|
|
|
|
|
This image has expired.
Final Stats:
| Total Votes |
660 |
| Average Score |
3.92 |
| Verdict |
Not Rice
|
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=4373 |
|
| Comments: 31 (Read/Post) Favorites: 1 (View) |
Submitted
on: 04-17-2002
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Car |
|
|
Description:
My god thats beautiful. |
Showing page: 2 of 2
[ 1 2 ]
 |
| #21 |
9-06-2003 @ 03:40:25 PM |
| Posted By : solid_snake |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#20, he didn't say he didn't like them he said 80's mustangs were trash, and like I said he's a chevy guy so it's the logical comparison
|
|
| #23 |
9-29-2003 @ 08:38:07 PM |
| Posted By : Adambomb |
Reply | Edit | Del |
looked it up and 87-92 5.0 mustangs had 225 hp and 93s had 205 hp haven't found any other stats
|
|
| #26 |
9-29-2003 @ 08:48:51 PM |
| Posted By : kstagger |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#24, hyperteutic (sp?) pistons over the forged ones. My co-worker Kris has a '93 GT stang... hauls some serious ass...
|
|
| #27 |
9-29-2003 @ 08:49:22 PM |
| Posted By : solid_snake |
Reply | Edit | Del |
if I'm reading this right they hit 210, I doubt that though
1985 5.0l EFI/4V V8 165/210hp (HO)
'84 had a carbed V8 at 175 hp and '86's EFI 5.0 was 200hp
|
|
| #28 |
9-29-2003 @ 08:51:14 PM |
| Posted By : kstagger |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#27, I know Ford started to downrate the 5.0 so everyone would be 'happy' when the 4.6 came out. Power is probably roughly the same from '87 to '93 - not enough to make a big diff.
|
|
| #31 |
5-17-2005 @ 05:47:01 PM |
| Posted By : Adambomb |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Saw a black one the other day. Only the third I've ever seen.
|
Showing page: 2 of 2
[ 1 2 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
