|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=49716 |
|
| Comments: 45 (Read/Post) Favorites: 2 (View) |
Submitted
on: 02-13-2006
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Vehicle Group |
|
|
Description:
F-bodies |
Showing page: 2 of 3
[ 1 2 3 ]
 |
| #21 |
2-14-2006 @ 01:01:43 AM |
| Posted By : MxCx |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#20, Ones a Chevy, ones a Ford. The answer is obvious. :P
|
|
| #23 |
2-14-2006 @ 01:03:22 AM |
| Posted By : MxCx |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#22, I was thinking a Honda. Because DSMs are slow. Because theyre not Hondas.
And Im not joking.
Or am I?
|
|
| #24 |
2-14-2006 @ 01:07:12 AM |
| Posted By : Subourbon187 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#23, I was actually gonna say Honda before I switched to a Mitsu model, but that would be redundant. Everyone knows an EK Type R Civic could waste a V6 F/Fox body what with the light weight, limited slip and independent suspension.
[Edited by Subourbon187 on 2-14-2006 @ 01:09:35 AM]
|
|
| #27 |
2-14-2006 @ 07:59:49 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#20, Don't know. I know that the 4-link stock rear suspension is a bit of a liability in hard cornering, which is why I no longer have one. :p
|
|
| #28 |
2-14-2006 @ 08:06:55 AM |
| Posted By : MxCx |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#24, Dont knock the Type Rs. As overhyped as they are, theyre beasts on the (roadcourse) track.
[Edited by MxCx on 2-14-2006 @ 08:07:08 AM]
|
|
| #29 |
2-14-2006 @ 08:43:38 AM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#28, I'd drive one. I'd rather have the Integra than the Civic, though.
|
|
| #30 |
2-14-2006 @ 09:10:42 AM |
| Posted By : Turrboenvy |
Reply | Edit | Del |
My dad's got a.. late 90's or whatever z28 automatic (waste) sitting in storage because he fucked up the transmission and can't afford to fix it, but they don't make em anymore, so he won't let it go.
|
|
| #31 |
2-14-2006 @ 12:51:30 PM |
| Posted By : Subourbon187 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#28, I didn't mean it to seem like that, hell I wouldn't mind having a Type R to myself....
|
|
| #32 |
2-14-2006 @ 01:16:40 PM |
| Posted By : Tastycakemix |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#20, From my old research, the Mustang handled better than the F-bodies. I believe the video game programers just went off of the old assumption that F-bodies handling sucked. Guessing the GT4 did the same figuring noone would debate with them especially when you reference the other cars.
|
|
| #33 |
2-14-2006 @ 01:55:53 PM |
| Posted By : Disrupture |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#20, Last year, my girlfriend and I rented a 2002-03 Mustang GT Convertible. It handled reaaally good, much more than I expected. It was equipped with traction control.
|
|
| #34 |
2-14-2006 @ 03:38:08 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#32, Hell, I thought my '84 Camaro was a decent handler. Needed better shocks, though.
|
|
| #35 |
2-14-2006 @ 03:47:36 PM |
| Posted By : thontor |
Reply | Edit | Del |
i think in mosts comparison tests i've seen, the late 90s early 00 sn-95 mustangs out handled the late f-bodies.. barely.. slightly faster slalom times, shorter braking distances.. higher gs on the skidpad.. but all the numbers were very very close.. so i'd say the mustang is a sliver better than an f-body in the handling department.. but i think the big advantage under the hood makes the f-body the better car overall.. but i'm biased ;)
|
|
| #36 |
2-14-2006 @ 09:34:04 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#33, Honestly, I'm not very impressed with the stock handling of those cars (and yes, the stock V6 of that vintage has the exact same suspension, just without as much swaybar). Too much tail-wagging on transitions, and it's not stable enough in high-speed sustained cornering (twisty freeway onramps and whatnot). Nothing that can't be fixed, though...
|
|
| #37 |
2-14-2006 @ 09:37:57 PM |
| Posted By : solid_snake |
Reply | Edit | Del |
How much did you drop on your suspension before it reaced "respectable" in your mind?
|
|
| #38 |
2-14-2006 @ 09:48:30 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#37, The main problem is that I had to pay labor, and I did some things a couple times, because I needed to switch to heavier-duty stuff as I descended into insanity.
Parts, let's see:
5-link rear: $900
LCAs: $200
Springs: $250
Swaybars: $200 (GT front, 94-98 V6 rear), plus endlinks ~$15
C/C plates: $200
Shocks/Struts: $400
Bumpsteer correction (car is SLAMMED compared to stock): $150
Handles OK. Probably needs more chassis stiffening, but that's another matter.
If you started with a GT, you could omit the swaybars. On a more family-friendly car, you'd want lower spring rates, but that doesn't affect the price. Torque arm/Panhard bar is another good rear-end combo; those are about $800 if you want a good one.
At a bare minimum, those cars need decent springs/shocks, an axle locating device (Watts link or Panhard bar), and decent rear lower control arms.
edit: In a related matter, the V6 and GT share the same brakes (although the GT is more likely to have ABS). They suck.
[Edited by Lemming on 2-14-2006 @ 09:49:35 PM]
|
|
| #39 |
2-14-2006 @ 09:52:01 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#38, I'm obviously omitting stuff that was later replaced. I had a set of C-springs in there, but those were superseded by the higher-rate coils I'm now running, etc.
The main problem with those cars, IMHO, is the rear suspension. Unlike the F-bodies, there is nothing but good luck locating the rear axle. :p With stock control arms, there is usually in excess of 1" of lateral slop in the rear suspension, and if you examine the geometry of the stock rear suspension, you'll see that it has the potential to suffer from fairly severe roll steer (roll oversteer, I believe).
|
Showing page: 2 of 3
[ 1 2 3 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
