sporty RWD car under 4k?


Altimas
10-28-2005, 01:07 AM
I'm almost 21 and lookin for a sporty RWD car with emphasis on handling.
Nothing that will rape me insurance or need constant maintenance
RWD for tail sliding fun :naughty:
Oh and I live in so cal for pricing differences amongst states...

4blogger 96
10-28-2005, 01:15 AM
240SX or Miata. Nuff said

Altimas
10-28-2005, 01:25 AM
Does the miata have more legroom then the 1st gen mr2s, both being small cars?
Cuz I drove a SCed mr2 on the dyno (smog..) and with the seat all the way back and the steering wheel raised my knees hit the steering wheel and the pedal area was just too small for me.
I was surprised my 70 beetle had more room :naughty:
I'm like 5 11 I think.

drdisque
10-28-2005, 01:13 PM
if you're 5'11" you'll definitely fit in a Miata. I'm a leggy 6'4" and I can drive one, the only problem is sometimes its hard for me to see stop lights because my head is about at the same level as the visor.

Altimas
10-28-2005, 02:23 PM
exactly how slow is the 1.8 miatas?
Like in the 1/4th with a good driver?

camaroincal
10-28-2005, 05:59 PM
I got this for $2,000... ;) a little over a month ago. I live in the bay area of Cali too where prices of everything are high.

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/kevincal23/detail?.dir=/cf1b&.dnm=b6db.jpg&.src=ph

Here's a description of it:

1988 Mustang LX Saleen clone. It's a nice yellow and looks just like a Saleen of those years. It's a 5 speed with 2.73 gears. The top end was rebuilt about 50,000 miles ago including Cobra heads, port and polish, and GT-40 upper and lower intake. Also has headers of some sort and Flows. It sounds GREAT and...Ya...It's FAST! The lady we bought it from had to fork out $500 to get it smogged. It had 2 bad O2 sensors, but runs perfect besides that.

Altimas
10-28-2005, 06:09 PM
ya..but those are straight line machines ;)
I've been lookin at 2.5 924s and 944s, as I understand it (read in that forum) if it was well taken care of, it shouldnt be trouble but if it hasn't you could spent alot on preventative maintainance?

SuperHighOutput
10-28-2005, 06:30 PM
ya..but those are straight line machines ;)
I've been lookin at 2.5 924s and 944s, as I understand it (read in that forum) if it was well taken care of, it shouldnt be trouble but if it hasn't you could spent alot on preventative maintainance?

In that case the 240SX is out of the question. You could look at 3rd gen F-bodies (Camaros and Firebirds), they might not handle like a Miata, but they are very underrated in the handling department.

Altimas
10-28-2005, 07:41 PM
I don't think insurance would like a v8 in a 21 year old male, however I will be on my parents insurance...
How would you a describe the handling chars of a 3rd gen?
I've read that 4th gen f-bodies are hard to drive on the limit, and one guy chimed in that you just need to learn to drive a live axle car?
Why do you say a 240 is out of the question?
What I don't like about them is the US getting a truck engine and needing premium despite being relatively slow.

SuperHighOutput
10-28-2005, 09:27 PM
I don't think insurance would like a v8 in a 21 year old male, however I will be on my parents insurance...
How would you a describe the handling chars of a 3rd gen?
I've read that 4th gen f-bodies are hard to drive on the limit, and one guy chimed in that you just need to learn to drive a live axle car?
Why do you say a 240 is out of the question?
What I don't like about them is the US getting a truck engine and needing premium despite being relatively slow.

The 3rd gens are good handlers, again not go kart like, but good never the less, no understeer, fairly tight steering feel, and around .90g on the skidpad just to give you an idea. An IROC-Z or Z28 would be the best bet. The 240SX doesn't handle any better than a GT 5.0 Mustang from my experience, and with a relatively weak 4cyl you aren't going to be sliding the tail out, but they are fun to drive. Another thought though, you could get a Z31 or a higher milage Z32 if you look hard enough.

camaroincal
10-28-2005, 10:32 PM
I forgot to mention the suspension is upgraded on that Stang with Koni adjustable shocks and maybe more. Came like that. :) Car is stiff as shit during hard cornering..almost no body roll.

Altimas
10-29-2005, 01:26 PM
I didnt see any 3rd gens on autotrader:(
How much potential does the l98 engine had compared to the ford 302?

4blogger 96
10-29-2005, 09:54 PM
Just go with a Miata, plenty of power for sliding fun. Get an LSD and an intake and you will be able to spin the tires like crazy. I personally wouldn't go with the 1.8, it might be a larger slightly more powerful engine, but the 1.6 is almost as powerful, but much smoother and is the block is already tapped for an oil drain, unlike the 1.8. Turbo-ing it would be a sinch. The Miata fits all of your standards perfectly, cheap insurance (dirt cheap for a 21 yr old), awesomely handling cars (go with the 2nd gen if you want the creme de la creme of suspension, though the 1st gen. will still handle better than 70% of the cars on the road), and consumer reports give it almost perfect reliablity reports. Just my :2cents:.

4blogger 96
10-29-2005, 09:55 PM
Oh, and at 5' 11", you will easily be able to fit in the Miata, I am 6 ft. and I fit perfectly.

Altimas
10-29-2005, 10:07 PM
Does the 1.6 rev any higher :D ?

4blogger 96
10-30-2005, 05:14 PM
No, not really they both rev at about the same levels. Rev levels are basically determined by power vs. displacement. A car like a Ferrari that has low displacement V12's but 500+ horsepower will rev at 5 digit levels, but a Muscle Car with high displacement big blocks and 300-400 horse will usually performe at lower levels of rev. The 1.8 and the 1.6 have pretty equal horse-displacement ratios, so they will have basically the same powerband and they both feature the same tachometer. The reason I would go with a 1.6 is because 1.6 Miatas are cheaper, the 1.6 is much smoother due to beefier and better built internals, lighter and Miata entusiants have said that it's easier to modify, and it's also easier to boost because the block is already tapped for a turbo oil-drain. It probably gets better gas-mileage also, though I am not sure.

Altimas
10-30-2005, 11:24 PM
ya I've read my share on power vs displacement just wondering since some engines while similar in HP and close in size can have disimilar torque curves.
Also I've read the 1994 in addition to getting the 1.8 got a front subrace and changed the rear brace and bigger brakes and lighter wheels so how much difference would that make?
And how much power can on make with each engine N/A?

Altimas
11-04-2005, 04:02 AM
thread res...
Are the 4.6 *96+ so you get same engine as mustang* t-birds decent rides.. not like handling wise, but are they atleast fun to mess around with on the street with the torque they got and RWD?
I've read a bit about them and apparently it's pretty popular to upgrade the tranny and you can make them run 15 with just a tigher tc and make the tranny shift harder?

shnailpower
11-04-2005, 11:11 AM
Has no one considered the older Supras? They have a decent power band and they are definately sporty cars. Fun to drive from what I have heard, plus they carry an aftermarket (sort of :cool: ). Another option would be a first-gen Mr2, not to fast but it would fit your bill. The Supra and Mr2 handle nicely, though the insurance might be a bit of a problem but it shouldn't bite you to hard. Those are just two other options open to you.

curtis73
11-04-2005, 11:53 AM
Just my dumb two cents. How about a $3000 LT1 Caprice with $1000 worth of suspension. My SS handles quite well, better than I need, yet still rides nicely, is quiet, and has tons of power not to mention potential for lots more power.

Of course it is a GM with their legendary quality (that's sarcasm) but I haven't had anthing other than minor repairs like EGR, PS pump, water pump, etc. The LT1 itself has proven to be a very long-life engine.

I was going to keep my mouth shut, but two of your concerns were legroom and insurance. I'm 6'1" and 240 lbs with tons of room to spare in the car, and my insurance is cheeeeeep. V8 power, handling potential, smooth ride, classy enough, and one of GMs most reliable offerings. Not to mention, parts are cheap, both performance and replacement/service parts. Here's one already done for you :)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/NO-RESERVE-94-Caprice-9C1-Police-car-LT1-CUSTOM-PAINT_W0QQitemZ4586319677QQcategoryZ6162QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem

Altimas
11-04-2005, 01:26 PM
that caprise doesn't look have bad:)
and I absolutely love the Lt1 engine.
One of the instructors at my comm college(heh) has an Lt1 in his fastback V12 jaguar and it hauls ass, way easy to get the ass end out.
We also got a dyno last year but it's finally installed and such and he made like 260HP I think, and one of my other instructors made 280HP in his SCed DOHC mustang before the wheels started spinnin cuz they don't have the straps installed.
Anyway, those look ok:)
edit.. oh.. police package= Lt1.. so are the cars are fucked up or what?
Oh and how come they're rated lower than the f-body lt1s?
Miata's are cool and all but they're verts and I hate wind noise/interior noise for when I'm listening to music, and if i wanted to pay a few grand to make a slow car fast I would do that with my beetle :2cents:

curtis73
11-05-2005, 11:08 PM
that caprise doesn't look have bad:)
and I absolutely love the Lt1 engine.
police package= Lt1.. so are the cars are fucked up or what?
Oh and how come they're rated lower than the f-body lt1s?

All Caprices after 93 came with either the LT1 or the L98. The L98 was a 4.3 liter version of the 5.7 LT1... not too desirable. The LT1 was standard on 9C1 police package cars, almost all taxis, and almost all wagons. Most optioned for it on Caprices, so almost all Caprices have it. Look in the trunk on the RPO SPID sticker for the code "LT1".

Prior to 94, they came with a 5.0 TBI engine that was also not so hot.

The LT1s in the Caprice used a different cam and heads than the F-bodies. The Caprice LT1 used a smaller cam with iron heads. The F-bodies used a larger cam and aluminum heads. The iron heads actually flow a tiny touch better than the aluminum, but the lower compression required with iron was one of the factors in overall power output. The difference is about 25 hp which is easily gained back with one of the aftermarket cold air intakes, some computer reprogramming, and a 160 thermostat. A total investment of about $300 will get you up to F-body power.

The Impala SS was the only one that came with standard 3.08 rear gears. Most of the other GM B-bodies including 9C1s came standard with 2.73 or 2.9x. Optional on the Caddy Fleetwood tow package was a 3.42.

The 9C1, taxi, and Caddy versions came with rear disc brakes standard. It was optional on others, and the rest had drums.

Altimas
11-07-2005, 03:27 AM
I dunno dude.
I think if I go for a large rwd v8 it will have to be a t-bird seeing as they're a dime a dozen and easily found.
ill have to test drive one...

BobChestnut
11-08-2005, 06:21 PM
Curtus has a good point my cousin had a 95 caprice and there were about 200,000 miles on the thing and then it broke a rod :( poor car. He said it was the funest thing to drive said he raced gsr's left and right and handed them their pants even with 6 people comfortably seated in the car. I'm not shure what he did to it exactly but it wasn't completely stock he never told me.

Altimas
11-08-2005, 07:00 PM
Well id like an Lt1 caprice but not sure how easily I can get one that isn't beat up or whatever.

Chevy4life1985
11-09-2005, 05:09 PM
THAT ENGINE IS HELLA CLEAN DAMN. I dont think ive ever seen a "used" engine so clean in my LIFE.

curtis73
11-10-2005, 05:20 AM
Well id like an Lt1 caprice but not sure how easily I can get one that isn't beat up or whatever.

http://impalassforum.com/noncgi/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=12

For starters...

flatlander757
11-10-2005, 11:17 AM
Even my 4th gen Z28 handles well given you take the time to learn it.

But I got caught racing in it, so I think I'm going to sell it and keep my fun driving on an auto X course since that's the only sanctioned racing nearby. I'm going to look for an 89-92 mustang GT. Those things handle like they're on rails with some simple suspension upgrades.

Check out www.bmrfabrication.com

They have plenty of handling aftermarket options :)

Burbuliai
11-10-2005, 11:56 AM
http://www.takas.lt/auto2006/rates_vote.php?msg_id=81&tipas=auto2003_masinos&addr=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.takas.lt%2Fauto2006%2Fautomo biliai.php&action=vote&rating=5

Altimas
11-10-2005, 01:25 PM
Even my 4th gen Z28 handles well given you take the time to learn it.

But I got caught racing in it, so I think I'm going to sell it and keep my fun driving on an auto X course since that's the only sanctioned racing nearby. I'm going to look for an 89-92 mustang GT. Those things handle like they're on rails with some simple suspension upgrades.

Check out www.bmrfabrication.com

They have plenty of handling aftermarket options :)
What you gotta do to make it handle?
http://impalassforum.com/noncgi/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=12

For starters...
:smokin:

flatlander757
11-10-2005, 03:07 PM
What you gotta do to make it handle?

:smokin:


Pretty much whatever you want. Depends on how much you can afford. I'd say start with SFCs, springs/shocks/struts, and sway bars. Then upgrade what you see fit from there.

Altimas
11-10-2005, 06:18 PM
Pretty much whatever you want. Depends on how much you can afford. I'd say start with SFCs, springs/shocks/struts, and sway bars. Then upgrade what you see fit from there.
How do the mustangs with the newer bodies compare?
And with that in mind, does the SOHC 4.6 have a decent aftermarket now?

flatlander757
11-11-2005, 10:44 PM
I'll let you in on a secret...

EVERY mustang from 1979 to 2004 is built on the same chassis.

The fox bodies(79-93) are lightest and came with the 5.0.

The SN95(94-95) were much heavier and came with the 5.0 as well, which were the last years it was produced in the Mustang.

From 96 to 98 it had a 2 valve 4.6L SOHC which doesn't respond very well to modifications because the heads are severely choked. Best off staying away from these.

99 to 04 were the real good years of the 4.6. They were 4 valve and breathed much easier. They weren't lacking balls like the 2 valve did. These respond VERY well to forced induction I might add(read: 03-04 Cobra)

The 4.6L has an extensive aftermarket. There are tons of mustangs flaunting well over 400hp locally. They are quite magnificent.

Though I'd say 5.0s just have something special about them. I have a love for pushrods. :icon16:

The fox body mustangs are preferred to the others mainly because they are so damn light in comparison. You can gut a fox and buy some weight saving suspension pieces and it will weigh in around 2900(as opposed to I think 3400 for stock "New Edge" Mustangs).

If creature comforts and a refined interior are more important then I'd say go for a 99-04 stang. If you wanna look badass and have a great handling car, go for a 5.0 Fox body.

Also... To break down how fox bodies are different since it spanned for so many years:
79-85 were carbuerated
86-93 were fuel injected
79-86 had the funny looking 4 lens front ends (http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/rpmotors/images/85gtred460.gif)
87-93 had the more refined looking front end (http://www.colemanitis.com/gallery/mustang/images/mustang080704b.jpg)
86-88 had a Speed Density computer, which basically means you need a computer tune for EVERY modification that changes volumetric efficiency on it
89-93 were MAF(Mass Air Flow) which did not require constant tuning for new mods, so it is generally easier to work with
93 had cheaper pistons which generally aren't as good as used in previous years, also the GT was rated 10hp less than 92(though some argue this is because they introduced the Cobra and needed to make the Cobra look better)

Not too bad for a Chevy guy eh? :lol:

So to sum it up: if you decide on a Fox body, go for 89-92. You could always go for an 86-88, and just convert to MAF which costs around $1000 if I remember correctly. The only problem with 86 is something about the pistons not having a certain kind of oiling pin or something and makes it hard to use aftermarket cams or something along the lines of that. So if you DO decide to do a conversion to MAF, stick with 87 or 88.

