: Sure you will probably beat him, and he was talking smack, so I understand why you are a little hyped, but be careful with the generaliztions. And a question was your CAI worth it on your car as far as the seat of the pants dyno goes?

And Please do not start comparing motors based on output. You are comparing a DOHC, and aOHV motor, it is so useless when actually racing. I felt like I was reading Motor Trend, all this talk about output, and HP/Weight ratio. Just run them. You can "race" them on paper all day long, but it proves nothing.


my point was that he made a simple generalization about the 1.6l < 3.9l, but based on what? i know that the little engine is high technology and not comparable to the old school pushrod motors, he obviously doesn't know anything other than generalizations. each motor has its strengths, and racing is not the civic's strength, but then again without knowledge and work neither is racing a strentgh of a 3.8L mustang or 3.9L for that matter.

ORIGINAL: 99RedStang

193 HP, I believe.

193 at the crank it assume 15-20% drivetrain loss for whp. so like 155-165 whp.

At rear wheels the neighborhood of 160, depending. They are rated at 193 at the flywheel and factor a 10-15% driveline loss with a manuel and you get 164HP with a 15% loss in threoy.

hp to Liter is good if you have the motor sitting on a stand, in the car its hp to weight thats important, figure that out and youll have a better idea.

Remember you can compenstae for a low HP to LBS ratios with gears. A lot of other factors come into play when racing, driver, condtion of car, aerodymanics, weight, power, gearing, the list goes on.
Torque thrills.

ORIGINAL: Xemeth

This is a waste of webspace. Your car is slow, too. It's a stock automatic V6 Mustang. You don't really have bragging rights, either.


Stock? Check out his sig, some of that isnt stock..

[
ORIGINAL: scottmcg86

ORIGINAL: Xemeth

This is a waste of webspace. Your car is slow, too. It's a stock automatic V6 Mustang. You don't really have bragging rights, either.


Stock? Check out his sig, some of that isnt stock..


He has only two things, exhaust and cai. The cai is adding nothing, maybe 1-2hp if it all and the exhaust really does affect that much unless its a full exhaust.

exactly auto is 20% loss

so 193 hp is 154.4rwhp



15% for 5 speed

so 193hp is 164.05rwhp

why do people race civics though? i mean the whole point of the civic was cheap transportation! thats why they introduced it during the oil embargo when performance was frowned upon
you want a fast honda? get an s2k, god i love those cars... badass little 4 banger

i guess the same reason we wanna race the b6 mustang when we could just go get a gt.....most people cant afford the gt...or s2000

ORIGINAL: spoke2go1

why do people race civics though? i mean the whole point of the civic was cheap transportation!

you do understand that, on that same logic the v6 mustang was made on the same basis right??????????? LOL

unrelated but how do i get my sig to show up like a pic?

no, im talkin about the people who drop thousands in turbos and body kits and neons when they could use that money on an s2k! i mean we all drive 6er mustang but alot of us want to upgrade to the gt

and there has always been a 6 in the mustang, they never got rid of it

that and i dont know if yall have noticed this but there is nothin cheap about our cars
they guzzle about as much gas as a v8, they have the same probs as the v8 and cops watch us as much as the v8s
mustang, be it 4, 6 or 8 cyls are not cheap transportation

civic are 4 door econoboxes designed to get you to point a to point b

so thats why the si's can hang and beat alot of the 6ers huh?

yeah, were the entry level were generally the first to get beat

ORIGINAL: tightdogal

I think the moral of the story is, don't laugh at him until you race him. Granted, a mere 5% of Civic owners actually know what they are doing to make a fast civic. But still, being cocky, esp with a V6 Mustang, isn't the way to go....


Agreed.

ORIGINAL: spoke2go1
and there has always been a 6 in the mustang, they never got rid of it


Correct me if Im wrong but from 79 to 93 didnt they just have 2.3s or 5.0s??? I dont remember them having a 6er back them, butI could be wrong.

Matt

ORIGINAL: scottmcg86

ORIGINAL: Xemeth

This is a waste of webspace. Your car is slow, too. It's a stock automatic V6 Mustang. You don't really have bragging rights, either.


Stock? Check out his sig, some of that isnt stock..


You're right, my mistake. He has a CAI and a catback. Watch out Terminators!

i think it would be kind of funny if you race him and he has swapped in a B18C5 or H22 engine into that car. you also didn't say what model he has, or if it has anything done to it. so for all we know he might not be stock

ORIGINAL: Matts 85 LX

ORIGINAL: spoke2go1
and there has always been a 6 in the mustang, they never got rid of it


Correct me if Im wrong but from 79 to 93 didnt they just have 2.3s or 5.0s??? I dont remember them having a 6er back them, butI could be wrong.

Matt

you planted that little seed of doubt in the back of my head so i had to go check and yes from what im seein on american muscle's mustang history section there has always been a 6

ORIGINAL: Xemeth

ORIGINAL: scottmcg86

ORIGINAL: Xemeth

This is a waste of webspace. Your car is slow, too. It's a stock automatic V6 Mustang. You don't really have bragging rights, either.


Stock? Check out his sig, some of that isnt stock..


You're right, my mistake. He has a CAI and a catback. Watch out Terminators!



BAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

ORIGINAL: spoke2go1

ORIGINAL: Matts 85 LX

ORIGINAL: spoke2go1
and there has always been a 6 in the mustang, they never got rid of it


Correct me if Im wrong but from 79 to 93 didnt they just have 2.3s or 5.0s??? I dont remember them having a 6er back them, butI could be wrong.

Matt

you planted that little seed of doubt in the back of my head so i had to go check and yes from what im seein on american muscle's mustang history section there has always been a 6


only 4 eye foxes had 6ers
aero fox bodys never had them

ORIGINAL: spoke2go1

ORIGINAL: Matts 85 LX

ORIGINAL: spoke2go1
and there has always been a 6 in the mustang, they never got rid of it


Correct me if Im wrong but from 79 to 93 didnt they just have 2.3s or 5.0s??? I dont remember them having a 6er back them, butI could be wrong.

Matt

you planted that little seed of doubt in the back of my head so i had to go check and yes from what im seein on american muscle's mustang history section there has always been a 6


there has not always been a 6. you are wrong check your facts again.

autobadges - that is a very true and very funny point!

You're like the bully that picks on the little guy, and the little guy actually holds his own pretty well.

just did, and there has
my source is a book that i got a few years back called "100 years of ford, a centenial celebration of the ford motor company"
it goes through every year showing the lineup of cars ford was offering and each year they had a 6 cyl

lets start with 1964 had an inline six as an entry level mustang
1965-larger base six and three optional 289 v8s
1972- price of a six cylinder mustang -$2729
1974- mustang II had the 170 inch v6
1980- 3.3 v6 engine was in the mustang
1983- 3.8 v8 replaced the 3.3
been a 3.8 in the mustang since 2004 then it got replaced as you all know by the 4.0

see, befor i make statements like there has always been a six in the mustang i try to do as much research as i can and it pays off when im right


*edit*3.9 in the 04 my bad

from 1987-1993 the 3.8L V6 option was dropped. There was only a 2.3L four cylinder and the 5.0. You are wrong.

ORIGINAL: WhitePony02

You're like the bully that picks on the little guy, and the little guy actually holds his own pretty well.



i'm not picking on anyone, he is wrong about a 6 in every year, i don't post bs on this forum like a lot people. if someone is wrong i will call them, and if someone posts in tech about how he laughs his ass off about racing a civic in his 16 second V6 mustang I will call him on it.

notice this was moved from tech to discussion.

http://www.americanmuscle.com/87.html
http://www.americanmuscle.com/88.html
http://www.americanmuscle.com/89.html
http://www.americanmuscle.com/90.html
http://www.americanmuscle.com/91.html
http://www.americanmuscle.com/92.html
http://www.americanmuscle.com/93.html

i am right

i am sorry my friend, i am not trying to be a dick, but american muscle is wrong. the 3.8l motor was not reintroduced into the mustang until the 1994 redesign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang

go over to the fox body section and ask those guys if you still won't believe me

"The standard engine on LX models remained the 2.3 liter, four-cylinder. With fuel injection replacing the one-barrel carburetor on the four-cylinder for `87, power increased insignificantly to 90hp. The 3.8 liter V-6 was dropped from the engine lineup in 1987. The only option was the 5.0 liter V-8 HO which, thanks to a larger throttle body and better flowing cylinder heads, was capable of 225 horses. Suspension was also improved with the use of SVO technology, notably plastic ball joints, better rear stabilizer bar and modified McPherson struts."

http://www.mocsem.com/8587.asp

omfg... theres a guy on here with a v6 fox body! hell theres one at the ford dealership near here!
http://www.jimtidwellford.com/

there! a v6 foxbody! im gonna go look for the dude with the v6 foxbody to tell you his car actually exists

ok you aren't listening, from 1987-1993 they did not produce a 6 cylinder mustang. From 1979-1986 there was a 3.8L V6 engine option. So there are fox body v6 mustangs, in fact there are some on this site, however there was a span (1987-1993) where no V6 motor was an option. In 1994 for the redesigned mustang the V6 was reintroduced and the 2.3 L 4 cylinder motor was dropped.

seriously did you read any of my posts?

