|
coolskillrex remix posted:Hmmm... isnt bama and stuff getting way more power than this? i dont seem to get it, is it because theyre custom? im pretty ignorant about this Not really, the peak increases are down low in the rev range like every other tune. When Bama gives you a bullshit figure like increasing horsepower by 40 horsepower they mean at someplace in the curve their tune has 40 horsepower more, not that peak horsepower is that much higher. Also, from what I've read the FRPP tune gives you 60 ft lbs at 1500 RPM which should at least register a little bit on the butt dyno.
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
quote:3) If the paint is bad it's not in excellent shape. Even if the car was kept outdoors if it was properly cared for the paint should be fine. In my experience, a hosed outside means other things are hosed. Also, keep in mind 97 wasn't the best year for a Ford anything. They really didn't get their poo poo together until the mid 2000's. The outside isn't even that hosed, there's just a few spots where the paint's missing, about the size of my thumb, that are all sanded out. Its just that one of them is in a pretty noticeable spot, so it's going to annoy me. Also I don't like white cars. Actually beyond those spots the paint is perfect, no scratches or anything. quote:4) This is the most important thing ever and probably should've been #1. DON'T loving BUY CARS FROM FRIENDS ESPECIALLY IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Buying old cars from other people is a bad idea if you ever wish to see this person again. There will be bad feelings if something goes wrong with the car and you'll always have in the back of your mind that they knew you were getting hosed and just didn't care. No friend will sell you a 15 year old car and tell you it's in excellent shape if they have any clue what they're talking about. Well it's so cheap because he's moving overseas and using it to square off a debt to me. I didn't really expect to ever get paid anyway, so it's more like "bonus! free car!" Also, excellent shape isn't his evaluation of it, but I've taken a few people out to it who actually know cars (I don't know poo poo) and thats just what I've been told. Also yeah its 15 years old, but its still under 100k miles so its not even that bad. Drunken Lullabies fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Jul 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 13:54
|
|
|
kronix posted:3) If the paint is bad it's not in excellent shape. Even if the car was kept outdoors if it was properly cared for the paint should be fine. There are things that can gently caress up the paint that don't say anything about the rest of the car. Desert heat and sun can make clearcoat flake, particularly with dark colors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 14:10
|
|
|
coolskillrex remix posted:Hmmm... isnt bama and stuff getting way more power than this? i dont seem to get it, is it because theyre custom? im pretty ignorant about this Yeah, Bama is advertising more power. Want to know the trick that aftermarket tuning companies use that Ford doesn't when it comes to power increase numbers? Ford compares 93 octane to 93 octane. Everyone else compares 87 octane stock tunes to their 93 octane aggressive race tune. There's a solid 10hp difference in just switching a stock car from 87 to 93 due to the new ECU's ability to change timing and ignition over such a broad range. Also, most aftermarket companies bought a brand new Mustang, put it on the dyno when bone stock, and use that number as their base number. The problem with that is cars in general pick up a bunch of power after the first thousand miles or so. When you add in the effects of engine break-in and higher octane gas, you get something like a 20hp difference on a stock car. Now add in Ford's 16hp claim to give us a 36hp difference; basically what the aftermarket folks claim. Fun little shell game, huh? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 14:44
|
|
|
I am looking to install a new x/h-pipe and a cat back exhaust on my 1989 Mustang LX 5.0. I currently have shorty headers going to an h-pipe and some sort of flowmasters. (The flowmasters were on the car when I bought it 13 years ago.) I was looking at getting the pypes cat back but I saw earlier in the thread about those being crap. I would prefer to get something that isn't going to drone as much as these flowmasters and hopefully something stainless. Does anyone have a recommendation? Thanks
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 15:32
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:There's a solid 10hp difference in just switching a stock car from 87 to 93 due to the new ECU's ability to change timing and ignition over such a broad range. So, completely stock, the new Mustangs will perform better with premium compared to regular? drat, I didn't know that! Might be I'll start filling up with premium now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:If you're nervous, have the dealer "install" the tune for you and keep your warranty. I dont know how true the above is. When I bought my Stang with no miles on the odometer yet, I asked the dealer if they would install ford performance parts in my car and honor the warranty. they said they could sell me a super charger, install it, but would not warranty it. they WOULD warranty the supercharger based on its warranty, and they would warranty my car based on its warranty. but if the s/c blew up the engine it would be on me to pay for repairs. So a Ford car, with Ford installed parts, installed by Ford Certified installers will void the warranty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
ssspy007 posted:I am looking to install a new x/h-pipe and a cat back exhaust on my 1989 Mustang LX 5.0. I currently have shorty headers going to an h-pipe and some sort of flowmasters. (The flowmasters were on the car when I bought it 13 years ago.) I was looking at getting the pypes cat back but I saw earlier in the thread about those being crap. I would prefer to get something that isn't going to drone as much as these flowmasters and hopefully something stainless. Does anyone have a recommendation? Thanks I'm partial to Magnaflow or Dynotech cat-backs. They're all going to drone some, but those two seem to drone less than others while also being well engineered and great sounding. PT6A posted:So, completely stock, the new Mustangs will perform better with premium compared to regular? drat, I didn't know that! Might be I'll start filling up with premium now. kalvick posted:I dont know how true the above is. When I bought my Stang with no miles on the odometer yet, I asked the dealer if they would install ford performance parts in my car and honor the warranty. they said they could sell me a super charger, install it, but would not warranty it. frozenphil fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jul 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 16:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:So, completely stock, the new Mustangs will perform better with premium compared to regular? drat, I didn't know that! Might be I'll start filling up with premium now. Is this true for both the V6 and the 5.0?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Is this true for both the V6 and the 5.0? Not sure, but I doubt a tank or two of 93 would hurt anything if you'd like to try. Take the car to the track on 87 and go back after a tank or two or 93 and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Not sure, but I doubt a tank or two of 93 would hurt anything if you'd like to try. Take the car to the track on 87 and go back after a tank or two or 93 and see what happens. The new V6 is supposed to have variable cam timing as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
shodanjr_gr posted:The new V6 is supposed to have variable cam timing as well. Right, but I'm not sure if they got the new badass ECU that the 5.0 got.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Right, but I'm not sure if they got the new badass ECU that the 5.0 got. Is it all done with knock sensing? I can't think of another way for the ECU to 'detect' premium gas. Makes me think the engine is constantly running on the ragged edge if the CPU ever hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
RockSmart posted:Is it all done with knock sensing? I can't think of another way for the ECU to 'detect' premium gas. Knock sensors play a part, but the wideband O2 sensors have more to do with it I believe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
The harmonic balancer in my 1996 3.8l mustang lost some bolts over the weekend, and I need to have it replaced. http://i54.tinypic.com/34gvgr6.jpg One bolt held on, and it tore the metal. http://i51.tinypic.com/htfdjm.jpg It's the thing that's supposed to go here that drives the fan belt. Problem is, no one carries a new one, and ford doesn't make them anymore. I'm looking for a replacement, and found this online: http://www.1aauto.com/1A/HarmonicBalancer/Ford/Mustang/1AEHB00033/296182/1996 I know nothing about engines or repairs. Can anyone tell me if this is the correct replacement part, or if not, what I should buy? Edit - Maybe this is the correct part? http://www.americanmuscle.com/bbk-v6-9498-udp.html Atimo fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Jul 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
Is the balancer damaged or just the pulley that attaches to it? At any rate, ebay is where I'd look first: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2001-Ford-Mustand-v6-3-8-crank-pulley-harmonic-balancer-/330564845092
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Is the balancer damaged or just the pulley that attaches to it? I have no idea if the balancer itself is damanged. I thought the pully WAS the balancer. The pulley wheel itself is clearly damaged though. At this point I think a new pulley, 4 bolts and some thread sealant should fix it. Do you think the whole thing should be pulled out and examined?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Atimo posted:I have no idea if the balancer itself is damanged. I thought the pully WAS the balancer. The pulley wheel itself is clearly damaged though. It's not the best 'baby's first repair job", but it isn't too difficult. Rent the pulley puller from your local auto parts place and give it a look. I'll bet you they stock that part too. The Ford 3.8 isn't exactly an uncommon engine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:It's not the best 'baby's first repair job", but it isn't too difficult. Rent the pulley puller from your local auto parts place and give it a look. I'll bet you they stock that part too. The Ford 3.8 isn't exactly an uncommon engine. If any of the local parts stores carried it, I'd have had it fixed the day it broke, not even the ford dealership has it. Of course I was asking for the balancer, not the pulley, as i thought it was the same thing. I should call again....
