(Age under 18) Which car do you want as your first car?

[The Bman]

No trust me you wouldn't. They are not nice to work on.

Nowhere near as bad as a Fix Or Repair Daily.

 

[Johnny1996]

Someone's asking for it.

 

[Slash]

Nowhere near as bad as a Fix Or Repair Daily.

I'd rather fix or repair it daily, so that it's First On Race Day


But in all seriousness though, this is coming from experience, I haven't had anything but trouble with them. Just trying to save you a headache

 

[Sage Ages]

 

[CinnamonOD]

Realistically, I'd go for a first gen MX-5, which costs around $1000 here, but there is a man which owns a mid 80's Porsche Carrera and a 70's MGB, I'd give him around 7k-10k for the Porsche, or 5k for the MGB so any of both won't be collecting more dust

 

[Turtle]

When it comes to acronyms about cars breaking down, I prefer Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious, It's a lot more true. Also, spent the day looking at various MX-5 forums to see what I'd do mod-wise to one. I like the fastback roofs (Someone on GTP has an NA with one) but they're like two grand. Not sure what wheels I'd put on one, probably a set of Volk TE37V or R-Type Watanabes.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

How about a Fast Radical Sportscar?

 

[Aesthetics]

Even though I don't exactly want it, I know that the civic I'll get is perfect because it's a small japanese car.
My dad could've had a BMW 2002 for free a few years ago. (oh i would've loved that)
Ideally, I would want a hot hatch like a VW Golf, or a cheap RWD like an FRS or Miata, or S-Chassis.

 

[Turtle]

How about a Fast Radical Sportscar?

No fun, as it isn't about breaking down. And the FR-S isn't that fast- stock, that is.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Volvo S40, first gen.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

No fun, as it isn't about breaking down. And the FR-S isn't that fast- stock, that is.

True, it isn't fast. But it does put a smile on your face *Jeremy Clarkson's stupid smile*

 

[jus1029]

E30 BMW 3-series, 2 liters and above.

 

[mustang fanatic]

I want either a 1969 mustang mach 1 428 cobra jet or a 1969 boss 429. Too bad it will never happen though.

 

[Dean]

I don't think it's going to happen either, though...

 

[Slash]

I want either a 1969 mustang mach 1 428 cobra jet or a 1969 boss 429. Too bad it will never happen though.
View attachment 94396 View attachment 94397

Mach 1 is definitely attainable, maybe not with a 428, but attainable. Forget the Boss though, no one but rich people get them :/

Even a replica would satisfy me (looks wise). Only thing different from the Mach 1 is the scoop.


What I would do for this:

 

[mustang fanatic]

Mach 1 is definitely attainable, maybe not with a 428, but attainable. Forget the Boss though, no one but rich people get them :/

Even a replica would satisfy me (looks wise). Only thing different from the Mach 1 is the scoop.


What I would do for this:

Yeah. Even a mach 1 with a 351 cleveland would work for me. Not as fast as a 428, but it still packs a punch.

 

[Slash]

I've been in a 351C Mach 1, albeit 1970. The guy had it setup for circuit, but had dragged it a few times, and was running low 14's. Pretty quick. I got a ride in it down the track, though it was 1/8th mile. Ran like a 9.2 pretty consistently, which I thought was good for a tired old small block. Never asked him if it was a high or low compression motor though. My guess is it was a low compression 351C 2V, but it ran pretty good. I got it on video

That car actually beat a few newer Mustangs as well, some by at least 1 second. I was impressed.

 

[Doog]

I've been in a 351C Mach 1, albeit 1970. The guy had it setup for circuit, but had dragged it a few times, and was running low 14's. Pretty quick. I got a ride in it down the track, though it was 1/8th mile. Ran like a 9.2 pretty consistently, which I thought was good for a tired old small block. Never asked him if it was a high or low compression motor though. My guess is it was a low compression 351C 2V, but it ran pretty good. I got it on video

That car actually beat a few newer Mustangs as well, some by at least 1 second. I was impressed.

Do you have to turn every thread into Ford discussion?

 

[Slash]

Do you have to turn every thread into Ford discussion?

I was replying to his post with real life experience. But yeah ok I'll go ahead and make EVERY thread a Ford discussion

 

[Doog]

To most people these days, any American car, wether classed as a muscle or pony car, 2 door or 4 door, with a large V8 as an option, is a muscle car. Year is irrelevant anymore.

