Edumacate me on Mustangs

pinchvalve wrote: In addition to the 4-cyl Tubo SVO option, there was also a V6 available for a short while so I hear, and a Mercury Capri RS version in the early 80's available with either the 5.0 or the turbo-4. None of the guys with the Mustang knowledge have mentioned it so that might mean it was a POS, but IIRC it was just a Mustang with a different facia and rear hatch. If you are searching for something in the sub $5K range you could include this car as well. Who knows?

I had one once and it was a POS, but that was more likely that particular Capri rather than the lot of them. The entire sheet metal is different, not the facias and hatch, as is the interior. But mechanically, they're identical to the Mustangs. However, Ford canceled the Capri just when they were starting to turn up the performance, so they don't get the same attention as Mustangs.

Lincoln Continentals have FWD 4.6's with DOHC. My grandpa drives one.

Capri from 79-86 is mechanically identical to Mustang but EVERY body panel is different! They have "flared" fenders, bubble-window hatches, fastback-style taillights that slope, cowl-like hood, and other trim differences. Mustang front and rear fascias and hatches can be swapped over, but it ruins the look (I think the Capri actually looks nice).

The SVO was the worst selling Mustang of all time. All the ones left are parts cars, restored/original high dollar stock ones, or beat to hell modded ones. Suspension cannot even be rebuilt anymore (no ball joints left, brake parts are impossible). Stay away unless you love them and have cubic dollars.

Stick with a 5.0 or the early 4.6 DOHC Cobra (pre-99), though I still say the 94-95 Mustang GT 5.0 has the best of everything.

Will wrote:

Apexcarver wrote:

Will wrote: I'd like to build one for ESP, now that I think about it.

and what parts would you use out of curiosity, im doing just that.

Bear in mind that I'm not 100% familiar with the SP ruleset, but I think a MM torque arm, some MM tubular A-arms in front, Delrin bushings, spoiler delete, rear seat delete (I think this is allowed because Cobra R is on the same line, but I'm not positive), foglight delete, manual window doors, Aviator intake manifold, 99-04 front calipers (I think they're different than the 94-98 stuff, but again, not positive), 2-pc rotors...not sure about shocks and spring rates because I've never had one of these cars. I think the key to a Mustang in ESP is making the most of the same rule line. The engine stuff should be straightforward and the torque arm setup is well tested and liked.

cant do the torque arm because you would have to laterally link to the subframes (illegal) or would have to rivet it to the floorpan which dosent really have the strength to not tear. rulebook SP 15.2 E6

I dont think tubular FCA's are legal either. that is unless you dont do caster/camber plates.. id have to check that one.

rear seat delete IS allowed (but you have to find the panel, someone makes it though)

Aviator intake? schwa? i havent heard this one before. whats the advantage stack up to be?

i think the 99+ had the same caliper, havent heard this as an upgrade area. only thing that gets me is the ABS system sometimes.

Springs/sways depends on taste, lotta bar or alotta spring 1000 lb-in is a starting point though

as far as the rear suspension, i really want to go with the steeda 5-link because it seems to be the only legal solution to the geometry problems. (would have to cook up a side exhaust though to get the longer PHB option) and at the same time i would also have to go to rear coilovers.

then theres wheels/tires. 275/40/17 fits no problem (well, need a rack limiter so the wheel dosent hit the swaybar) you CAN with some work run a 10.5 or 11 inch wide wheel on the front and rear with 315 series tires. studs and fender rolling on the front and a hit in turning radius and exhaust rework on the rear and probly ditching the quad shocks (PHB needed as well) however, the added cost, difficulty in getting heat into them, and the reduced turning radius is a debatable quantity.

it looks sexy though

ive still got a ways to go with my setup,

the want to do list coilovers 5link SFC's

then start into rear seat delete, ac delete, radio delete, light battery, other possible avenues for weight reduction.

then motor tuning.

you can see what i have so far in readers rides http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/reader-rides/509/

I think that the best year Mustangs to buy is as a few have stated, are the 94-95 models with the 5.0 V8. Something not mentioned so far is the fact that you can put bigger rubber under the SN95 fenders then you can a Fox body.