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Atimo posted:If any of the local parts stores carried it, I'd have had it fixed the day it broke, not even the ford dealership has it. Your local junkyard should have a huge supply of them that they'd probably charge you less than a 10 spot for. If you don't want to pull it yourself, check eBay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
kronix posted:Do you have the pony package v6? I'd just be even more impressed if you did. That 3.7l is nuts. 2012 Mustang Club of America Premium, with the 18" PZero Neros and a 3.31 rear.  kimbo305 posted:Does anyone have a size comparison pic of the 3.7 and the 5.0? Here's a pic of my 3.7 engine bay. It's a smaaaaaaall engine for the size of the bay.  shodanjr_gr posted:The new V6 is supposed to have variable cam timing as well. Yeah, it's a Ti-VCT engine just like the 5.0. Dynos I've seen have had a 6-9hp increase from going from 87->93 on the 3.7l. frozenphil posted:Right, but I'm not sure if they got the new badass ECU that the 5.0 got. I think it was said already, but it's not just the ECU-- it's the wideband O2s and new MAF sensors they're using now that are awesome. And yes, both engines have them. thetechnoloser fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jul 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
That's actually pretty cool. Nice car. I think the reason I'm not chirping the wheels on shifts is because of the torque management. I've been doing research and it sounds like exactly what I'm seeing even when I turn off tc. A slight amount of softness between hard shifts. It's fine I'm not boy racing here and the mt-82 isn't rock solid. There's no reason I *need* to break traction hitting 3rd and 4th gear the car is stupidly fast to 100mph. Merging on the highway at 30-40 MPH in 2nd means I'm at a 100 before I even have a chance to look down. I'm also really impressed with how high tech the 3.7L motor is. It's still not completely right in my mind that a v6 Mustang is a real sports car. It's supposed to have some lovely old truck V6.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
kronix posted:It's still not completely right in my mind that a v6 Mustang is a real sports car. I want to say it soooo bad. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:I want to say it soooo bad. What that the 3.7L is in a truck? I thought it was a modified version that was only in the Mustang?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
kronix posted:What that the 3.7L is in a truck? I thought it was a modified version that was only in the Mustang? The 4.0 in the 2005-2011 V6s was (and still is?) a truck engine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
shodanjr_gr posted:The 4.0 in the 2005-2011 V6s was (and still is?) a truck engine. I feel sorry whenever I see a 2010 V6--- they have the new styling, but still have the 4.0L boat anchor. 2010- 210/240 4.0l V6 2011+- 305/280 3.7l V6. Plus I get better gas mileage. I would feel soooo sad if I'd dropped my cash on a 2010 only to see the 3.7s a year later. I've been really digging my 2012 so far. It pulls better than an old 98 Cobra that my parents had back when I was in high school 10+ years ago. And I hear the 3.7 is an option on the F-150s, don't quote me on that, I'm decidedly not a truck guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
It is, as is the 5.0.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
The 3.7L is the base F150 engine, and the 3.5L Ecoboost is an upgrade priced pretty much on par with the 5.0. They're actually selling more V6 than V8 F150s. The 3.7L F150 effectively makes the Ranger completely irrelevant, since the old bodystyle won't work going forward and the new 'world' model is almost as big as the F150. Ford has some drat good powerplants these days. IOwnCalculus fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jul 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
Compared to the 5.0, the Ecoboost 3.5 produces equal or better (I forget) horsepower and pound-feet numbers, and the Ecoboost gets better mileage. Despite this being AMURRIKA  , people are recognizing that the Ecoboost V6 is a better engine than the V8*. The Ecoboost costs a little more than the V8, too.Too bad V6s still sound like poo poo. * For the F150. Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Jul 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
CombatWombat posted:Compared to the 5.0, the Ecoboost 3.5 produces equal or better (I forget) horsepower and pound-feet numbers, and the Ecoboost gets better mileage. Despite this being AMURRIKA I think the Ecoboost is a substantial markup. Further, PickupTrucks.com said the fuel economy advantage disappears when towing with the Ecoboost. They recommended it as a fuel saving measure if you would be only towing occasionally and mostly just hauling stuff in the bed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
thetechnoloser posted:I feel sorry whenever I see a 2010 V6--- they have the new styling, but still have the 4.0L boat anchor. Don't you badmouth the 4.0!! It's torquey and has enough po...who am I kidding, I want a 2011 .
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
CombatWombat posted:Compared to the 5.0, the Ecoboost 3.5 produces equal or better (I forget) horsepower and pound-feet numbers, and the Ecoboost gets better mileage. Despite this being AMURRIKA The 5.7l Hemi in the Dodge Ram puts out more power than either the 3.5l turbo or the 5.0l, and gets mileage in between, only because it's still sitting in front of a 5 speed trans instead of the Ford's 6 speed. It is also substantially cheaper than either. GM's 6.2l engine is even more powerful than the Chrysler's 5.7 and gets the same fuel economy in the Silverado with the 6 speed as the 5.0l Ford, although I think you can only get it on the expensive top trim truck. So gently caress your turbo this and turbo that. OHV V8s are where it's at. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
If only Dodge transmissions weren't made of tissue paper and chewing gum. Also there is no Dodge Ram anymore. Perhaps you're referring to the Ram Pickup, built by Fiat?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 07:25
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:If only Dodge transmissions weren't made of tissue paper and chewing gum. Tell me more about your reliability issues with the 545RFE.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 07:37
|
|
|
shodanjr_gr posted:Don't you badmouth the 4.0!! It's torquey and has enough po...who am I kidding, I want a 2011 The 4.0 wasn't a terrible motor in 2005, in fact I remember quite a few reviews saying the Mustang was the fastest sub 25k car you could buy at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
kronix posted:The 4.0 wasn't a terrible motor in 2005, in fact I remember quite a few reviews saying the Mustang was the fastest sub 25k car you could buy at the time. Counterpoint: the 4.0 was a terrible motor in 2005, and in every year before that all the way back to its hideous, maligned birth somewhere in Satan's armpit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
Some Random rear end in a top hat posted:Counterpoint: the 4.0 was a terrible motor in 2005, and in every year before that all the way back to its hideous, maligned birth somewhere in Satan's armpit. 220 horsepower and good torque numbers wasn't terrible in a budget 2005 "sports car". I still say that it didn't get terrible until 2007 when the mazdaspeed3 and the turbocharged Cobalt SS came around and kicked lots of rear end for under 23k. It's easy to say "what a piece of poo poo" now. The motor is reliable at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The 5.7l Hemi in the Dodge Ram puts out more power than either the 3.5l turbo or the 5.0l, and gets mileage in between, only because it's still sitting in front of a 5 speed trans instead of the Ford's 6 speed. It is also substantially cheaper than either. GM's 6.2l engine is even more powerful than the Chrysler's 5.7 and gets the same fuel economy in the Silverado with the 6 speed as the 5.0l Ford, although I think you can only get it on the expensive top trim truck. Tell us more about your HEMI that isn't actually a HEMI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
Some Random rear end in a top hat posted:Counterpoint: the 4.0 was a terrible motor in 2005, and in every year before that all the way back to its hideous, maligned birth somewhere in Satan's armpit. I disagree. When it debuted in 1997, other engines available were: 302: 210hp 4.6 mod: 215hp chevy 4.3: 180-200hp 3800 SII: 205hp Chrysler 318: 230hp Yes the engine was dated by the time 2010 rolled around but it's a stout engine with a good torque band. It also responds very well to FI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The 5.7l Hemi in the Dodge Ram puts out more power than either the 3.5l turbo or the 5.0l, and gets mileage in between, only because it's still sitting in front of a 5 speed trans instead of the Ford's 6 speed. It is also substantially cheaper than either. GM's 6.2l engine is even more powerful than the Chrysler's 5.7 and gets the same fuel economy in the Silverado with the 6 speed as the 5.0l Ford, although I think you can only get it on the expensive top trim truck. Chrysler still can't make a decent car to put their motors in, nor a transmission to put behind it. Moot point I say. edit: your a drat liar too, I just looked it up and 388hp for the 5.7 "hemi" is not more than the ~412hp the new 5.0 makes. Unless your talking about the truck 5.0, which if so, who cares about trucks? goodfuldead fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Jul 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 03:24
|
|
