Whooped a Thunderterd

[scorpion_x9]

I was driving about 45mph and I see this Thunderterd coming up, I'd say he was doing about 50-55mph. I punch it, just to see what this fool's got, and apparently not much. I was pullin' on this mofo and I could tell he was trying because I'd let off for a second, and then gas it to see if he was catching up. I stopped at about 70mph and backed down to 45mph, then he did a ricer fly by. I'm guessing it was a 3.8L on how bad I was pulling on him.

[MaroonRegal]

In all likelyhood, it's a 3.8L. Good job though, winning is always fun. What year? Boxy (83-86), Sleek-boxy ('87-'88), Round/boring ('89-'92), Round/cool ('93-'98)

[digitaloutsider]

Yeah 3.8's are not the fastest thing in the world. The V8's are pretty difficult to touch.

[Dannymik]

The 8's are bad off the start, but will kick in to make it very difficult....so I can put my money on it that you beat a 3.8!

[93CutlassSupreme]

are you surprised? my '87 tbird is the slowest car i have driven, a 4 cylinder Alero pulls harder

my friend's brother in a Grand Am 3400 barely beat a V-8 tbird, but the tbird had like 5 people in it

[scorpion_x9]

In all likelyhood, it's a 3.8L. Good job though, winning is always fun. What year? Boxy (83-86), Sleek-boxy ('87-'88), Round/boring ('89-'92), Round/cool ('93-'98)

It was a 87ish style. It was busted up looking, and when it hit a dip in the road (at the speed it was going) looked like it was gonna catch some air for a minute. I could see it in my rearview. :lol:

[rudefyet]

a 3.8 in a Mustang body runs a 17.2...the tbird is heavier...and you run a 16.5... :lol:

he had no chance in hell

[cutlsp]

um t-bird have a 2800 curb weight if they have the 5.0 302 in them i should know my older brother had one :roll: even though my cutlass kicked that cars ass :lol:

[93CutlassSupreme]

um t-bird have a 2800 curb weight if they have the 5.0 302 in them i should know my older brother had one :roll: even though my cutlass kicked that cars ass :lol:

tbirds weigh more than 3000 pounds

very few cars weigh less than 3000, a body-on-frame tbird sure as hell doesn't

ps, 302's arn't very impressive, i would know, i have one in a 1969 Mustang. a 302 Z/28 or 350 Camaro will OWN it

[THe_DeTAiL3R]

ps, 302's arn't very impressive, i would know, i have one in a 1969 Mustang. a 302 Z/28 or 350 Camaro will OWN it

That's over 30 year old technology!!! They have changed a bit since then with F.I. and such. :P

[93CutlassSupreme]

ps, 302's arn't very impressive, i would know, i have one in a 1969 Mustang. a 302 Z/28 or 350 Camaro will OWN it

That's over 30 year old technology!!! They have changed a bit since then with F.I. and such. :P

yup, and my 2 barrel, 30 year old 302 makes more horsepower (220) than a mid - late 80's FI 302 mustang which for a long time didn't even make 200

ahhh....the speed of progress :roll:

[THe_DeTAiL3R]

I doubt it makes 220hp even with hi-octane leaded gas.. but whatever.

[93CutlassSupreme]

look it up

1969 Ford Mustang, 302 V-8, 2 Barrel carb, 3 speed auto

i'm sorry, i made a mistake

210 hp @ 4400, 295 lb ft @ 2400, 9.5:1 comp ratio

i'll scan and post the page if you don't believe me

[THe_DeTAiL3R]

I beleive you but it would have to be tuned 100% and run on leaded 103 ocatane gas... todays emmission standards have killed HP.

[rudefyet]

um t-bird have a 2800 curb weight if they have the 5.0 302 in them i should know my older brother had one :roll: even though my cutlass kicked that cars ass :lol:

tbirds weigh more than 3000 pounds

very few cars weigh less than 3000, a body-on-frame tbird sure as hell doesn'tt

Well um...he's half right an 87 t-bird weighs exactly 3000 lbs but an 86 does weigh 2800...so there sure as hell is a t-bird under 3000 lbs...so maybe your hell just froze over or something

[MaroonRegal]

:lol:

Fox body Cougars and T-birds were rather light, considering their size. ~3000 lbs.

[THe_DeTAiL3R]

Wow considering that the '85 was a bit slower than my GP (add on about 300lbs) and it had the 3.8 which was either carb or TBI those are damn crappy motors!

[93CutlassSupreme]

I beleive you but it would have to be tuned 100% and run on leaded 103 ocatane gas... todays emmission standards have killed HP.

the car runs fine on premium unleaded, i really don't think high octane gas is needed considering the mild compression ratio. it is in tune, new points, rotor, wires, plugs, etc. it'll push you back somewhat in the seat, and peel for a second from a dead dig, but it isn't fast and sweet as hell like ford people make mustangs out to be. i'll take and post pictures of it one day if you guys want to see it. it's a 69 notchback grande, lime green with a black viynal top

actually, cars have less emmisions equipment over cars 20 years ago, port fuel injection and cats have eliminated some of the emmision equipment like air pumps and shit, i wouldn't say today's emmission standards have killed horsepower, my dad's emmision controlled 2003 Silverado makes over 300 horsepower, a new 2005 Corvette makes 400 horsepower, there is a mercedes sports car out that makes over 600 horsepower (its in car and driver this month or last). emmissions equpiment haven't eliminated performance, they've just made it much more expensive. you can't go buy a Plymouth Road Runner for just under 3 grand that will go 100 mph in the quarter anymore.

as to thunderbirds weighing 3000 pounds, that is really surprising, they drive, turn, and accelerate like they weigh twice that much

[excelsior]

its a ford....that means the tranny can and will suck, the torque curve can and will blow in most cases(i havent driven a ford...even w/ a v8 that made me think the torque curve was intelligently designed) and the older t birds yes were around 3 k lbs. and by older were talkin pre 89.

