Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
This beast's 302 V8 put out 14 less HP than my 3.0L V6 Ranger does.
Interestingly enough the 1975 Mustang II in V8 5.0L with the cruise-o-matic glory put out a whopping 1 more HP, was more than 3 seconds slower 0-60 all while delivering much much worse fuel economy than my 1.8L Corolla.
My pop would NOT SHUT UP about how his fairmont with the 200 c.i. 6 had 85 hp and the base fairmont with the PINTO MOTOR had 82 hp, the LOSERS!
He special ordered this heap with a stick shift, replete with crummy plastic shift forks. The extra 3 horse powers blew through those forks. His mechanic dutifully replaced them with metal forks, one at a time, until they were all done.
He never test drove the combo, as none were on the dealer lot. We drove by a few years later; the dealer was tango uniform and it was just a grassy knoll.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
This beast's 302 V8 put out 14 less HP than my 3.0L V6 Ranger does.
Interestingly enough the 1975 Mustang II in V8 5.0L with the cruise-o-matic glory put out a whopping 1 more HP, was more than 3 seconds slower 0-60 all while delivering much much worse fuel economy than my 1.8L Corolla.
My pop would NOT SHUT UP about how his fairmont with the 200 c.i. 6 had 85 hp and the base fairmont with the PINTO MOTOR had 82 hp, the LOSERS!
He special ordered this heap with a stick shift, replete with crummy plastic shift forks. The extra 3 horse powers blew through those forks. His mechanic dutifully replaced them with metal forks, one at a time, until they were all done.
He never test drove the combo, as none were on the dealer lot. We drove by a few years later; the dealer was tango uniform and it was just a grassy knoll.