That said, pony cars do have the advantage in handling...take the Mustang's road racing history for example.

But anyways, you're lucky the car wasn't installed with a 302 or 4.6L lol.

^^^My truck was built in Canada...

Yeah I can agree with that. I always said the Mav should have been the Stang. Specifically with the 1969/79 Shelby front end, widend body, and 71-73 rear end

I tend to do that though sometimes with my dads truck. I just say its "mine" as in the family just to keep things short. But usually people know as we've had the conversation before.

The Mustang was always a car I drooled over. I guess it was the headlight/tailight configuration and the fastback roofline.

Honestly, I don't really see how the Mustang is overrated. It's got a good fanbase, plenty of aftermarket go-fast parts and they just a hoot to drive and have fun with. It's really an American icon. Personally, I think it's one of the best looking cars ever built. Everything about it just seems right.

Yeah I get it from Chevy fanboys all the time. How exactly is a Camaro better than a mustang. I hear "

Ford" but then they can't give me a legitimate reason as to why Ford apparently sucks so bad. I am in the minority lol

351 Windsor based 408 stroker. In a Z06.

Exactly. I myself would love to see a modern Ford Ranchero. While I love them all, I particularly like the '70s ones, but I have a small bias towards them as both V8s that I had in my truck came from them.

And I have always dug the taillights on them...

1957 -The original American UTE. Chevy fired back in '59 with the El Camino.

1958/1959
1961-1962
1962/1963
1963/1964
1965/1966
1967
1968/1969
1970/71
1972
1973
1974-1977
1977-1979

You could also get almost every year in wagon form as well.

That said, these new 5.0 Mustangs are supposed to be really fast...yeah well I consistently see SN95 5.0's walk away all day long. I think that's pretty funny.

Yeah, but its like that on a lot of vehicles. Do you know how many Boss 429 clones there are? You can do literally everything that makes it look and drive authentic, but at the end of the day, that 1 letter in the VIN will tell the true story. I'd be willing to bet most of the cars you see on Google images when you type in Boss 429 are replicas. How many Shelby Cobras have you seen? I can almost guarantee you you've never laid eyes on an original 1965-1967 CSX-coded car. This is why "numbers matching" cars are so important and expensive, especially unmolested, unrestored ones, since literally everyone and their mothers mod them incredibly. This is why low poduction number specialty cars with numbers matching are so expensive ($375k for a Boss 429).

That sounds like a wicked combination, even though stock it would make less power than the comparable 427. I've actually never seen one at a car show or event, but I have seen them on the street on occasion. They were somewhat common here about 4-5 years ago. There was an indoor, small time Shelby dealership in the middle of town that sold them, but I'm assuming they were modern CSX models that were built identically to the originals (think of the production run never ending at 1967 with no changes ever being made). There were some other cools cars there as well, like an Eleanor GT500. A guy I know said the owner of the building had 2 or 3 of them, all straight from the movie itself. The dealership closed recently though, which kind of bummed me out.

'Dat Ranger

Gotcha again, the big block Ford Super Duty 534 (8.8L) was the biggest from the factory (excluding crate motors) and was produced in large vehicles (like dump trucks etc)for a long time, from 1958-1981 and would eat a lot of diesels on the road for breakfast, and for a gas engine would likely compare to some of the smaller diesels of today (such as the 5.9L Cummins). These engines in the Marine version called the Seamaster were also offered with a factory twin turbo setup on top of the 500+ lb-ft of torque they were already producing. The 401, 477, and 534 big blocks were actually produced in the Plant 2 that produced 351 Cleveland engines. These engines were large, heavy, low speed, high torque motors. Most were installed in large industrial vehicles. All that torque was produced just off idle, similar the same way diesel engines lay down power.

