me vs old 5.0
12-30-2012, 10:46 PM
#145
On The Tree
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wilmywood NC
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-08-2013, 04:27 PM
#149
In the 6+ years ive been around hondas i have yet to see a honda with a big black ***** as a shift ****. Just sayin. Infact this is the first time ive ever seen a ***** as a shift ****, and it had to be on a mustang. Self explanatory.
Last edited by adamantium; 01-08-2013 at 04:39 PM.
01-08-2013, 08:15 PM
#152
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has done 1 thing for sure... Made me realize I really am getting some years behind me...
As for the bigger debate about the 80's cars, Mustang absolutely won the war regardless what anyone says... Just look at the facts and leave your opinion aside for a moment. The Mustang cost less and was WAY more capable when each was modified, unless you spent literally thousands more on the F-body. No matter the mods to each??? Door slammin' Mustangs were running MID 6 second 1/4 mile ET's as early as 2001... Fox body Mustangs... with single power adders. You never saw that from any F-body of the 80's(or any other era). The crappy "handling" setup of the Mustang was a big part of why.
When we take note that about 1 tenth of all 80's Camaros using V8's were ACTUALLY quick for their day, we tend to NOT take note that during that time, the V8 Mustang simply didn't have some "less than, yet still more expensive" engine option... You could ALWAYS spend more for the Camaro, but you could NOT always have the quicker pony car with the Camaro.
Bragging about a 1LE or IROC is fine, but they often cost about 3 thousand dollars more than the Mustang GT of the same model year... That was a BUNCH back in the 80's. "Lesser" (most) F-bodies of the day would only getcha embarrassment at the drag strip.
Primarily though, it says you don't know enough about cars to make a good decision... about cars! 
A 1991 Honda Accord(4cyl) was rated at the same highway fuel economy as a 1991 Mustang LX 5.0L... Yet it lacked about 100hp and 200 ft-lb torque to said Mustang. 
As for the bigger debate about the 80's cars, Mustang absolutely won the war regardless what anyone says... Just look at the facts and leave your opinion aside for a moment. The Mustang cost less and was WAY more capable when each was modified, unless you spent literally thousands more on the F-body. No matter the mods to each??? Door slammin' Mustangs were running MID 6 second 1/4 mile ET's as early as 2001... Fox body Mustangs... with single power adders. You never saw that from any F-body of the 80's(or any other era). The crappy "handling" setup of the Mustang was a big part of why.
When we take note that about 1 tenth of all 80's Camaros using V8's were ACTUALLY quick for their day, we tend to NOT take note that during that time, the V8 Mustang simply didn't have some "less than, yet still more expensive" engine option... You could ALWAYS spend more for the Camaro, but you could NOT always have the quicker pony car with the Camaro.
Bragging about a 1LE or IROC is fine, but they often cost about 3 thousand dollars more than the Mustang GT of the same model year... That was a BUNCH back in the 80's. "Lesser" (most) F-bodies of the day would only getcha embarrassment at the drag strip.
A 1991 Honda Accord(4cyl) was rated at the same highway fuel economy as a 1991 Mustang LX 5.0L... Yet it lacked about 100hp and 200 ft-lb torque to said Mustang.
01-08-2013, 08:28 PM
#153
Haha no, just have different likes and preferences than you. There are more honda's available then a 1991 accord. I was talking about civics. My civic with the stock motor used to get 30ish mpg in the city. Slow as ***** but a simple, cheap b-series swap and an egay turbo kit with supporting mods would completely change that and still get close to 30mpg with mixed driving and e85
01-08-2013, 08:54 PM
#154
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha no, just have different likes and preferences than you. There are more honda's available then a 1991 accord. I was talking about civics. My civic with the stock motor used to get 30ish mpg in the city. Slow as ***** but a simple, cheap b-series swap and an egay turbo kit with supporting mods would completely change that and still get close to 30mpg with mixed driving and e85
Footnote: You're only fooling yourself if you think ANYONE who knows a thing about E85 is going to believe you'll get anywhere near 30mpg mixed with that and a turbo in a Civic... unless the engine is from a CBR!
E85 DESTROYS fuel economy! If your stock, regular Civic got 30hwy, the same Civic on E85 won't... period. Typically, vehicles lose about 15-20% of their economy while using junk fuel, which E85 really is.
01-08-2013, 09:03 PM
#155
First you say you have likes, then you mention the Civic... Have you ever been NEAR a 1991 Civic??? LOL! I've had one(1990 actually) and believe me, my 1990 Mustang was far and away a better car. Sure, people say otherwise, but I've never heard anyone who actually had each make that claim. My Prelude, on the other hand, was nicer than my Mustang and felt better to drive. The comparison with the Accord makes more sense, which is why I used it. The Civic isn't in the category of Mustang on any level, but back then, the Accord was about the same size.
My stock regular civic used to get 30ish in the city. Go back and re read what i said.
I have seen close to 30mpg with mixed driving on e85.
Heres a quote from a moderator from honda-tech.
Where exactly are you located ? Im in S.FL.
Last edited by adamantium; 01-08-2013 at 09:17 PM.