Oh, by the way the front fenders of a FOX Capri will interchange with a Mustang. The doors are the same.

I almost bought an 86 but when I learned that they were being discontinued that year I bought the Mustang.

If handling is your goal, I'd take a '96-98 Cobra over a '94-95 V8 car, just for the aluminum block and higher revving nature of the motor.

Apexcarver, the Aviator intake has dual runners and butterfly valves to promote better torque production across the whole rpm band. It's like the FR500 manifold only aluminum not magnesium. But now that I think about it I'm not sure how well it would work with the early cobra heads, I think it's designed for the 03-04 heads. It's worth checking out, though.

I see from your link that you've talked to Sam Strano, so there's nothing I can tell you that he can't. If you're serious about weight reduction though get doors from a car with manual mirrors and windows.

I didnt think SN95's came with manual windows/mirrows?

Is the dual runner on he Aviator better then the dual runner IMRC setup thats stock on the 96-98 intake?

One thing left out... I don't want to assume the OP knows anything just because we do.

The 85 5.0L has CFI.  This fuel injection is not worth messing with.  I can speak from experience because I used to own an 85 CV LTD with CFI!

Meanwhile I love my 91 LX 5.0 hatch and my 92 LX vert! They take whatever I can throw at them.
Allow me to highlight that Fox platform brakes pre-SN95 SUCK. I can't wait to do my spindle swaps.

Base model V6's came with manual setups as did the GTS Mustang. It's a plain GT with no foglights or rear spoiler and lots of manual stuff inside. The last "lightweight" Mustang model.

P71 wrote: Base model V6's came with manual setups as did the GTS Mustang. It's a plain GT with no foglights or rear spoiler and lots of manual stuff inside. The last "lightweight" Mustang model.

More appropriately, the GTS is a V6 car that just happens to have the drivetrain from the GT.

It's not a GT with a bunch of stuff deleted, it's a V6 that Ford already did the motorswap for you.

Just out of curiosity, is the earlier lighter cars so inferior that they are dismissed? As I understand it, the '79-82's were the lightest.

There's no good way to upgrade?

alfadriver wrote: Just out of curiosity, is the earlier lighter cars so inferior that they are dismissed? As I understand it, the '79-82's were the lightest. There's no good way to upgrade?

Parts will swap, but insofar as the drivetrain is concerned, you might as well be starting with a later 2.3L car. All of the earlier cars had 7.5" rear ends, single exhaust, and weak transmissions. The V8 cars were also the older 302, not the HO (HO, amoungst other things, has a totally different firing order from the earlier 302), and one year didn't even offer the 302, but instead a 4.2(?) liter that makes less power than the 4-cylinder.

If you were to look for an early 4-light car, my suggestion would be to start with the GT Turbo, but upgrade it to an SVO/TurboCoupe motor and transmission.

alfadriver wrote: Just out of curiosity, is the earlier lighter cars so inferior that they are dismissed? As I understand it, the '79-82's were the lightest. There's no good way to upgrade?

They will mod just fine, however why bother going that route when there are so many later late 80's - early 90's Foxs' out there...

B02S4 wrote: They will mod just fine, however why bother going that route when there are so many later late 80's - early 90's Foxs' out there...

To answer that, because all the later ones are either $5k, or beat to hell and back four times.

No one buys these cars to take it easy on 'em, and the supply isn't getting any bigger.

ReverendDexter wrote: ...To answer that, because all the later ones are either $5k, or beat to hell and back four times...No one buys these cars to take it easy on 'em, and the supply isn't getting any bigger...

Sure, all true, however later Foxes in decent shape can be found for less than $5k, but they aren't everywhere.

If one is willing to do swap into a 4 cyl Fox then a 4 cyl unibody is unlikely to have ripped torque boxes & related trauma.

I would not personally want to mod an "original" 79 Pace Car, 82 GT, or for that matter GT Turbo, but that's just me.

I had an 84 GT convertible back in the day, & boy would that thing cowl shake...

wouldn't it be alot cheaper to snag a 2.3 Fox, do all the swapping of the bits, that way you aren't paying the 5.0 markup, afterall those engines are a dime a dozen in the pull-a-part yards round here...