Also, there was the Ford GAA Engine, 1,100ci, the original big block that powered Sherman Tanks (and was produced for 10+ years) that put down an astounding 1,050 lb-ft in torque and 500hp, and with a few simple mods (such as installing and MSD ignition system, and triple 4 barrel carbs and a tune up) will put down 1500+. Also the technology was seriously advanced as it was a full HEMI engine (yes before Chrysler made it popular), dual overhead cam, 32 valve, 4 valves per cylinder, aluminum block and heads, heads that flow rediculously well with valves and ports that would make any performance engine cry, dual carbs that sucked in 960+ cfm, dual magnetos, etc etc. Oh, and it's about the same size as a 460 and can be installed in just about any vehicle that had a 385 series engine in it (those are the 429's and 460's etc.) That was pretty high tech for the 1940s and 1950s. The engine also was a low compression engine, at 7.5:1, which was all it could handle with the 80 octane fuel that was produced back then. Up that now and turbo it (its been done, and twin turbos etc) and it will churn out a streetable and reliable 2,000+ lb-ft of torque all the way from idle to redline and do it with a grin with no stress on the engine. No transmission on the market today can handle that sort of power (stock anyways). Show me a factory GM or Chrysler engine that could match those numbers back then. That engine actually started as an airplane V12, producing 770+ horsepower and who knows what insane number of torque. There was no demand for that engine anymore so Ford chopped off 4 cylinders and made it a V8 for the Sherman tanks. It's been put in trucks, Mustangs and many other vehicles.

The 460 wasn't a performance engine stock really, it still made a lot of power but it's introduction came in at the wrong time much like the 351M and 400 engines that were based on 351 Clevelands...in fact one could argue that it is a tall deck Cleveland with a Windsor style crank....but its popular in hot rodding now. The 429 is the EXACT same thing, only difference being the crank to produce more stroke in the 460. They are identical. Ford offers Siamese bore reproduction aluminum blocks label A460 that can be built in the 600+ cubic inch range right on their website (along with NASCAR FR9 motors that replaced the 351 Windsors they used up until 2009 and many other engines that have not been produced as far back as the 1960s). Siamese bore engines just means that there is no water coolant passages between the cylinders allowing for a larger overbore (not possible with thin-wall cast blocks as previously built). In fact if you look at Toyota's NASCAR engine, its a CARBON COPY of a 351 Cleveland, and Chevy's LS series engines are based on Ford small blocks as well. Seriously, take a head off a LS engine bolt it on a old Ford block. Very very small changes...it almost works. It will even bolt up.

The 429 and the 460 are the same engine excluding cranks. There were other 429s, like the Boss 429 (very different), 429 Thunder Jet, 429 CJ and SCJ (difference between those 2 is forged internals). 429 PI's and 429 PC's etc. Those engines went in everything from large cars to trucks to whatever you wanted to drop them in. People can argue that some years made les power than others and they did, but there are many many stock engine dynos that show very high power outputs from some of these engines...

460s were put in literally everything a small block could have been in (for the most part). There was a rediculously large amount of vehciles they are installed in. There is millions of engines and blocks laying around waiting to be built up. Same goes for just about every other engine (with the exception of Clevelands and some FE engines etc). Some of those are getting tough to find but Ford has stepped up and started offering engine blocks that haven't been produced in 40 years on their Ford Racing website. If I wanted a Boss 351 engine and couldn't find a suitable block to start, I can literally get on their website and buy and BRAND NEW engine block, mind you this car was built for 2 years in very limited numbers and the 2 years had large differences, and I can build a Boss 351 motor like it just rolled out of the factory, only differences being parts made out of lightweight aluminum for performance reasons.

There were also 360s and 390s that were used which are part of the FE engines, which birthed the 427 and 428 engines.

The 351M and 400 were 335 series or 351 Cleveland based engines. They are identical to 351 Clevelands excluding small variances like the taller deck, poopy heads and Windsor crank parts like larger diameter main journals etc. The 400 has the largest stroke of any Ford small block. That engine is actually starting to gain popularity in the aftermarket worlds (as are 351Ms, same engine except for a crank difference) because of the large stroke, very few parts on that engine will make it a VERY stout performer. Since it used a Windsor style crank, before aftermarket took off for the Windsor engine and everyone was building Clevelands, people would shave down the counterweights on the 400's crank and throw them in Windsor engines along with 400 rods, making an old school style long rod stroker. With aftermarket today its costly and unnecessary however. I've actually built one of these motors and it was a nice performer.

They weren't designed to be more fuel efficient, they were designed to meet government emissions regulations, hence why most of the engines were strangled half to death in the 1970s and hardly made any power. This is partly why people thought those motors were boat anchors because there was no aftermarket support for them. That has since changed. They aren't quite as big as regular 351 Clevelands, Windsors (221, 255, 260, 289, 302, 351 etc) and 385 series engines (aka 429/460 etc) as far as aftermarket support but they are getting there slowly.

