I dun did it....

Ditto. I rented a 6 and I loved it, very cool car. But my 5.0 is a ton quicker.

Brad

No way. We all know the 93 was intentionally downgraded to 205 cause bringing out the 'new' '94 with 215 would have been a marketing disaster. My

5.0 doesn't have any problems with those either.

Brad

Neck and neck. A car length either way. But I'm talking about CFrog, that bloated, heavy, sluggish '93 GT convertible with automatic. Even with that, I'm not worried...

:()

"dwight" wrote in news:h4mdnQj3mYpSYsLbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Uh, I was talking about TFrog against my LX. I think I'd have ya.

"BradandBrooks" wrote in news:3AQ7i.250159$aG1.152753@pd7urf3no:

What's not been said so far is that the "downgrade" was only on paper. The '93s were just as powerful as their predecessors.

Maybe. TFrog is a prideful thing. Not proud, but prideful.

dwight

innews:gpKdnQNoapXL78LbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@usadatanet.net:

I don't know about smear... I think it could be a good race...

Here's some 0-6, 1/4 times...

1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.0 (MT Jan '88) 1989 Ford Mustang GT 5.0l Manual 6.2 14.8 (MT Jan '89) 1990 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.4 14.9 1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6 1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.2 14.8 1993 Ford Mustang GT (auto) 8.0 16.1

and the S197 V6..

2005 Ford Mustang 4.0l 6.9 15.3

So the S197 is slower... but as someone mentioned there is a really good aftermarket for the 4.0L! I've seen 4.0L run low 14's with just bolt-on's...

personally i have gone way way overboard with my S197 V6.... 317 RWHP / 303 RWTQ... she's gone 12.85 @ 107MPH... If you get Modified Mustang, check Scott Hoag's column this month... he talks about all the things we've done to my six! LOL! or you could always check my car out at

Congrats on the new Stang!!

there was a loss of HP when they changed from speed density to mass air of

20 HP or more. I had both kind of cars and the 87 was hotter.