bandit12

in my Trailblazer EXT

Cars
His: He had a mid 80's LX. It had dual exhaust but sounded like crap. It could have been a V6 poser. Although I am pretty sure it was a 5.0 b/c it looked just like this vert but it was a hatch. 84 Stang

Mine: 02 Trailblazer EXT I-6 all stock.

Details

I noticed him in the parking lot at Wallyworld b/c he was doing 5-15mph punches thinking he had something. I got behind him while pulling out. At the next light he was first and the car in front of me went to the turning lane. My first thought was he will kill me but this will be fun.

So the light turns green and ease out at first giving him the first opportunity. I stay next to him and when he notices I hear him punch it. So I oblige and catch up to him quickly and started to pull away. We both slow down coming to the next intersection and he turns off.

The look on his face was priceless. It was the "damn I thought I had something" dumbfounded one.

What is weird though is if I was in my goat, I most likely wouldn't have given him the time of day. Sometimes you can have fun when not driving the goat. Who woulda thunk?
__________________

Irunelevens

Sounds like a 4cyl foxbody to me, but there is a big possibility it was just the stock '84-ish 302. Only had 175hp that year, and I'm sure time hasn't been kind to it.

ChocoTaco369

if it said "mustang LX"...wouldn't it be a 4 banger? all the V8's are GT's. sounds like a 4 banger to me. biggest mistake ford ever made was making a 4 cylinder mustang. i mean, ford has made A LOT of mistakes, but this is like "new coke".

sweetness

no the made 8 cylinder lx's actually the lx is faster than the GT ( gt has a little more power) but the lx is lighter.

bandit12

Not all LX's are 4 bangers or V6's. A V8 was available for the LX.

Ford did what it had to do to keep the V8's around. If not for the 4's and the V6's it would have not been profitable. If it were not for the Mustang II's in the late 70's (which were gawd aweful in performance) the Mustang may have been lost forever.

Irunelevens

There were actually ALOT of LX 5.0s. Notchback (coupe) and hatchback.

Oso SS

iTrader: (3)

No, all the GT's are V8s, but not all V8s are GTs.

ponygt65

Irunelevens

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square

SilverStang00

iTrader: (2)

Exactly, some people just dont get how things were back then, granted I wasnt alive but my dad told me that the majority of people wanted a car that had style, and economy. With the new emissions laws and high gas prices Ford built a car that helped them and that people liked. Dont say it was a big mistake, because it wasnt, it was the right move for the time. They started putting better engine combos in as the market came back.

J E T

iTrader: (5)

I don't think they made a v6 foxbody Mustang. Just 5.0 and 4 cyl.

SilverStang00

iTrader: (2)

Im pretty sure some of the early 80's cars had a V6 option, but the fox body everybody thinks about (87-93) didn't, just 4 or 8

Irunelevens

Yeah, the very early fox-bodies had V6s... I think that stopped in '83?

ls1_doc

iTrader: (6)

Yeah some of the fox's had a 3.8l motor in them. Like in the 85's and 86's and maybe some others.

Car RamRod

iTrader: (1)

Im pretty sure 86 was the last year for the sixer in the fox.

I think even a fairly maintained 84 5.0 lx would pull that TB a little bit, let alone not get pulled hard. So I dunno, not saying it wasn't a v8, but either way it was obviously nothing special.

Sparetire

The 4 bangers were not all bad. The SVO is actually pretty badass for its time. That 2.3L is a fricken awesome motor actually. Cosworth is still using it in some apps. The Seven style Caterhams still use it and they get like 260 NA from it in some tunes IIRC. My old truck had it and its simply un-killable. I tried. No tack, M5 tranny, 16 years old=death for almost any engine. Not that one.

Honestly, whats sad is that the 2.3 block probably can hold more power than a lot of the stock 302 blocks. Stupid 80s. If stuff had kept progressing normally we would have had LS1s in 1990.

SilverStang00

iTrader: (2)

Yeah, there is a guy around here with some British kit car, dont know what its called, but he has a built/turbo 2.3 out of an SVO, and that damn car is insane. I think he said like 330 rwhp, and in a car that weighs less than 3000 pounds. The 2.3 has massive potential.

Car RamRod

iTrader: (1)

This is true. Next 302 based engine I build is gonna be in a late 60s block.

Irunelevens

I have a friend that used to have a '92 h/c/i/vortech GT convertible as his show/race car, and a '91 LX hatch 2.3 5spd for his daily driver... that car had barely enough power to get out of it's own way, but it wouldn't die. Apparently it locked up with 130k on it, so he poured some tranny fluid in it, put a breaker bar on the crank, and popped it loose. It had a rod-knock for next 40k miles... but it still ran.

wickedwarlock

iTrader: (4)

Nope, same engine, same horsepower, but you are correct, lighter!