[Dannymik]

how much does the '95 t-birds weigh?

[excelsior]

i wanna say around 3500

[MaroonRegal]

More like 3600...almost 3700 if I'm not mistaken.

[93CutlassSupreme]

it doesn't matter, the NA 3.8, or V-8 ones aren't very quick, and they drive like boats

[Dannymik]

it doesn't matter, the NA 3.8, or V-8 ones aren't very quick, and they drive like boats

For an 8 cylinder they are slow. My Cutlass ran a best time of 10.88 or 10.92 in the 1/8th...I can't remember which one, but this guy in his '95 T-bird..v8.. ran a 10.6. I knew he was faster high end, but thats not impressive for a 8 cylinder. They are ugly and sound like shit. I must say that the super coupes are not too shabby.

[93CutlassSupreme]

it doesn't matter, the NA 3.8, or V-8 ones aren't very quick, and they drive like boats

For an 8 cylinder they are slow. My Cutlass ran a best time of 10.88 or 10.92 in the 1/8th...I can't remember which one, but this guy in his '95 T-bird(V8) ran a 10.6. I knew he was faster high end, but thats not impressive for a 8 cylinder. They are ugly and sound like shit. I must say that the super coupes are not too shabby.

neither are the Turbo Coupes, but i'd put my money on a Grand National over both

[THe_DeTAiL3R]

it doesn't matter, the NA 3.8, or V-8 ones aren't very quick, and they drive like boats

For an 8 cylinder they are slow. My Cutlass ran a best time of 10.88 or 10.92 in the 1/8th...I can't remember which one, but this guy in his '95 T-bird(V8) ran a 10.6. I knew he was faster high end, but thats not impressive for a 8 cylinder. They are ugly and sound like shit. I must say that the super coupes are not too shabby.

neither are the Turbo Coupes, but i'd put my money on a Grand National over both

OWNED!! :twisted:

[MaroonRegal]

it doesn't matter, the NA 3.8, or V-8 ones aren't very quick, and they drive like boats

For an 8 cylinder they are slow. My Cutlass ran a best time of 10.88 or 10.92 in the 1/8th...I can't remember which one, but this guy in his '95 T-bird..v8.. ran a 10.6. I knew he was faster high end, but thats not impressive for a 8 cylinder. They are ugly and sound like shit. I must say that the super coupes are not too shabby.

You'd best be calling the MN-12 ('89+) ugly, because my '86 was slow, but it was not ugly. After the paint, it was a beautiful car.

[THe_DeTAiL3R]

You'd best be calling the MN-12 ('89+) ugly, because my '86 was slow, but it was not ugly. After the paint, it was a beautiful car.

:werd:

If I could find another 83-86 in good condition (not rusted to hell) I would buy one, and drop in a 351 or something, or just put in a huge ass stereo and cruise around with it.

[MaroonRegal]

You'd best be calling the MN-12 ('89+) ugly, because my '86 was slow, but it was not ugly. After the paint, it was a beautiful car.

:werd:

If I could find another 83-86 in good condition (not rusted to hell) I would buy one, and drop in a 351 or something, or just put in a huge ass stereo and cruise around with it.

If I ever sold my Cougar shell, it'd have to be to some crazy fuck like you who already has affection for it.

[93CutlassSupreme]

it doesn't matter, the NA 3.8, or V-8 ones aren't very quick, and they drive like boats

For an 8 cylinder they are slow. My Cutlass ran a best time of 10.88 or 10.92 in the 1/8th...I can't remember which one, but this guy in his '95 T-bird..v8.. ran a 10.6. I knew he was faster high end, but thats not impressive for a 8 cylinder. They are ugly and sound like shit. I must say that the super coupes are not too shabby.

You'd best be calling the MN-12 ('89+) ugly, because my '86 was slow, but it was not ugly. After the paint, it was a beautiful car.

GM G-bodies look more elegant, to me. the aero styling of the '87s is nasty to me.

[mfewtrail]

it doesn't matter, the NA 3.8, or V-8 ones aren't very quick, and they drive like boats

For an 8 cylinder they are slow. My Cutlass ran a best time of 10.88 or 10.92 in the 1/8th...I can't remember which one, but this guy in his '95 T-bird..v8.. ran a 10.6. I knew he was faster high end, but thats not impressive for a 8 cylinder. They are ugly and sound like shit. I must say that the super coupes are not too shabby.

You'd best be calling the MN-12 ('89+) ugly, because my '86 was slow, but it was not ugly. After the paint, it was a beautiful car.

The SC's look better then any pre-89 T-Birds I've ever seen...the aftermarket kits(I think some I've seen are aftermarket anyways) for the MN-12's actually look pretty nice as well.

[excelsior]

i like the looks of the mn-12 :oops: