Of Old Farts and dinosaurs...

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 11:37 am, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>
>> You'd give up the KB puffer for more cubes?
>
> It's a tough choice but I would. I have so many gadgets on the car
> from DIY computer programming, A/F meters, knock sensors, water/and/or
> alcohol injection etc. that it takes the fun out of it for me. I want
> something I can start up and drive with absolutely no hassles and,
> IMO, a N/A big cube engine it the best choice. When a car is designed
> from the factory for forced induction like the '03+ Cobras etc. a
> blower makes good sense. Converting a car that wasn't designed for it
> is expensive and frustrating at times to keep running. The one thing
> the KB has taught me is that a lot of torque is what I REALLY like.
> It can make just going to the grocery store for milk an adventure.

That's exactly why I like the Dak. It's certainly not a hot rod, but
the 345 ft lb of torque is nice to have, especially with the 3.92 rear.

Joe wrote:
> wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>> On Feb 24, 11:24 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>
>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and
>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are
>>>> part of the family.
>>>> It's just about time for the LX to be "born again" as a restomod,
>>>> so I am starting with my plans. Suggestions are most welcome.
>>> I'm a big fan of the sleeper look. Maybe lower it a tad and keep the
>>> exterior and interior looking bone stock.
>
> The car's already lowered about 1-1/2" with the Steeda sport springs.
> It sits perfectly right now, although we have to be careful on rough
> roads or we'll rip out the exhaust on a nice bump. No way it'll go
> through a car wash.

I would probably go with no more than 1". Maybe even 1/2".

>> No one will know the car's
>>> potential unless they crawl under it, open the hood or witness the
>>> throttle getting hammered.
>> And you know Joe, I'm with Mike on this. I vote keep it a plain Jane
>> on the outside & interior, but have King Kong power under the hood. A
>> super clean car will always get noticed, and if you want more
>> attention simply dropping the hammer on the strong running car will
>> get you plenty.
>
> I totally agree with you guys, but it's already got a Cervini 'glass
> hood with a small cowl, maybe 1" or so. That's the only giveaway.
>
>>> How much horsepower do you want to make? That will determine a lot
>>> of other things.
>> 300 RW would be plenty fun/and very streetable.
>>
>> Patrick
>
> I looked at dwight's link in the next post, and even the "mild" M-6007-
> XE3M would be nice. It's available with the E303 cam, which should work
> well with the automatic. The hyper pistons should be ok seeing that
> it'll be n/a. It's also very reasonably priced.

The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many new
cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at the
flywheel. I guess that is to be expected as technology marches on.

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
...
> Joe wrote:
>> wrote in
>> oups.com:
>>> On Feb 24, 11:24 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and
>>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are
>>>>> part of the family.
>>>>> It's just about time for the LX to be "born again" as a restomod,
>>>>> so I am starting with my plans. Suggestions are most welcome.
>>>> I'm a big fan of the sleeper look. Maybe lower it a tad and keep the
>>>> exterior and interior looking bone stock.
>>
>> The car's already lowered about 1-1/2" with the Steeda sport springs. It
>> sits perfectly right now, although we have to be careful on rough roads
>> or we'll rip out the exhaust on a nice bump. No way it'll go through a
>> car wash.
>
> I would probably go with no more than 1". Maybe even 1/2".
>
>>> No one will know the car's
>>>> potential unless they crawl under it, open the hood or witness the
>>>> throttle getting hammered.
>>> And you know Joe, I'm with Mike on this. I vote keep it a plain Jane
>>> on the outside & interior, but have King Kong power under the hood. A
>>> super clean car will always get noticed, and if you want more
>>> attention simply dropping the hammer on the strong running car will
>>> get you plenty.
>>
>> I totally agree with you guys, but it's already got a Cervini 'glass hood
>> with a small cowl, maybe 1" or so. That's the only giveaway.
>>
>>>> How much horsepower do you want to make? That will determine a lot
>>>> of other things.
>>> 300 RW would be plenty fun/and very streetable.
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>
>> I looked at dwight's link in the next post, and even the "mild" M-6007-
>> XE3M would be nice. It's available with the E303 cam, which should work
>> well with the automatic. The hyper pistons should be ok seeing that
>> it'll be n/a. It's also very reasonably priced.
>
> The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many new
> cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at the
> flywheel. I guess that is to be expected as technology marches on.

340 is more than the new Mustang puts out, and in a lighter body would be
that much faster. "Many new cars"? Uhhhh.... doubt it.

dwight

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Joe wrote:
>>> wrote in
>>> oups.com:
>>>> On Feb 24, 11:24 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and
>>>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are
>>>>>> part of the family.
>>>>>> It's just about time for the LX to be "born again" as a restomod,
>>>>>> so I am starting with my plans. Suggestions are most welcome.
>>>>> I'm a big fan of the sleeper look. Maybe lower it a tad and keep the
>>>>> exterior and interior looking bone stock.
>>> The car's already lowered about 1-1/2" with the Steeda sport springs. It
>>> sits perfectly right now, although we have to be careful on rough roads
>>> or we'll rip out the exhaust on a nice bump. No way it'll go through a
>>> car wash.
>> I would probably go with no more than 1". Maybe even 1/2".
>>
>>>> No one will know the car's
>>>>> potential unless they crawl under it, open the hood or witness the
>>>>> throttle getting hammered.
>>>> And you know Joe, I'm with Mike on this. I vote keep it a plain Jane
>>>> on the outside & interior, but have King Kong power under the hood. A
>>>> super clean car will always get noticed, and if you want more
>>>> attention simply dropping the hammer on the strong running car will
>>>> get you plenty.
>>> I totally agree with you guys, but it's already got a Cervini 'glass hood
>>> with a small cowl, maybe 1" or so. That's the only giveaway.
>>>
>>>>> How much horsepower do you want to make? That will determine a lot
>>>>> of other things.
>>>> 300 RW would be plenty fun/and very streetable.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>> I looked at dwight's link in the next post, and even the "mild" M-6007-
>>> XE3M would be nice. It's available with the E303 cam, which should work
>>> well with the automatic. The hyper pistons should be ok seeing that
>>> it'll be n/a. It's also very reasonably priced.
>> The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many new
>> cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at the
>> flywheel. I guess that is to be expected as technology marches on.
>
> 340 is more than the new Mustang puts out, and in a lighter body would be
> that much faster. "Many new cars"? Uhhhh.... doubt it.

A bone stock 5.0L would do 0-60 with a manual tranny in about six
seconds flat and with an automatic maybe seven seconds flat, at best.
With a 340 hp crate engine you might shave a full second off those times
at best. I can manage 4.6 seconds in my 89 LX with about 500 hp at the
flywheel. That would probably put Joe's LX (with automatic and crate
motor) at 5.5-6.0 seconds for a 0-60 run. There are many cars that can
match that time today. Here are a few:

Camry - V6 0-60 in 5.8 seconds
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...camry-v-6.html

Nissan Altima 0-60 in 5.9 seconds
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...tima-35se.html

Mazdaspeed 3 0-60 in 5.8 seconds
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...daspeed-3.html

Subaru Imprezza 0-60 in 5.6 seconds
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...preza-wrx.html

I could keep digging but I think these prove my point. It isn't
difficult to find cars that are running very respectable 0-60 times.
Plus, many of the above cars are running low 14 second quarter miles and
getting great gas mileage too without a single modification.

Anyone wanting to dominate the overwhelming majority of vehicles these
days with a vintage Mustang had better bring 400-500 hp to the table
and/or one trick rear suspension. There are some four wheel drive
rockets that my car couldn't take even in a straight line. All you need
to do is look at where the Vette/Cobra, and even the Mustang GT, have to
be from a horsepower perspective to be considered high performance cars.
The bar is set high nowadays.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> dwight wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> wrote in
>>>> oups.com:
>>>>> On Feb 24, 11:24 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and
>>>>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are
>>>>>>> part of the family.
>>>>>>> It's just about time for the LX to be "born again" as a restomod,
>>>>>>> so I am starting with my plans. Suggestions are most welcome.
>>>>>> I'm a big fan of the sleeper look. Maybe lower it a tad and keep the
>>>>>> exterior and interior looking bone stock.
>>>> The car's already lowered about 1-1/2" with the Steeda sport springs.
>>>> It sits perfectly right now, although we have to be careful on rough
>>>> roads or we'll rip out the exhaust on a nice bump. No way it'll go
>>>> through a car wash.
>>> I would probably go with no more than 1". Maybe even 1/2".
>>>
>>>>> No one will know the car's
>>>>>> potential unless they crawl under it, open the hood or witness the
>>>>>> throttle getting hammered.
>>>>> And you know Joe, I'm with Mike on this. I vote keep it a plain Jane
>>>>> on the outside & interior, but have King Kong power under the hood. A
>>>>> super clean car will always get noticed, and if you want more
>>>>> attention simply dropping the hammer on the strong running car will
>>>>> get you plenty.
>>>> I totally agree with you guys, but it's already got a Cervini 'glass
>>>> hood with a small cowl, maybe 1" or so. That's the only giveaway.
>>>>
>>>>>> How much horsepower do you want to make? That will determine a lot
>>>>>> of other things.
>>>>> 300 RW would be plenty fun/and very streetable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick
>>>> I looked at dwight's link in the next post, and even the "mild" M-6007-
>>>> XE3M would be nice. It's available with the E303 cam, which should
>>>> work well with the automatic. The hyper pistons should be ok seeing
>>>> that it'll be n/a. It's also very reasonably priced.
>>> The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many new
>>> cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at the
>>> flywheel. I guess that is to be expected as technology marches on.
>>
>> 340 is more than the new Mustang puts out, and in a lighter body would be
>> that much faster. "Many new cars"? Uhhhh.... doubt it.
>
> A bone stock 5.0L would do 0-60 with a manual tranny in about six seconds
> flat and with an automatic maybe seven seconds flat, at best. With a 340
> hp crate engine you might shave a full second off those times at best. I
> can manage 4.6 seconds in my 89 LX with about 500 hp at the flywheel.
> That would probably put Joe's LX (with automatic and crate motor) at
> 5.5-6.0 seconds for a 0-60 run. There are many cars that can match that
> time today. Here are a few:
>
> Camry - V6 0-60 in 5.8 seconds
> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...camry-v-6.html
>
> Nissan Altima 0-60 in 5.9 seconds
> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...tima-35se.html
>
> Mazdaspeed 3 0-60 in 5.8 seconds
> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...daspeed-3.html
>
> Subaru Imprezza 0-60 in 5.6 seconds
> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...preza-wrx.html
>
> I could keep digging but I think these prove my point. It isn't difficult
> to find cars that are running very respectable 0-60 times. Plus, many of
> the above cars are running low 14 second quarter miles and getting great
> gas mileage too without a single modification.
>
> Anyone wanting to dominate the overwhelming majority of vehicles these
> days with a vintage Mustang had better bring 400-500 hp to the table
> and/or one trick rear suspension. There are some four wheel drive rockets
> that my car couldn't take even in a straight line. All you need to do is
> look at where the Vette/Cobra, and even the Mustang GT, have to be from a
> horsepower perspective to be considered high performance cars. The bar is
> set high nowadays.
>

Amen.

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in
newsyvEh.1596$aO6.314@trndny06:

>
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> oups.com:
>>>>>> On Feb 24, 11:24 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck
>>>>>>>> and neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our
>>>>>>>> Mustangs are part of the family.
>>>>>>>> It's just about time for the LX to be "born again" as a
>>>>>>>> restomod, so I am starting with my plans. Suggestions are most
>>>>>>>> welcome.
>>>>>>> I'm a big fan of the sleeper look. Maybe lower it a tad and
>>>>>>> keep the exterior and interior looking bone stock.
>>>>> The car's already lowered about 1-1/2" with the Steeda sport
>>>>> springs. It sits perfectly right now, although we have to be
>>>>> careful on rough roads or we'll rip out the exhaust on a nice
>>>>> bump. No way it'll go through a car wash.
>>>> I would probably go with no more than 1". Maybe even 1/2".
>>>>
>>>>>> No one will know the car's
>>>>>>> potential unless they crawl under it, open the hood or witness
>>>>>>> the throttle getting hammered.
>>>>>> And you know Joe, I'm with Mike on this. I vote keep it a plain
>>>>>> Jane on the outside & interior, but have King Kong power under
>>>>>> the hood. A super clean car will always get noticed, and if you
>>>>>> want more attention simply dropping the hammer on the strong
>>>>>> running car will get you plenty.
>>>>> I totally agree with you guys, but it's already got a Cervini
>>>>> 'glass hood with a small cowl, maybe 1" or so. That's the only
>>>>> giveaway.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much horsepower do you want to make? That will determine a
>>>>>>> lot of other things.
>>>>>> 300 RW would be plenty fun/and very streetable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrick
>>>>> I looked at dwight's link in the next post, and even the "mild"
>>>>> M-6007- XE3M would be nice. It's available with the E303 cam,
>>>>> which should work well with the automatic. The hyper pistons
>>>>> should be ok seeing that it'll be n/a. It's also very reasonably
>>>>> priced.
>>>> The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many
>>>> new cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at
>>>> the flywheel. I guess that is to be expected as technology marches
>>>> on.
>>>
>>> 340 is more than the new Mustang puts out, and in a lighter body
>>> would be that much faster. "Many new cars"? Uhhhh.... doubt it.
>>
>> A bone stock 5.0L would do 0-60 with a manual tranny in about six
>> seconds flat and with an automatic maybe seven seconds flat, at best.
>> With a 340 hp crate engine you might shave a full second off those
>> times at best. I can manage 4.6 seconds in my 89 LX with about 500
>> hp at the flywheel. That would probably put Joe's LX (with automatic
>> and crate motor) at 5.5-6.0 seconds for a 0-60 run. There are many
>> cars that can match that time today. Here are a few:
>>
>> Camry - V6 0-60 in 5.8 seconds
>> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...camry-v-6.html
>>
>> Nissan Altima 0-60 in 5.9 seconds
>> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ltima-35se.htm
>> l
>>
>> Mazdaspeed 3 0-60 in 5.8 seconds
>> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...daspeed-3.html
>>
>> Subaru Imprezza 0-60 in 5.6 seconds
>> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...mpreza-wrx.htm
>> l
>>
>> I could keep digging but I think these prove my point. It isn't
>> difficult to find cars that are running very respectable 0-60 times.
>> Plus, many of the above cars are running low 14 second quarter miles
>> and getting great gas mileage too without a single modification.
>>
>> Anyone wanting to dominate the overwhelming majority of vehicles
>> these days with a vintage Mustang had better bring 400-500 hp to the
>> table and/or one trick rear suspension. There are some four wheel
>> drive rockets that my car couldn't take even in a straight line. All
>> you need to do is look at where the Vette/Cobra, and even the Mustang
>> GT, have to be from a horsepower perspective to be considered high
>> performance cars. The bar is set high nowadays.
>>
>
> Amen.

Granted, 340hp is fairly commonplace these days, but not in a lightweight
RWD platform like the Fox Mustang.

A few other things that might set the LX apart would be that it already
has an Auburn along with 3.73s, and a LenTech (or comparable) can be had
with a variety of ratios.

At any rate, which would be the more desirable to drive - a freshened up
Fox Mustang or a stock Camry? Not a difficult choice...

"dwight" > wrote in
:

> "Joe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "dwight" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Joe" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "dwight" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> "Joe" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and
>>>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are
>>>>>> part of the family.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's just about time for the LX to be "born again" as a restomod,
>>>>>> so I am starting with my plans. Suggestions are most welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>> Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
>>>>>> Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
>>>>>
>>>>> Engine. Body. Interior.
>>>>
>>>> My list reads drivetrain, suspension, body, interior (if I get that
>>>> far).
>>>
>>> I lump the suspension in with the body, otherwise body would be
>>> entirely cosmetic. On my list, body includes the underpinnings. (Oh,
>>> yeah... one of my Koni quad shocks is leaking, too - add that to the
>>> list.)
>>
>> I don't remember - does TFrog had subframe connectors? I seem to
>> recall that the suspension on your car was pretty much stock.
>
> It's all on the website, but yes - subframes, strut tower brace, lower
> chassis brace. This was done early on. That leaking Koni has to be at
> least 10 years old. Not bad!

How'd you like the Konis? I ended up going with Tokicos, and now that
I'm almost in the AARP, they are a bit too firm for my taste.

>>>>> Make your lists. I start as "if money were no object" and then
>>>>> pare it down to "things I really should do."
>>>>>
>>>>> Engine: new crate engine all the way down to new serpentine belts.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going with drivetrain, which includes a crate engine coupled to
>>>> something like a LenTech. My Auburn is sill fine, so the rear end
>>>> should be ok as is.
>>>
>>> Five years ago, my list included the crate engine, matched to a new
>>> manual trans and complete exhaust makeover. Well, since then I've
>>> had the tranny overhauled and now added the H-pipe to my cat-back,
>>> so I've got the exhaust covered. Everything but the new engine.
>>
>> Sounds good. What about add-ons like headers, intake, cam, etc.?
>
> The least of the crate engines at FordRacing.com puts out 340 horses,
> and (I believe) comes with a mild cam and GT40 heads. No intake, so
> I'd probably match it up with the GT40 intake manifold (?).

I wonder what flows better - the Cobra intake or the GT40...

> http://www.fordracingparts.com:80/cr...smallblock.asp is
> what I'm looking at.

Yup.

>>>>> Body: new black paint job down to just replacing that cracked
>>>>> windshield grille.
>>>>
>>>> I want to have the unibody straightened out and trued, and I need
>>>> to have some front end issues resolved. The last idiot that put
>>>> the car on a flatbed chained the front end incorrectly and the
>>>> chains distorted the front support underneath the radiator. That
>>>> all needs to be sorted out.
>>>>
>>>> There are also a few other odds 'n' ends like trim pieces (and yes,
>>>> the windshield grille) and a few dings here and there, but the
>>>> color will remain the same - Calypso Green.
>>>
>>> (I was talking about TFrog, natcherly. I know you like that Calypso.
>>> As you know, I almost bought your car - a Calypso Green hatchback,
>>> but decided to go with the black at the last moment.)
>>
>> Yes, it's ironic. The LX I ended up with was the last automatic on
>> the lot (that was one of the conditions my wife made me agree to), so
>> I had no choice in color. Actually, I didn't like it all that much
>> for the first month or so. But the color definitely grew on me, and
>> I just love it now. That color's all but disappeared.
>
> Yeah, slim pickin's in September '93. The largest Ford dealer in
> Philadelphia had only a few left on the lot. I was the reverse - it
> had to have a stick, so the choice was black or the Cayman Green.

Yes. I recall not liking the '94 body style at all. I definitely
wanted the Fox car.

>>>>> Interior: (this may be where my focus is this year) I'd love to
>>>>> have new seats and harnesses, but there's the mundane: Trim pieces
>>>>> have come loose, there's a shock tower plastic cover missing in
>>>>> the hatch area, and (I drive with the left window down a lot) do I
>>>>> try to clean the headliner or replace it?
>>>>
>>>> The interior of the LX is still pretty good except for the
>>>> headliner, the sun shades, and the ashtray cover. Seats need a
>>>> good cleaning, but they are still fine. I even have the original
>>>> netting for the hatch area.
>>>
>>> Somehow, I ended up with two of those rollup hatch covers. Maybe one
>>> was left over from the '84 after I sold it. But it hasn't been in
>>> the car since I brought it home from the dealership.
>>
>> Forgot all about that thing - mine's still working fine. The spring
>> still has the tension and the shade isn't ripped at all. Just a bit
>> discolored from the sun.
>>
>>>>> I suppose, all in all, TFrog is in pretty good shape, so if I just
>>>>> stuck to the cosmetic, it would look great. But, as an investment
>>>>> in its future, I need to prepare to spend some serious money.
>>>>>
>>>>> dwight
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking 10 grand should take care of the drivetrain and stuff
>>>> with the suspension like bushings, control arms, etc. The springs
>>>> are Steeda and I'll need shocks/struts, but the basics are there.
>>>> Subframes are there, and I have the caster/camber plates too. 10
>>>> grand should get me to the point where all that's left will be
>>>> cosmetics.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>> Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
>>>> Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
>>>
>>> Wow... When I priced this out, I figured $10-$12K would give me
>>> everything, including the killer black paint job...
>>>
>>> Now, as we contemplate restoration... RESTORATION!...I'm going to
>>> have to go back and figure out what all of this means in 2007
>>> dollars.
>>>
>>>)
>>
>> Now that I've reviewed my list, I'm thinking 13-15k will do it. 10
>> just won't be enough.
>
> Not by a long shot.
>
>)

I hope to save a few $$ by reusing some of my existing stuff. Rear,
body stuff (subframes, upper/lower bracing, motor stuff, etc.).
However, I should probably replace the mundane stuff like the A/C, PS
pump, etc. Those things are destined to fail soon.

Joe wrote:
> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in
> newsyvEh.1596$aO6.314@trndny06:
>
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> dwight wrote:
>>>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>> oups.com:
>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 11:24 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck
>>>>>>>>> and neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our
>>>>>>>>> Mustangs are part of the family.
>>>>>>>>> It's just about time for the LX to be "born again" as a
>>>>>>>>> restomod, so I am starting with my plans. Suggestions are most
>>>>>>>>> welcome.
>>>>>>>> I'm a big fan of the sleeper look. Maybe lower it a tad and
>>>>>>>> keep the exterior and interior looking bone stock.
>>>>>> The car's already lowered about 1-1/2" with the Steeda sport
>>>>>> springs. It sits perfectly right now, although we have to be
>>>>>> careful on rough roads or we'll rip out the exhaust on a nice
>>>>>> bump. No way it'll go through a car wash.
>>>>> I would probably go with no more than 1". Maybe even 1/2".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one will know the car's
>>>>>>>> potential unless they crawl under it, open the hood or witness
>>>>>>>> the throttle getting hammered.
>>>>>>> And you know Joe, I'm with Mike on this. I vote keep it a plain
>>>>>>> Jane on the outside & interior, but have King Kong power under
>>>>>>> the hood. A super clean car will always get noticed, and if you
>>>>>>> want more attention simply dropping the hammer on the strong
>>>>>>> running car will get you plenty.
>>>>>> I totally agree with you guys, but it's already got a Cervini
>>>>>> 'glass hood with a small cowl, maybe 1" or so. That's the only
>>>>>> giveaway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How much horsepower do you want to make? That will determine a
>>>>>>>> lot of other things.
>>>>>>> 300 RW would be plenty fun/and very streetable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>> I looked at dwight's link in the next post, and even the "mild"
>>>>>> M-6007- XE3M would be nice. It's available with the E303 cam,
>>>>>> which should work well with the automatic. The hyper pistons
>>>>>> should be ok seeing that it'll be n/a. It's also very reasonably
>>>>>> priced.
>>>>> The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many
>>>>> new cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at
>>>>> the flywheel. I guess that is to be expected as technology marches
>>>>> on.
>>>> 340 is more than the new Mustang puts out, and in a lighter body
>>>> would be that much faster. "Many new cars"? Uhhhh.... doubt it.
>>> A bone stock 5.0L would do 0-60 with a manual tranny in about six
>>> seconds flat and with an automatic maybe seven seconds flat, at best.
>>> With a 340 hp crate engine you might shave a full second off those
>>> times at best. I can manage 4.6 seconds in my 89 LX with about 500
>>> hp at the flywheel. That would probably put Joe's LX (with automatic
>>> and crate motor) at 5.5-6.0 seconds for a 0-60 run. There are many
>>> cars that can match that time today. Here are a few:
>>>
>>> Camry - V6 0-60 in 5.8 seconds
>>> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...camry-v-6.html
>>>
>>> Nissan Altima 0-60 in 5.9 seconds
>>> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ltima-35se.htm
>>> l
>>>
>>> Mazdaspeed 3 0-60 in 5.8 seconds
>>> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...daspeed-3.html
>>>
>>> Subaru Imprezza 0-60 in 5.6 seconds
>>> http://www.caranddriver.com/features...mpreza-wrx.htm
>>> l
>>>
>>> I could keep digging but I think these prove my point. It isn't
>>> difficult to find cars that are running very respectable 0-60 times.
>>> Plus, many of the above cars are running low 14 second quarter miles
>>> and getting great gas mileage too without a single modification.
>>>
>>> Anyone wanting to dominate the overwhelming majority of vehicles
>>> these days with a vintage Mustang had better bring 400-500 hp to the
>>> table and/or one trick rear suspension. There are some four wheel
>>> drive rockets that my car couldn't take even in a straight line. All
>>> you need to do is look at where the Vette/Cobra, and even the Mustang
>>> GT, have to be from a horsepower perspective to be considered high
>>> performance cars. The bar is set high nowadays.
>>>
>> Amen.
>
> Granted, 340hp is fairly commonplace these days, but not in a lightweight
> RWD platform like the Fox Mustang.
>
> A few other things that might set the LX apart would be that it already
> has an Auburn along with 3.73s, and a LenTech (or comparable) can be had
> with a variety of ratios.
>
> At any rate, which would be the more desirable to drive - a freshened up
> Fox Mustang or a stock Camry? Not a difficult choice...

I wasn't accounting for style. I'll take a nice, strong Fox Mustang any
day over most new cars. I've quit trying to get my LX into the position
of domination from a hp perspective. I can't keep up with the current
power levels and keep the car safe for the street. I would need to be
thinking of 600+ rwhp/rwtq and that is just a silly amount of power for
that car. IMO, 500 is the jagged edge limit. Its next incarnation will
be geared toward an all around fun, dependable ride and not a take no
prisoners build up.

You're doing the right thing with the crate motor. Just install
whatever makes you happy and satisfied. Any more than that is a waste
of time, money and sanity.

Joe wrote:
> "dwight" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Joe" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "dwight" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> "Joe" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "dwight" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and
>>>>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are
>>>>>>> part of the family.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's just about time for the LX to be "born again" as a restomod,
>>>>>>> so I am starting with my plans. Suggestions are most welcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>> Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
>>>>>>> Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
>>>>>> Engine. Body. Interior.
>>>>> My list reads drivetrain, suspension, body, interior (if I get that
>>>>> far).
>>>> I lump the suspension in with the body, otherwise body would be
>>>> entirely cosmetic. On my list, body includes the underpinnings. (Oh,
>>>> yeah... one of my Koni quad shocks is leaking, too - add that to the
>>>> list.)
>>> I don't remember - does TFrog had subframe connectors? I seem to
>>> recall that the suspension on your car was pretty much stock.
>> It's all on the website, but yes - subframes, strut tower brace, lower
>> chassis brace. This was done early on. That leaking Koni has to be at
>> least 10 years old. Not bad!
>
> How'd you like the Konis? I ended up going with Tokicos, and now that
> I'm almost in the AARP, they are a bit too firm for my taste.
>
>>>>>> Make your lists. I start as "if money were no object" and then
>>>>>> pare it down to "things I really should do."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Engine: new crate engine all the way down to new serpentine belts.
>>>>> I'm going with drivetrain, which includes a crate engine coupled to
>>>>> something like a LenTech. My Auburn is sill fine, so the rear end
>>>>> should be ok as is.
>>>> Five years ago, my list included the crate engine, matched to a new
>>>> manual trans and complete exhaust makeover. Well, since then I've
>>>> had the tranny overhauled and now added the H-pipe to my cat-back,
>>>> so I've got the exhaust covered. Everything but the new engine.
>>> Sounds good. What about add-ons like headers, intake, cam, etc.?
>> The least of the crate engines at FordRacing.com puts out 340 horses,
>> and (I believe) comes with a mild cam and GT40 heads. No intake, so
>> I'd probably match it up with the GT40 intake manifold (?).
>
> I wonder what flows better - the Cobra intake or the GT40...

The GT40 upper flows better than the Cobra. It has smoother bends but
is also more expensive. It looks cool as hell too.

>> http://www.fordracingparts.com:80/cr...smallblock.asp is
>> what I'm looking at.
>
> Yup.
>
>>>>>> Body: new black paint job down to just replacing that cracked
>>>>>> windshield grille.
>>>>> I want to have the unibody straightened out and trued, and I need
>>>>> to have some front end issues resolved. The last idiot that put
>>>>> the car on a flatbed chained the front end incorrectly and the
>>>>> chains distorted the front support underneath the radiator. That
>>>>> all needs to be sorted out.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are also a few other odds 'n' ends like trim pieces (and yes,
>>>>> the windshield grille) and a few dings here and there, but the
>>>>> color will remain the same - Calypso Green.
>>>> (I was talking about TFrog, natcherly. I know you like that Calypso.
>>>> As you know, I almost bought your car - a Calypso Green hatchback,
>>>> but decided to go with the black at the last moment.)
>>> Yes, it's ironic. The LX I ended up with was the last automatic on
>>> the lot (that was one of the conditions my wife made me agree to), so
>>> I had no choice in color. Actually, I didn't like it all that much
>>> for the first month or so. But the color definitely grew on me, and
>>> I just love it now. That color's all but disappeared.
>> Yeah, slim pickin's in September '93. The largest Ford dealer in
>> Philadelphia had only a few left on the lot. I was the reverse - it
>> had to have a stick, so the choice was black or the Cayman Green.
>
> Yes. I recall not liking the '94 body style at all. I definitely
> wanted the Fox car.
>
>>>>>> Interior: (this may be where my focus is this year) I'd love to
>>>>>> have new seats and harnesses, but there's the mundane: Trim pieces
>>>>>> have come loose, there's a shock tower plastic cover missing in
>>>>>> the hatch area, and (I drive with the left window down a lot) do I
>>>>>> try to clean the headliner or replace it?
>>>>> The interior of the LX is still pretty good except for the
>>>>> headliner, the sun shades, and the ashtray cover. Seats need a
>>>>> good cleaning, but they are still fine. I even have the original
>>>>> netting for the hatch area.
>>>> Somehow, I ended up with two of those rollup hatch covers. Maybe one
>>>> was left over from the '84 after I sold it. But it hasn't been in
>>>> the car since I brought it home from the dealership.
>>> Forgot all about that thing - mine's still working fine. The spring
>>> still has the tension and the shade isn't ripped at all. Just a bit
>>> discolored from the sun.
>>>
>>>>>> I suppose, all in all, TFrog is in pretty good shape, so if I just
>>>>>> stuck to the cosmetic, it would look great. But, as an investment
>>>>>> in its future, I need to prepare to spend some serious money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dwight
>>>>> I'm thinking 10 grand should take care of the drivetrain and stuff
>>>>> with the suspension like bushings, control arms, etc. The springs
>>>>> are Steeda and I'll need shocks/struts, but the basics are there.
>>>>> Subframes are there, and I have the caster/camber plates too. 10
>>>>> grand should get me to the point where all that's left will be
>>>>> cosmetics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>> Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
>>>>> Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
>>>> Wow... When I priced this out, I figured $10-$12K would give me
>>>> everything, including the killer black paint job...
>>>>
>>>> Now, as we contemplate restoration... RESTORATION!...I'm going to
>>>> have to go back and figure out what all of this means in 2007
>>>> dollars.
>>>>
>>>> )
>>> Now that I've reviewed my list, I'm thinking 13-15k will do it. 10
>>> just won't be enough.
>> Not by a long shot.
>>
>> )
>
> I hope to save a few $$ by reusing some of my existing stuff. Rear,
> body stuff (subframes, upper/lower bracing, motor stuff, etc.).
> However, I should probably replace the mundane stuff like the A/C, PS
> pump, etc. Those things are destined to fail soon.

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:44:39 -0500, "dwight" >
wrote:

>"Spike" > wrote in message
.. .
>> My great grandmother was born in the Oklahoma Territory in the
>> proverbial sod hut. Married at 14, she arrievd in California in a
>> covered wagon. She lived long enough to see the rise of telephones,
>> cars, aircraft, radio, television, and computers, and watched man walk
>> on the moon.... She raised 15 kids, and never owned a car. She'd still
>> walk to the grocery to buy her groceries. Then she took a fall, broke
>> her hip and went down hill from there.
>>
>> In 5000 years, someone will probably dig up her bones and marvel at
>> the type of creatures which existed and wonder about their social
>> existances. And nobody will care that her greatgrandson drove a 65
>> Mustang Fastback that ran on dino fuel.
>>
>> :0) LOL
>
>Boy, you take the long view... I don't think that, in 5000 years, anyone is
>going to be around to dig up her bones. If they did, they wouldn't be able
>to tell any more from hers than from yours.
>
>It's very possible that the single biggest element of our society to live
>down through the ages is the fact that WE killed Mother Earth with all of
>our racing around on dino fuel, forcing mankind to either flee its home
>planet or adapt to living on a global-warmed-out rock. Ergo, you - as an
>active participant in the destruction - would hold more significance to
>future earthspawn than your great grandmother.
>
>dwight

Long view? 5000 years is less than the blink of an eye in geo time.
Cultural and Physical Anthropologists dig up the bones of hominids
around the world that are far far older than 5000 years and wonder at
the lives they led. Archeologists dig through the refuse piles of past
civilizations to discover what drove the society. I doubt it is too
far beyond the imagination to believe that in 5000 or 500,000 years
they will be digging through county dumps and cemetaries in a pursuit
of better understanding of how they got to where they are.

I expect there will be people still living that far in the future.
After all, when the great extinctions have taken place, there have
always been specie which survived and continued on. Some dinos
survived even to the present time... just in modified forms...

Throughout the history of man (and woman :0) there have been man made
disasters and natural disasters which have greatly reduced the
population levels. Wars. Plagues. Tsunamis. Etc. It's nature balancing
out. Too many people and disease spreads quickly. Wars kill off the
males and thus reduce the rate of population growth. We are long
overdue for either man made or nature made.

Is the earth warming? Of course. Is it caused by man? Good question.
If it is, then how do we explain the ice ages and warm periods between
ice ages? How do we explain the air quality being worse during various
periods BEFORE industrialization? Al Gore and his side have no more
idea of what drives the weather than those who argue that it's all a
chicken little scenario. Man has not existed near long enough to see
and understand the dynamics od earth's cycles.

Like the man said.... follow the money. And the money is in the
billions to those who can keep the global warming fears alive and
promote their ideas on how to fix it.

So, I'll continue to use dino fuel until something better comes along,
just as I feel fairly certain you do if you drive, ride public
transportation, use electricity, heat or cool your abode, and even
feed and cloth yourself.

:0)
This public service announcement brought to you by High Desert
Septic... "We're #1 in the #2 business."