I'll have the '85 because I actually have a '85

Unfortunately no 460 in it though, it's got a mid '70s 351 Windsor (3rd motor). Planning on a 390 or a 460 SVO though

I'd rather fix or repair it daily, so that it'sFirstOnRaceDay

But in all seriousness though, this is coming from experience, I haven't had anything but trouble with them. Just trying to save you a headache

Mach 1 is definitely attainable, maybe not with a 428, but attainable. Forget the Boss though, no one but rich people get them :/

Even a replica would satisfy me (looks wise). Only thing different from the Mach 1 is the scoop.

What I would do for this:

I've been in a 351C Mach 1, albeit 1970. The guy had it setup for circuit, but had dragged it a few times, and was running low 14's. Pretty quick. I got a ride in it down the track, though it was 1/8th mile. Ran like a 9.2 pretty consistently, which I thought was good for a tired old small block. Never asked him if it was a high or low compression motor though. My guess is it was a low compression 351C 2V, but it ran pretty good. I got it on video

That car actually beat a few newer Mustangs as well, some by at least 1 second. I was impressed.

That's an increase of 285%. By that, a 1965 Mustang 2+2 Fastback with a 289 V8, which retailed at $2,533, would cost, in 2013 dollars, $9,750. That's still freaking dirt cheap, at least by todays standards.

Not true. Drag pack Mustangs would blow it away.

That said, it was one of the fastest....can you imagine what that motor would have done in the lighter cars...that was only a smallblock!

They could have been better if they did, but luckily the new generation will have it. I really wish the 2013 model would have had it.

And that is true about the '79-04 Mustangs, they are all based on the Fox platform. The SN-95 and New Edge were just updates to the Fox body Mustang.

Here's another, there are no 1964 Mustangs, as all of them are VIN'd as 1965 models. There are only a few ways to tell a 1964, one being the 260 V8 and interior changes.

A 351M/400 is actually a tall deck, [model depending stroked] 351 Cleveland with a Windsor style crank/journals.

Yet, performs like utter poo stock.

Fords SOHC 427 got banned from NASCAR because Chrysler whined after their 426 Hemi repeatedly got destroyed.

Ford also had a prototype 289 Windsor converted to SOHC.

I had a few Bronco II's. They were the biggest piles we've ever owned besides a Pontiac Ventura. Broke down frequently, pieces would fall off, was really squirrelly to drive, tire rolled off while driving once (shop's fault), very squished inside, Cologne V6 sounded like a tractor, and we ultimately got rid of it after the steering went. And that was with 2 other parts cars on top of it.

I see explorers all over up here. I'd say they are pretty reliable especially with the 5.0.

Tell me again how you're not taking the chance to chime in whenever something vaguely Ford-related pops up in a thread. I'm not suggesting you stop completely- that'd just be mean. I think many other members can agree that you talk about Fords way too much. The next time someone mentions a Mustang, a classic F-Series or a Ford motor, resist the urge to reply unless it really is appropriate to do so. Nobody likes the guy who can't shut up about those few cars he likes. I like BMWs, but I refrain from posting about them all the time because after a certain point, everyone becomes annoyed. Nobody wants to see constant Ford discussion, pictures of Fords, or random things vaguely related to Ford. Moderation is key.

 

[wrapture]

Thank you @Doog. I was getting tired of the Ford and ATC posts everywhere.

 

[LeadFootLiam]

IDK what I want, lol. I can choose between these.

Integra GSR

E36 M3

 

[Johnny1996]

Nice Integra. I want one!

 

[mustang fanatic]

Tell me again how you're not taking the chance to chime in whenever something vaguely Ford-related pops up in a thread. I'm not suggesting you stop completely- that'd just be mean. I think many other members can agree that you talk about Fords way too much. The next time someone mentions a Mustang, a classic F-Series or a Ford motor, resist the urge to reply unless it really is appropriate to do so. Nobody likes the guy who can't shut up about those few cars he likes. I like BMWs, but I refrain from posting about them all the time because after a certain point, everyone becomes annoyed. Nobody wants to see constant Ford discussion, pictures of Fords, or random things vaguely related to Ford. Moderation is key.

At least it's nice to know there is another Ford fan here.