apparently how they roll in detroit is on stock suspension

 

4.6 litre how they roll is pop,pop,pop,pop,pop,pop the sound of spark plugs blowing out of the 4.6 trash heap.

 

Whoever created, built, and bought that house needs to be slapped.

 

:werd: But they do have a nice choice of Mustangs.

 

Ill edit this post

:edit:

 

everything in that pic is ugly

 

silly rust stains. :reechy:

 

The house looks photoshopped. Almot looks like the shape of a rice box from some Chinese Restaurant.

 

Ford sucks and this is why...

They simply cant match the power of any GM sports car...a new 2003 GT is slower than a 93 Camaro Z28. Now thats just sad...an 11 yr old car is faster than a basically new car. Heres the stats on Mustangs vs Camaros...

1993-1997 Chevy V8's.....285HP
1994-1998 Ford V8's.......215HP
(V6 Firebirds and Camaros have been known to out run a 1994-1998 Mustang GT...thats sad)

1998-2002 Chevy V8's.....~340HP (GM underates them at 305 HP but they really put out around 340HP, GM does this in order to sell the Corvette)
1999-2003 Ford V8's.......260HP :rofl: (a lightly modded V6 Camaro or Firebird could run this generation Ford V8)

If you want to bring the Roushes and Cobras and everything into it, theyre in the same category as the Corvette and 405 HP Z06, which would kick their a** too.

Bottom line...if you want real performance, buy GM...

Whenever i see a Mustang i always look expecting to find a girl with one of them hula looking things hanging down from the mirror...

 

I'll agree with that. For newer muscle cars that is.

If you're like me, on the other hand. It doesn't particularly matter who makes it, because you can get major power out of any late-60's, early-70's shell.

I prefer the Barracuda, Charger, and Challenger myself. Or a '65-ish Mustang Fastback. Last on my list would be a Camaro, though. 1st gen just doesn't do it for me. Of course it'll be a while until I can get any one of those anyway. heh.


As for this picture... :ghey: and for the poster of this thread... :ghey: