Go to car


Latest Comments
Car: 91935   By: DiRF   Comment: "I actually kinda liked these when they came out, b..."
Car: 85938   By: DiRF   Comment: "Normally I can find aspects of a squarish, blocky ..."
Car: 96594   By: Skid   Comment: "If I could have any 911, it would be the short-nos..."
Car: 44941   By: DiRF   Comment: "So, North Wilkesboro has been refurbished, and ret..."
Car: 96905   By: Adambomb   Comment: "This things been sitting at an oil change place ne..."
See last 25 comments
 Go to

Next picture
Ricecop Home
Linkage
Plates
Bling Bling
Photo
Free Post

 Top 10

Top 10 Ricers
Top 10 Non-Ricers
Top 10 Other Good
Top 10 Other Bad

 New & Retired

Newest Images
Retired Images

 Other

Submit a picture
Profile Lookup
FAQ
Site Log
Leader Board
Site Stats

 Online Now

0 Ricecops
1 Guests

Detailed List

 Login

Username:

Password:


Remember Login?

Sign up!
Why sign up?
Forgot my password


View this image at full size
Click here to let us know if the image above is broken.


Go back and vote on this image.

Picture Information
URL: http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=44903
Submitted by: 427 Vette
Comments: 13  (Read/Post)     Favorites: 0  (View)
Submitted on: 10-02-2005
View Stats Category: Vehicle Group
Description:
Ford GT and a Mustang.


   Comments

Showing page: 1 of 1
[
1 ]

#1
10-02-2005 @ 10:31:51 PM
Posted By : Lemming Reply | Edit | Del
Yeah, I'll take the GT, thanks.

#2
10-02-2005 @ 10:32:36 PM
Posted By : Subourbon187 Reply | Edit | Del
Ditto

#3
10-02-2005 @ 10:49:50 PM
Posted By : ricerocketboy Reply | Edit | Del
#1, what, you mean you don't want another V6 Stang? :p

#4
10-02-2005 @ 10:53:43 PM
Posted By : Lemming Reply | Edit | Del
Certainly not one in that bodystyle, with that engine.

#5
10-02-2005 @ 10:56:50 PM
Posted By : Subourbon187 Reply | Edit | Del
Yeah, V8s where it's at. What do you guys think of those GT66s? I for one dig em.

#6
10-02-2005 @ 11:09:16 PM
Posted By : Lemming Reply | Edit | Del
#5, "Yeah, V8s where it's at."
Not necessarily, but I'm not touching that 4.0 SOHC piece of Explorer surplus crap.


#7
10-02-2005 @ 11:10:17 PM
Posted By : Subourbon187 Reply | Edit | Del
#6, Cold words man, cold words.

#8
10-02-2005 @ 11:40:18 PM
Posted By : ricerocketboy Reply | Edit | Del
#6, I wonder if they're known to blow up in the new Mustang's too?

#9
10-02-2005 @ 11:44:18 PM
Posted By : Lemming Reply | Edit | Del
Heck if I know. I'll stick with my 4.2, at any rate.

#10
10-03-2005 @ 02:00:58 AM
Posted By : ambientFLIER Reply | Edit | Del
#6, what is wrong with that engine? i rather like it

#11
10-03-2005 @ 01:13:05 PM
Posted By : stang392 Reply | Edit | Del
#10, it doesn't have pushrods :-P

#12
10-03-2005 @ 08:41:42 PM
Posted By : Lemming Reply | Edit | Del
#10, It's got larger external dimensions, another one of those plastic intake manifolds that worked so well on the '96-98 4.6L V8s that are still being recalled, a head design that puts one of the timing chains (I think they're chains, anyway) at the back of the engine where it's impossible to get at, some nice non-flowing heads with even crappier valves than the 3.8/4.2 pieces, another Swiss cheese cooling port design*, and internals of questionable strength.

Thus, I reiterate: I'm not touching it.

*this, by the way, was the design flaw that caused so many pre-'96 3.8s to fail--lots of coolant ports going into the deck. The 4.0 has nearly as many coolant ports as the early 3.8s, which drives suspicion that it is not a good choice for a forced induction application.


#13
10-03-2005 @ 08:43:12 PM
Posted By : Lemming Reply | Edit | Del
#12, Oh, and stock, it sounds worse than the 3.8. This is a feat which I did not previously consider possible.

Showing page: 1 of 1
[
1 ]


Login to leave a comment

Classifieds 
Click here to post your own classified ad






Want to send some feedback? Click here.

Server time: Thursday, March 28, 2024 05:08:41 AM

All pictures on this site are property of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Ricecop. All rights reserved.