what is the best rwd car that i could get for around 5,000? i want it to be moderately fast and handle good. i would prefer a domestic car

Probably a 93-97 Camaro Z28. I believe they handle better than the Mustangs that you can get for $5,000.

well, the camaro is faster and the mustang handles better. id suggest you get the mustang with the 302 (pre 96) cause theres alot more aftermarket for it than the camaro... even the 96+ with the 4.6 has more fatermarket but the 302 has alot more aftermarket and youll have more cash for the aftermarket parts.

hmmmm, fast, handles good, rwd, NISSAN 300ZX!!!! i will say more if i have to.

im going to have to agree with freakonaleash the 300z would be a better choice over the camaro or the mustang. you see so many of the mustangs and the camaro is almost as common. the tt300z would be the better choice for the money around 6 or 7 thousand for a 90-96 depending on the motor and cars options. i have nothing agaisnt the camaro the older mustangs are fucking awsome mainly the fastback style, but the mustang after the early 80's there to many of them.

hmmmm, fast, handles good, rwd, NISSAN 300ZX!!!! i will say more if i have to.

That's not dumbestic...lol (puts flame suit on)

ya but good luck finding a 300zx tt in good condition for under 5k... you'll find a 300zx NA for that price but if it aint a tt its a boat anchor. u can find a fox body stang with prolly less the 75k in great condition and still have 2 grand to work with, someone say supercharger?

ya but good luck finding a 300zx tt in good condition for under 5k... you'll find a 300zx NA for that price but if it aint a tt its a boat anchor. u can find a fox body stang with prolly less the 75k in great condition and still have 2 grand to work with, someone say supercharger?

how do you say it is a boat anchor?

The 300ZX N/A only weighs 50-100 lbs. less than a Camaro Z28 from the same year, yet it lacks V8 power. It's not a boat anchor, but compared to the Z28, it's not very fast. Now if you want a lavish interior, beautiful design, and supreme build quality, then the 300ZX starts to make a lot of sense. But I don't think the creator of this thread is really looking for that.

300ZX TT (3.0 Liter Twin Turbo 300HP)
0-60 in 5.2 seconds
Car and Driver's Top Ten from 90-96 (all production years of the Z32 model)

I dont know many anchors that can do say that

lavish interior? i dunno about that, i think the zx has pretty bland interior, ive always like the mustang interior for its originality. and theyre both pretty comfortable so i dont see how ones better than the other... and theyre both solid cars, i dont see how the nissan build is "supreme" considering the mustangs platform was from 79 they did a good job with it.


and i called it a boat anchor because its slow... v6 mustang is also a boat anchor so dont get all up in arms because i made a negative comment about a zx.

300ZX TT (3.0 Liter Twin Turbo 300HP)
0-60 in 5.2 seconds
Car and Driver's Top Ten from 90-96 (all production years of the Z32 model)

I dont know many anchors that can do say that


someone didnt read that clearly, i said the NA is a boat anchor... as in naturally aspirated... as in not turbod... the TT is not a boat anchor nor did i claim it was

bmw... bmw... bmw...


E30!!!!

The BMW is gonna be seriously underpowered and pretty expensive compared to a domestic V8 or twin-turbo import, but the handling and transmission are hella nice.

$5000

you people keep saying 300zxtt and the rest but ive yet to see a 300zxtt with less than 200,000 miles for that price, highly unlikely.

thats was im sayin, u might get a nafor that price but not a tt

'87 325i would be your best bet for price, reliability and power. 171 hp stock, 2700 lbs. You could get one for $5k or less. And it would handle WAY better than any domestic you could get for that price...

a camaro or mustang is gonna be the best bet.
you can get a 94-5 Z28 LT1 for 5 grand and run
low 14's stock

and don't listen to some people that tell you domestics can't handle, they can handle well. and i don't think this guy is gonna be racing on the street taking 90degree turns everyother day either. so a car that is plenty fast with ok handling is just fine.