1987-1993
-2.3L i4
-3.8L v6
-302ci v8 (4.9L- “5.0”)- 225hp EFI to 205hp EFI MAF-302ci v8 (4.9L- “5.0”)- 235hp EFI MAFhttp://www.moddedmustangs.com/fox-body-mustang-history.html

All of us just have website to website for information about this, who knows if one is wrong or one is not.

ngine Options for the Fox Body Mustangs (http://www.moddedmustangs.com/fox-body-mustang-history.html#) by Model Year 1979-1981
-2.3L i4
-2.3L i4- turbocharged (http://www.moddedmustangs.com/fox-body-mustang-history.html#)
-2.8L v6
-302- v8- (4.9L) 140hp 2-barrel carburetor
1980-1981
-4.2L (de-bored) v8 - 120hp 1982-1986
-2.3L i4- 145hp turbocharged
-2.3L i4- 175hp turbocharged
-3.8L v6
-4.2L (de-bored) v8 - 120hp
-302ci v8 (4.9L- “5.0”)- 157hp 2-barrel carburetor
-302ci v8 (4.9L- “5.0”)- 165hp EFI
-302ci v8 (4.9L- “5.0”)- 175hp 4-barrel carburetor
-302ci v8 (4.9L- “5.0”)- 200hp EFI
-302ci v8 (4.9L- “5.0”)- 210hp 4-barrel carburetor
(Gradually increases in hp (http://www.moddedmustangs.com/fox-body-mustang-history.html#) and tq. until peaking in 1987 with 225hp) 1987-1993
-2.3L i4
-3.8L v6
-302ci v8 (4.9L- “5.0”)- 225hp EFI to 205hp EFI MAF -302ci v8 (4.9L- “5.0”)- 235hp EFI MAF

http://www.moddedmustangs.com/fox-body-mustang-history.html

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1987-1988-1989-1990-1991-1992-1993-ford-mustang-specifications.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang#Third_generation_.281979.E2.80.931993 .29

In 1987, the Mustang received its first redesign in eight years; incorporating both interior and exterior changes. The exterior design was reminiscent of the earlier SVO and gave the car more of an "Aero" look, in keeping with Ford's overall styling direction. This particular Mustang represents the longest run on any platform and the popularity of the Mustang remained high due to its low cost and high performance. The 302in³ or "5.0" Mustangs, became popular with the aftermarket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermarket_%28automotive%29) performance industry. The V6 option was discontinued while the 2.3L four-cylinder gained fuel injection, leaving only the 2.3L four cylinder and the 302in³ V8. Under the newly established Ford SVT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Vehicle_Team) division, the Ford Mustang SVT Cobra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_SVT_Cobra) was offered with the 302in³ V8 that produced 235hp (175kW) and 280ft·lbf (380N•m) of torque.

http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/87-93/87/index.htm

there was NO V6 from 87-93

I obviously came into this thread a tad late, but what was this argument about? Was it that NO fox had a 6? Or just 87-93? I was under the impression that somebody said NO fox had a 6...

it was kinda my argument that there has always been a six in the mustang and he brought up that in some years that there werent sixxers but i was totally convinced that there was but now im not too sure, i mean ive seen four eyed fox sixxers but when i come to think of it i havnt seen a newer fox body 6, i mean then again i dont pay too close attention to foxes...
damn.... now im thinkin i could be wrong
i freakin hate being wrong![sm=smiley24.gif]
who the hells idea was it to ditch the six for six years? what kind of twisted thinking is that?! [sm=dontgetit.gif]

ORIGINAL: spoke2go1

it was kinda my argument that there has always been a six in the mustang and he brought up that in some years that there werent sixxers but i was totally convinced that there was but now im not too sure, i mean ive seen four eyed fox sixxers but when i come to think of it i havnt seen a newer fox body 6, i mean then again i dont pay too close attention to foxes...
damn.... now im thinkin i could be wrong
i freakin hate being wrong![sm=smiley24.gif]
who the hells idea was it to ditch the six for six years? what kind of twisted thinking is that?! [sm=dontgetit.gif]


Don't think of it as being wrong, just think of it as being not 100% properly informed:D You learn something new every day. I just did.

ORIGINAL: spoke2go1

just did, and there has
my source is a book that i got a few years back called "100 years of ford, a centenial celebration of the ford motor company"
it goes through every year showing the lineup of cars ford was offering and each year they had a 6 cyl

lets start with 1964 had an inline six as an entry level mustang
1965-larger base six and three optional 289 v8s
1972- price of a six cylinder mustang -$2729
1974- mustang II had the 170 inch v6
1980- 3.3 v6 engine was in the mustang
1983- 3.8 v8 replaced the 3.3
been a 3.8 in the mustang since 2004 then it got replaced as you all know by the 4.0

see, befor i make statements like there has always been a six in the mustang i try to do as much research as i can and it pays off when im right


*edit*3.9 in the 04 my bad


Just save your breath next time.

i probably wont... i argue, thats my thing its what makes me who i am

[sm=owned.gif]

Sorry had to do it, lol. I woulda been the same way had I read it somewhere and someone wanted to argue it... heck if it were me I'd still be arguing it until I called up some Ford historian and talked to them about it... haha.

Sorry but i just found this whole thing funny. Everyone went from bashin the dude who said his v6 is gonna smoke some civic to everyone arguing about the 87-93 v6-less foxbody. A.D.D. at its finest right there

Damn I didnt know i was going to start such a heated debate[8D] ...so we all learned something new (or some of us did, me being one of them). Ford did drop the 6 for 6 years from 1987 to 1993...yay for us!:D

Matthew