|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=21787 |
|
| Comments: 216 (Read/Post) Favorites: 0 (View) |
Submitted
on: 04-18-2003
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Car |
|
|
Description:
My new ride :D
I might be picking it up later this week, but I'm not rushing it (due to finals and stuff).
Sorry for the quality of the picture--my parents took it, and obviously it was dark out at the time. |
Showing page: 5 of 11
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ]
 |
| #82 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:35:42 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
i would sooner wax my ass hair than let my parents pick out a car for me
|
|
| #83 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:36:18 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#82, I can't say I was entirely pleased by the matter, either.
|
|
| #85 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:38:12 PM |
| Posted By : 427 Vette |
Reply | Edit | Del |
i guess the GT was outta the picture because of the insurance rates right?
|
|
| #86 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:38:39 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#69, Yeah, but stock-for-stock, I think they're about the same--the v8 t-bird should weigh around 500 lbs. more than a Mustang with a V6, then there's the extra parasitic loss through the AODE.
Really, I would rather have just gone with the Thunderbird, rather than put myself in debt again. I can't say I'm a huge fan of the 4.6, but it has more potential (especially on stock internals) than a 3.8.
|
|
| #87 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:40:32 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#86 well a stock tbird is definately slower than a V6 mustang, but its a lot easier to drive because of the bottom-end torque, and you can always mod it
|
|
| #88 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:40:34 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#85, GT is in the same bracket as a Z28, and if I was to spend that much extra on the car, I'd sooner try to figure out how to put a 351 and a decent tranny in the V6 car. :-)
|
|
| #89 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:41:28 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
i test drove a 95 cougar xr7...which might have had the 5.0 still, i wasnt sure...but it managed nicely at any speed
|
|
| #90 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:42:50 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#87, I had a 3.8 Thunderbird before, and the car handled a lot more predictably than the Mustang. The Mustang V6 doesn't have too much punch off the line, but they move pretty well if you can keep them above 2500 RPM.
|
|
| #91 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:42:58 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
i dont see why you're getting another mustang in the first place, are you that eager to die in a collision?
|
|
| #92 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:43:33 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#89, '95 Cougar would've been a 4.6. They started putting 4.6Ls in the MN12s in 1994, if I recall correctly.
|
|
| #94 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:44:40 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#91, Not particularly. They actually do pretty well if you hit somebody else with them, though. :-)
|
|
| #95 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:45:26 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#93, The thought has crossed my mind. I was actually hoping to go with something that had a longer tail, but it didn't work out that way.
|
|
| #96 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:45:50 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
i thought you were against getting another mustang because of the accident
|
|
| #100 |
4-19-2003 @ 03:47:39 PM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#95 declare your independance, call your parents and tell them that the deal is off, you bis sissy :P
|
Showing page: 5 of 11
[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