Seriously, as long as the road is flat, the Camaro can handle with the best of 'em.

Seriously, as long as the road is flat, the Camaro can handle with the best of 'em.

you mean flat & straight.

ROFL no seriously though, look up some lap times, the Camaro is pretty fast as long as the road is smooth.

ROFL no seriously though, look up some lap times, the Camaro is pretty fast as long as the road is smooth.


No, this is not true. A Camaro cannot have good handling. It is a domestic. You people need to learn that no domestic can ever ever handle good, no matter what lap times may say. If it's a domestic, all it can do is go fast in a straight line. This is the number one rule people must learn.




:eek7:

hmm so u guys havent considered an mr2 turbo yet? yes u can find a turbo for 5,000... some have found good condition mr2 turbos for 4,000

200hp rwd mid engine... faster than the n/a 300zx.. and probably handles better than all three cars listed so far

I'm not saying that domestics can't handle well, hell both the viper and the corvette own the nsx in handling, styling, and speed! :smokin:

What I am saying, though, is that e30's have features not even found in some newer cars. Especially if you get a sport model.

No, this is not true. A Camaro cannot have good handling. It is a domestic. You people need to learn that no domestic can ever ever handle good, no matter what lap times may say. If it's a domestic, all it can do is go fast in a straight line. This is the number one rule people must learn.




:eek7:

It's good that you agree with me.

Why not the 300's little brother ...the 240?

i believe the mr2 is faster than that too

the interior and exterior styling is important but not as important as the power and handling of the car.
what do you guys think about an ex-police car, i know it's not as powerful as the cars you mentioned but would it be good enough for a first car and how fast are they

How? You got about five million different answers, everything from Nissan to BMW to Chevy :)

Why not the 300's little brother ...the 240?

As neat of a little car as it is... It's really quite slow stock, granted you can pick them up for about 3k and mod them out for 2k get some decent power out of it :)
But if you don't wanna do any modifications I would suggest prolly an older Mustang or a Camaro as well. You can pick up a 5.0 for under 5k, hell I've seen them for 2k Never EVER seens a 300 TT for under 6-7 grand... well that ran anyway.

A mustang I would imagine is your best bet, Not the greatest looking car, but She's pretty decent powerwise, and handles well also (Shut Up) Faster than a prelude throught the slalom and cheaper too :P

Hey you could buy one for 3 grand, get steedas suspension upgrade (W/ side exit Exhaust) for 2k and you have a Very nice handling car for 5k with around 230 HP or something :P It's perfect haha....

Why not a FC?

cheap yet semi-fast RWD cars

-RX-7 2nd or 3rd gen. is your best bet, 3rd with a 13B sequincial turbo....nice
-240SX
-Carolla AE-86 (if you can find one, highly unlikely. also this is more of a handleing car than a gofat car....bu can be made pretty quick even on stock motor)

an oh look all 3 are imports...and all but the AE-86 can stomp the early-mid 90's (and very ugly) mustangs and comaros....no comparison there....and they will probably last longer too, lol...

Dude, Ford's 5.0 is one of the most reliable, cheapest to maintain engines out there. I dunno what you're talking about. And the only one of those cars that will trump an LT1 Camaro is the FD3S RX-7 Twin Turbo, but it costs at least $5,000 more than the Camaro for one in good condition. And don't even get me started on repair costs for rotary engines.