Also, I'd stay away from the 2.3T for a 'simple' or 'reliable' track car, I can attest to this with our XR4Ti, I love the engine and how well it accepts alot of boost on the stock block and head reliably, but chasing the stupid TFI system problems is not trivial, and tuning it will always be a labor of love. I would have recommended an XR4Ti since it's much lighter than the stangs, has IRS, and is 'ok' to work on (at least a stripped down version), but it's ugly as sin, and some parts are hard to find/expensive, and the 2.3T will never be what a 5.0 or 4.6 is in terms of simple bolt ons and quick retunes...

Raze wrote: I would have recommended an XR4Ti since it's much lighter than the stangs

Wha-huh?

No they're not.

ReverendDexter wrote:

Raze wrote: I would have recommended an XR4Ti since it's much lighter than the stangs

Wha-huh? No they're not.

Doh, I gotta get better at finishing a thought, I meant relative to the SN95s (3500), as for the fox-bodies, you are quite right as they range from 2700-3300ish, but on the low end only in the less optioned LX notchie. An XR4 weighs in at just under 3000, and that's basically loaded out since there wasn't much in the way of options. But as I said, the power/performance will never be what a 5.0/4.6 w/hop up parts will be, getting around the SRA is the biggest thing for me for a track car, but hell people do it all the time and are no slower than IRS so it's not that big a deal...

B02S4 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Just out of curiosity, is the earlier lighter cars so inferior that they are dismissed? As I understand it, the '79-82's were the lightest. There's no good way to upgrade?

They will mod just fine, however why bother going that route when there are so many later late 80's - early 90's Foxs' out there...

Starting weight. That's basically what I'm asking- is the starting weight really worth using, say, an '81 chassis, and just put together later components. Parts seems to fall out of trees, practially.

If that base chassis is that bad, I can see it.

Also, I do recognize that starting with a car that 95% done is a lot easier.

And I also know that many of the dumb ideas floating around in my head also make the weight argument a little less important (generous use of glass....).

I'm still reasonably convinced that a Mustang can win a Challenge. Knowing that they are killer drag racers, there are enough people out there who really know how to make them autocross.... It comes down to fabrication of known components (which I KNOW there is enough talent on this board for that).

E-

If I had the money and a garage to really do a bawls to the wawls Challenge car it would consist of a big power SBC and a TH350 in an SN95 suspended Fox Capri with as many lightening bits as possible and a set of 275/40r17 gumballs inside heavily modified fenders and quarters.

I'm a recovering Mustang nut. I think I've had five. Plus two Fox Fairmonts. Now, though, I've gone off the reservation. Or maybe I've seen the light . If five kb is your budget shop carefully for a C4 Corvette. They're at the bottom of their depreciation curve right now and have things a Mustang would never have. LIke a small block 350, independent rear suspension and double A arms up front. Plus no fooling with forklift suspension upgrades. Wow did it take me a long time to learn that lesson...

pinchvalve wrote: In addition to the 4-cyl Tubo SVO option, there was also a V6 available for a short while so I hear,

A friend in high school had a '79 with the 2.8. (The German engine, like what came in the 70's Capris, and also some Mustang IIs)

I have worked on a few with the awful CFI 3.8l. Awful mainly because they sucked to work on and they were always covered in a thick blanket of oil/dirt spooge.

Most people went V8, or four-cylinder. I approve of this.

The 3.8 did morph into a decent engine over the years, although it was a shame that they kept the high output version for the minivans until the Mustang got bloated enough that a 200hp base model was merely adequate instead of a fine idea.

my mom actually had a 3.8 with 80k on it that we couldnt keep headgaskets on. (1994 mustang convertable with an automatic)

this was before i really started wrenching on cars, so it might have been a shoddy mechanic after an initial failure.

P71 wrote: Stay away unless you have cubic dollars.

LOL!

The Capri I mentioned had one of the 3.8 CFI motors, in pretty bad shape after around 130,000 miles. My father had a pretty memorable quote about that motor:

"I thought you'd run it out of oil because it suddenly quit smoking!"

Come to think of it, my brother now has an SN95 with the later 3.8. It's not nearly as bad.