The only affordable import from that time period that will offer a competitive bang-for-buck to the Mustang and Camaro is the Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX (also known as Eagle Talon TSi AWD and Plymouth Laser RS Turbo AWD).

cheap yet semi-fast RWD cars

-RX-7 2nd or 3rd gen. is your best bet, 3rd with a 13B sequincial turbo....nice
-240SX
-Carolla AE-86 (if you can find one, highly unlikely. also this is more of a handleing car than a gofat car....bu can be made pretty quick even on stock motor)

an oh look all 3 are imports...and all but the AE-86 can stomp the early-mid 90's (and very ugly) mustangs and comaros....no comparison there....and they will probably last longer too, lol...
I don't think you can get the FD for about $5000...Unless it is really high mileage or engine dead...

im still sticking w/ the mr2 turbo

I'm with ec472 on this one. The older BMW's make perfectly practical rwd cars, and are usable in an everyday situation. You also get the brilliant handeling, and perfect weight balacne. In britain, theres a rule of thumb with old BM's and Mercedes, the bigger, the cheeper. If thats the case over your side of the pond, then a 535 or 635 could be a good investmant, likewise with the mercs. They used to put some monstorous engines in their cars. 560SEC's or 600SEL V12's could really lay the power down.

Dude, Ford's 5.0 is one of the most reliable, cheapest to maintain engines out there. I dunno what you're talking about. And the only one of those cars that will trump an LT1 Camaro is the FD3S RX-7 Twin Turbo, but it costs at least $5,000 more than the Camaro for one in good condition. And don't even get me started on repair costs for rotary engines.

The only affordable import from that time period that will offer a competitive bang-for-buck to the Mustang and Camaro is the Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX (also known as Eagle Talon TSi AWD and Plymouth Laser RS Turbo AWD).

:rofl: the FORD 5.0 is about the biggest POS over weght low HP motor i have ever seen in my life....an FD3s and an LT1 both cost over 5,000 and the guy asked for a decently fast RWD car under 5 grand...the repair cost on a rotary engine is very minimal....even if you apex seals get so over worn that they are no longer actually apex's then all you have to do is send them off to any RX-7 shop in the US and they will re machien your apex seals for about 100 a rotor....and ther are only 3 rotors, 300 USD is about the same for just a simple engine rebuild kit....other than that sparkplug replacment and injector replacement is all your really need...and if you know anything about rotaries you know to always bring the motor up to operating tempatures before driving it and deff before shutting it off....that is probably why you htink rotaries are high matainence...idiots who dont know jack about their cars start it up and move it like 10 feet then shut it off before brining it to operating tempature and the engine floods....but all that is required for that is a cap full of transmission fluid in the intake....the GSX is FWD anyway...dude wants a RWD...and if you want to talk about performance and FWD of the time lets talk about a CRX for less than 1000 and a b18c engine swap....180HP on a 1800lb car is quite fast...trust me, i know, one of my good friends drives an '89 CRX HF and was tired of the wimpy 70HP so spring for a non V-Tec b18....its still quite fast, now imagine droping a V-Tec B18...you could probably pick up a late 80's CRX for about 700, 3000 for a good engine swap and then save your pennies and get a turbo... with the CRX's light weight and short wheel base it handles very well....but the dude wants RWD so i didnt even mention that....

Holy shit, you're stupid. The 5.0 is ANYTHING but overweight. It weighs less than an EJ20-T, an SR20DET, a 3S-GTE, and a 4G63-T, because it doesn't have a pair of overhead cams, a turbocharger, and an intercooler to lug around. I don't see what's underpowered about 300 ft-lb of torque right out of the box, and that's before you do a boatload of extremely cheap mods. Anyways, I'll let the 5.0 guys take this one, since they know a lot more about the engine than I do.

the mustangs 5.0 is over wieght and under powered for an engine that size...

Overweight compared to what? Underpowered compared to what? Last I checked, it makes more torque at a much lower rpm than the 13B-REW, and it weighs less since it's a relatively low-tech engine and it doesn't rely on a turbo/intercooler to make big power. And I last checked, it's way cheaper to get repairs on than a 13B-REW. And I last checked, it's way easier to find and cheaper to buy. If the rotary engine is superior, then how come people are ripping it out of 1st and 2nd gen. RX-7's and swapping in Ford 5.0's?

the mustangs 5.0 is over wieght and under powered for an engine that size...

AND THE AWARD FOR BIGGEST DUMBASS IN THE UNIVERSE GOES TOO.................... HOLY CRAP WHY ITS CBFryman. congrats

:rolleyes:

umm, i can understand how 225 hp is underpowered but its a damn near 20 year old engine... a 20 year old pushrod NA engine... and ford could have had it puttin more hp if they wanted but the had to mix performance with economy and they did a good job of that considering it still has 300 TQ. and its not over weight and its sure as hell not a POS... that engine WILL outlast most import PERFORMANCE engines... 225,000+ miles without losing any performance (and ive driven mustangs with considerably higher miles than that and runnin just as strong) obviously your biase and close minded.

the GSX is not FWD, its AWD.
CBFryman, do you even know how much a foxbody stang weighs?

It's a Mustang, it automatically by default weighs at least 3500 lbs. and will get owned by any import at autocrossing.

i love how this cbfryman kid talks about how underpowered the mustang 5.0 engine is and how it weighs SOOOO much, as well as its way too unreliable. all this coming from a kid who cant even drive yet:slap:

Man, you say EVERYONE can't drive. But hey, the way he is talking, it's probably true :P

umm, i can understand how 225 hp is underpowered but its a damn near 20 year old engine... a 20 year old pushrod NA engine... and ford could have had it puttin more hp if they wanted but the had to mix performance with economy and they did a good job of that considering it still has 300 TQ. and its not over weight and its sure as hell not a POS... that engine WILL outlast most import PERFORMANCE engines... 225,000+ miles without losing any performance (and ive driven mustangs with considerably higher miles than that and runnin just as strong) obviously your biase and close minded.

ummm a 5.0L making 225hp... thats 45hp per liter compared to an s2000 making 120 per liter.... if an engine is making 45hp per liter it better last a long time... the s2000 has great reliability making over 250% more hp per liter than the mustang so i dont think thats a completely fair comparison either... trust me if the 5.0L was making 600hp stock i dont think it would be lasting very long

A few flaws in that, ghetto702azn.

1. The S2000 is 20 years newer than the 5.0. It's much more high-tech, and also much more expensive, so of course it's going to have a much higher hp/liter ratio.
2. hp/liter doesn't really mean anything anyways, since hp/weight is what determines how fast a car is.
3. The 5.0 may not make as much horsepower, but it makes it at half the rpm that the S2000 does. What do you think is going to last longer while being driven hard, a car that revs to 8500 rpm before it shifts or a car that reves to 4200 rpm before it shifts?
4. Ford's 5.0 has been around for 25 years, and the test of time has shown what a solidly built, reliable engine it is. I'm not saying that Honda engines aren't just as reliable, but the 5.0 is anything but archaic.

once again its a damn near 20 year old engine, comparing to a new car is just retarded... and if you think ford couldnt possibly get more hp out of it then thats also retarded, ford uses v8's... if ford were to put out 120 hp per liter then the current mustang would have 550 hp, thats obviously not an option its also not an option to drop the v8s or drop the displacement however they could get the same power out of a smaller engine but people were already pissed when they went from a 302 to a 281 and thats not even half a liter. ford fans like the v8 they like the displacement thats the point, so wut do they do? offer a v8 with reasonable power at an even more reasonable price, its not like ford cant make a high horse power per liter engine and rip off the consumer like the import companies do (cause they do, theyre called crate engines)

and yes i do believe most crate engines by most companies are rip offs (not just ford and certainly not just domestics).

i love how this cbfryman kid talks about how underpowered the mustang 5.0 engine is and how it weighs SOOOO much, as well as its way too unreliable. all this coming from a kid who cant even drive yet:slap:

cant drive yet...hmmmm...comeing form someone who more than likly rarely picks up a wrench and if he does tunes his 5.0mustang to go in a straight line...what fun...tons of $$$ and time owrking on your car all for 10-15seconds of rush...now lets take the cars i listed and lets put them on an autocross track.....hmmmm the 5.0 is overwieght and off balence...the engien weighs quite a bit and being that it is over the forn axle instead of behind it the 5.0 plows throught turns instead of going around them properly....what fun trying to get oversteer out of a 5.0...lmao that would be a sceen...a stock cavilier could handbrake oversteer better than the 5.0....stop looking straight ahead and start looking at whats around the corner....

CBfryman, pop quiz: How much does a stock 1987 Mustang LX 5.0 coupe weigh?

You're either going to do some research on the subject and realize how wrong you are, or give a stupid answer and look like a jack-ass. The choice is yours...

and look at his profile, he CANT drive, he has no idea what hes even talking about, go auto crossing HAHA, like he has ever been autocrossing, and i dont own a 5.o, i used to own a 300zx hence the name. damn i swear kids are getting dumber and dumber

im so friggin sick of this steryotype about americans only wanting to go in straight lines... american cars were going around tracks before there were "imports" i am a big fan of everytype of racing, drag, autocross, drifting, rally etc... so why dont you quit steriotypin people? just makes you sound uninformed.

A few flaws in that, ghetto702azn.

1. The S2000 is 20 years newer than the 5.0. It's much more high-tech, and also much more expensive, so of course it's going to have a much higher hp/liter ratio.
2. hp/liter doesn't really mean anything anyways, since hp/weight is what determines how fast a car is.
3. The 5.0 may not make as much horsepower, but it makes it at half the rpm that the S2000 does. What do you think is going to last longer while being driven hard, a car that revs to 8500 rpm before it shifts or a car that reves to 4200 rpm before it shifts?
4. Ford's 5.0 has been around for 25 years, and the test of time has shown what a solidly built, reliable engine it is. I'm not saying that Honda engines aren't just as reliable, but the 5.0 is anything but archaic.

i wasnt talking about speed i was talking about reliability

and it still stands...

ford isnt making an n/a engine with close to that ratio and yet its reliability is still lower than most import companies...

the rsx is another very reliable car since u were arguing about price (~$24,000) that revs considerable high still making 100hp per liter and from what i know are better quality then current mustangs

so heres something... the current 3.8L n/a mustang makes 190hp (~$23,000) ... if u do the math that comes out to 50hp per liter

this means that the price of the two cars is about the same... the mustang has 1.8 more liter more or u could say almost 2x as many liters and makes 10 less hp

you said that the s2000 is 20 years newer so of course its hp per liter would be higher

well its also been over 20 year for the mustang and its hp per liter has gone up by 5hp...

so wuts up with that?

first off dont bother comparing the v6 mustang, it wasnt built for performance, it was built for kids who couldnt afford the insurance but still wanted a mustang. and as for the v8 mustangs low hp/liter ratio read my other post.

i dont have anything against domestics... i like the z06, new mach 1, and respect the hp per dollar... the z06 is probably one of the best buys for performance with hp and handling as well... but i have to disagree with ford being able to make the same ammount of hp per liter imports can... ill believe it when i see it... there is a reason why you get so much hp for ur dollar... not as much technology goes into their engines.... they get their hp from superchargers and displacement which is relatively low technology and the easiest way to make hp....

ford is one of the few companies that doesnt or i havent heard planning to use a system like toyota's vvt-i or honda's v-tec... a lot of companies like nissan started using this

ford is very behind in technology imo... i believe they bought toyota's 2nd generation hybrid technology last year when the new prius uses their 7th i think... im not sure what generation it was but it was quite far from what ford bought

im so friggin sick of this steryotype about americans only wanting to go in straight lines... american cars were going around tracks before there were "imports" i am a big fan of everytype of racing, drag, autocross, drifting, rally etc... so why dont you quit steriotypin people? just makes you sound uninformed.
I wouldn't say that if it wasn't so true, every time a Mustang/Camaro owner has ever bragged to me it's about straight line speed and when I bring cornering into the equation it's normally "But the streets are all straight baw"

I've driven what GM and Ford call sports cars (Mustang and Camaro V8) and have consistently been unimpressed with how attrocious the road holding and handling is on anything other than a billiard table-smooth road.

I don't doubt that Mustangs and Camaros can handle well with the right tweaking, but as it is from the factory, they're terrible and obviously designed for the Strip (Understaby because that's what most of the owners use them for).

The Mustang may not make as much HP, but it makes a hell of a lot more torque, and at a much lower RPM. And as I said, HP/liter doesn't mean jack shit. HP/weight is what matters, and the Mustang GT is just fine in that department, running the quarter mile in as low as 14 seconds flat. The only way you'll get that fast in an S2000 is if you launch it from 8000 rpm, which is going to annihilate your clutch after a couple of runs.

5 liter cammer has applications making 500 hp, thats 100 per liter which when you consider the size of the engine (larger engines waste a higher percentage of energy) is pretty good, the reason ford used a superchager is because of cost, the cobra engine makes 390 hp (they actually make over 400) and that engine costs like 12 grand, the 5.0 cammer with 440 hp costs about 15,000 and ford already had a large batch of the 32 valve 4.6L dohc's so all they had to do was slap a supercharger on it and wala. so basically ford offered top performance for bottom dollar. and still still disagree with the stang being horrible at handling, granted it was built to be a drag car cause thats what the majority of people want, it seems to handle just fine for me.

and as for technology:

The GT’s 4.6-liter, three-valve MOD V-8 packs 40 more horsepower than the current V-8 and more than 50 percent more power than the fiery small-block 289-cubic-inch V-8 that propelled the 1964 model to stardom. This new level of performance – on regular gas – is made possible by intelligent application of modern technology, including all-aluminum construction and a new head design that incorporates three valves per cylinder and variable cam timing.

the quality has also gone up quite a bit, the new 500 has gotten great reviews, some being so bold as to claim it was better than its japanese counterparts (it is built of the volvo platform) with the exception of its 203 hp v6(capable of 60 in low 7 second range due to the 6 speed auto.) its an overall good car, but they will have a 250 hp v6 in a year. and from people ive talked to who have driven 05 mustangs say import people will be amazed with how solid it is and how well it handles compared to previous mustangs.


so ford is catching up.

still dont think that ford is anywhere near where japan is at

toyota has already made multiple concepts using hybrid engines... one with 408hp with a 6 cylinder n/a the other an 8 cylinder n/a 600hp hybrid engine (not a typo)

im looking forward to the release of a new toyota sports car since they have been lacking and exciting one for a while

trust me... toyota and honda are VERY technically advanced to ford... if ford ever catches up or passes imports in technology it will probably be over a couple decades

*edit*
i forgot what the displacement on the engines were but they werent big... ill have to look them up tomorrow or something

it will eventually happen, not sayin theyll surpass but catch up, the reason toyota and honda are so high up is because they were tryin to find ways to bring in new buyers where as ford had no need to, they were untouchable, well that closemindedness by ford is costing them bigtime and they know if they dont step it up they wont be number for long. so in short ford just wasnt trying, but they are now. and as far as variable cam timing etc... it doesnt even matter cause it wont be to long before gasolin engines are exstinct theyll switch over to hybrid long before we run out of oil because well need all that crued oil for plastics etc... so im not to worried about that, and the hybrid technology, toyota is ahead. time will tell on that

I personally could care less who is the most technologically advanced. I just like fast, cheap RWD cars :)

how much does a Fox body weight anyways? i know a third Gen RX-7 weights 2700 lbs. so with that power to weight ratio thats why they put it in SS class ( which is super stock ) where it competes with Z06's and vipers. even the NSX and EVO 8 or STi's are in AS ( A Stock ).

acoording to edmunds.com the gt's curb weight is just over 2800 lbs(ive never weighed one myself but it has the rx7 listed at like 2780 so ill trust them)... lx is lighter.

Ford... Untouchable! Nobody is untouchable in today’s market. As for the Mustang. Ok, It’s popular in the USA. But only in the USA! And it’s not down to quality, but more nostalgia.

45phb per litre CC! That’s diabolical for a "modern" sports car! Indeed to run one of those in Britain, where we are charged the proper rate for petrol, would represent financial rape for the owners of mustangs!

Europe and Japan can produce products of a finer quality, with greater potential, reliability, and performance.

Change is not such a bad thing. If Ford wanted to make the Mustang a global success, then that 5.0l V8 needs scraping, and a new engine needs to be developed that’s more suited to a modern, ecological, and economic society.

Change is not such a bad thing. If Ford wanted to make the Mustang a global success, then that 5.0l V8 needs scraping, and a new engine needs to be developed that’s more suited to a modern, ecological, and economic society.

The newer Mustangs have a 4.6L OHC engine (Mach 1 and Cobra are DOHC); the 5.0 hasn't been used in the Mustang since 1995.

I guess it comes down to you get what you pay for; if you want higher levels of quality and refinement, as well as performance, you're gonna have to pay a lot more for it than you would for a Mustang or Camaro. I'm 18 and I could care less what the inside of my car is made out of, as long as it is fairly fast, fairly reliable, and fairly safe. And the Mustang has proven itself be all three of those things.

toyota doesnt need to find more buyers... what makes u think ford has so many?

toyota is currently the largest car company IN THE WORLD...and the first company to make over 10 billion dollars in one year... but that doesnt seem to be an excuse to not be technically advanced

I know it isn't, and Ford screwed up. They're trying to fix it. And BTW, the Ford F-150, Ford Taurus, and Ford Explorer are all in the top 10 best-selling vehicles list and have been for quite a few years.

ehem... do i not type clearly?, when i was talking about toyota having to bring in more customers im reffering to toyota back in the 70's and 80's. and i didnt say ford was untouchable i said it was that kind of thinking that got ford into this rough patch... and yes the mustang (or all domestics for that matter) has less technology, but the price is also less, call me an old fashioned american but i could care less about luxury, long as its fast and fun thats all that matters.

470bhp 3.5-litre V6
600bhp 5.0-litre V8

those are the engines

ghetto7o2azn, it's not a direct equation like that; you can't get that kind of efficiency with a V8 unless you're buying a supercar, like a Ferrari or something. Also, the S2000 only makes 2/3rds as much torque as it does horsepower. I guarantee you that a 600 bhp 5.0 would be making well over 800 torque. And you still haven't addressed the fact that the Mustang GT is cheaper than the S2000, yet faster in the quarter mile. People don't buy Mustangs for handling unless they plan on doing heavy suspension upgrading, so the quarter mile is what really matters for it.

I wouldn’t consider Ford to be dragging its feet in future concepts.

Here (http://www.ford.com/en/innovation/engineFuelTechnology/hydrogenInternalCombustion.htm) is an engine Ford has developed that uses hydrogen for combustion. The only other company I know of that has made a hydrogen combustion engine is BMW.
When you consider how uncontrollable hydrogen is as a combustion fuel you have to give merit. It must require a lot of computer-controlled precision to prevent the engine from simply blowing up.

The current problem that exists is finding a safe fuel tank that can keep the hydrogen liquefied. This is of course not so much of a concern when you consider the difficulty of storing hydrogen at a gas station and the dangers of somebody filling up who doesn’t know what there doing.

Anyway in my rational, Ford is definitely playing out their part in the development of automotive technology just like Toyota, Honda, GM..ect.
Where as the European manufactures are usually the ones who pioneer a technology, The American and Japanese manufacturers are usually the ones to roll it out over a wider market.

Mazda has an RX-8 concept that will run on hydrogen. The rotary engine's design makes it a perfect candidate for being powered by hydrogen.

Mazda has an RX-8 concept that will run on hydrogen. The rotary engine's design makes it a perfect candidate for being powered by hydrogen.
They have built one have they? Not bad.
I always thought that the rotary engine would make a good candidate for the combustion of unstable gases. Due to the curvature of the chamber and the constant motion it would be able to better accommodate the gases natural flow during combustion.
The only thing I can see where there might be a problem is in the ignition process. You would want it to ignite at just the right moment or calamity could occur. And a rotary’s ignition process is not as precise as a reciprocal engines (hence why they needed an extra spark plug just after the ignition point to combust any unburnt fuel).

Still I am unfamiliar with the new design features of Genesis engine used in the RX-8, and a lot of my knowage on the rotary engine is based on its predecessors.

Has anyone recommended a C4 corvette yet? I'm sure you can find a fairly nice one for 5k.
*hoping Vettribution87 returns to this thread to share some c4 wisdom...
It's a Mustang, it automatically by default weighs at least 3500 lbs. and will get owned by any import at autocrossing.
I know this is a joke and all but it gives me a good excuse to say..
This year in the SCCA soloII Nationals a Camaro got 1st and a Mustang got 2nd in ESP with compitition from such cars as WRX STi's and EVO's.
Not bad for an over weight low tech yank tank eh?[/sarcasm]
:bananadie

I know this is a joke and all but it gives me a good excuse to say..
This year in the SCCA soloII Nationals a Camaro got 1st and a Mustang got 2nd in ESP with compitition from such cars as WRX STi's and EVO's.
Not bad for an over weight low tech yank tank eh?[/sarcasm]
:bananadie

No you just put that to say a Camaro beat a Mustang... jackass.

Who cares, the point is that no matter how much technology you have, it's hard to beat V8 RWD power.

Has anyone recommended a C4 corvette yet? I'm sure you can find a fairly nice one for 5k.
*hoping Vettribution87 returns to this thread to share some c4 wisdom...


What would you like to know? :smokin:

lol Sean_S.

hmm.. what to know... Can I buy take it off your hands for 1,200? ;)
I do have one question about them although it may be abit OT... How hard would it be to swap the engine or trannny from an early c4 to a later c4? Is it a basic bolt in or is there allot of costom work to it?
I know its an odd ball question but I have yet to see it answerd or even menioned in any vette forums.. :)

lol Sean_S.

hmm.. what to know... Can I buy take it off your hands for 1,200? ;)
I do have one question about them although it may be abit OT... How hard would it be to swap the engine or trannny from an early c4 to a later c4? Is it a basic bolt in or is there allot of costom work to it?
I know its an odd ball question but I have yet to see it answerd or even menioned in any vette forums.. :)

Well an engine swap is pretty extreme for any vehicle, although people have done LT1 conversions on L98 Corvettes.
I don’t know about the transmission but I feel that an engine swap from a early C4 to a later C4 shouldn’t be too difficult considering that every small block Chevy after the L98 was smaller in size (Except the LT5 in the ZR-1 Corvette). Although that are many other options you can choose for a L98 Corvette.
I wont go over the details here as I am diverting from the original subject matter of this thread.

Try this (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=863843&highlight=LT1+engine+swap) site for information on C4 engine swaps.
Also have you tried the Corvette Action Center? (http://corvetteactioncenter.com/index.php) This site is probably the most thougher source of Corvette info in existence. I would have posted a link to a relevant page at this site but the server seems to be congested from here. So you have to just run a search in the C4 technical section from the provided link to the home page. :sorry:

Thanks. :)

How did this Comparison on RWD cars, turn into a raging Mustang and Corvette match?!?

That's a really good question. Nevertheless, it was a good thread with some good discussion (aside from the blatantly biased people).