Also Convertibles (http://www.speedaddiction.com/images/Mycars/89%20Vert/89conv.jpg) are heavier than Hatchbacks (http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid60/p7abeb469098371ff9eddd554a0b93a04/fc509ccc.jpg) which are heavier than the Notchback (http://www.mustangmods.com/data/3172/larry01.jpg)

And a GT 5.0 is heavier than an LX 5.0. The LX was designed to be a plain jane factory sleeper and weighed a bit less than the GT.

So if at all possible get an 89-92 LX notchback 5.0.

::takes breath::

Altimas
11-12-2005, 12:53 AM
I'll let you in on a secret...

EVERY mustang from 1979 to 2004 is built on the same chassis.

The fox bodies(79-93) are lightest and came with the 5.0.

The SN95(94-95) were much heavier and came with the 5.0 as well, which were the last years it was produced in the Mustang.

From 96 to 98 it had a 2 valve 4.6L SOHC which doesn't respond very well to modifications because the heads are severely choked. Best off staying away from these.

99 to 04 were the real good years of the 4.6. They were 4 valve and breathed much easier. They weren't lacking balls like the 2 valve did. These respond VERY well to forced induction I might add(read: 03-04 Cobra)

The 4.6L has an extensive aftermarket. There are tons of mustangs flaunting well over 400hp locally. They are quite magnificent.

Though I'd say 5.0s just have something special about them. I have a love for pushrods. :icon16:

The fox body mustangs are preferred to the others mainly because they are so damn light in comparison. You can gut a fox and buy some weight saving suspension pieces and it will weigh in around 2900(as opposed to I think 3400 for stock "New Edge" Mustangs).

If creature comforts and a refined interior are more important then I'd say go for a 99-04 stang. If you wanna look badass and have a great handling car, go for a 5.0 Fox body.

Also... To break down how fox bodies are different since it spanned for so many years:
79-85 were carbuerated
86-93 were fuel injected
79-86 had the funny looking 4 lens front ends (http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/rpmotors/images/85gtred460.gif)
87-93 had the more refined looking front end (http://www.colemanitis.com/gallery/mustang/images/mustang080704b.jpg)
86-88 had a Speed Density computer, which basically means you need a computer tune for EVERY modification that changes volumetric efficiency on it
89-93 were MAF(Mass Air Flow) which did not require constant tuning for new mods, so it is generally easier to work with
93 had cheaper pistons which generally aren't as good as used in previous years, also the GT was rated 10hp less than 92(though some argue this is because they introduced the Cobra and needed to make the Cobra look better)

Not too bad for a Chevy guy eh? :lol:

So to sum it up: if you decide on a Fox body, go for 89-92. You could always go for an 86-88, and just convert to MAF which costs around $1000 if I remember correctly. The only problem with 86 is something about the pistons not having a certain kind of oiling pin or something and makes it hard to use aftermarket cams or something along the lines of that. So if you DO decide to do a conversion to MAF, stick with 87 or 88.

Also Convertibles (http://www.speedaddiction.com/images/Mycars/89%20Vert/89conv.jpg) are heavier than Hatchbacks (http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid60/p7abeb469098371ff9eddd554a0b93a04/fc509ccc.jpg) which are heavier than the Notchback (http://www.mustangmods.com/data/3172/larry01.jpg)

And a GT 5.0 is heavier than an LX 5.0. The LX was designed to be a plain jane factory sleeper and weighed a bit less than the GT.

So if at all possible get an 89-92 LX notchback 5.0.

::takes breath::
I just thought they may have updated it abit... like increased the rigidity and such.
So what doesn't the LX have that the GT has besides body wise?
notch=coupe :confused:
Oh and what's it take to raise the power band up to a more respectable 5000-5500 range from the weak 4000 rpm range?
Like you need stiffer valvespings to make it safe to rev that high with a hotter cam?

flatlander757
11-12-2005, 10:00 AM
To make it healthier in the higher rpm range, that will mostly deal with the intake manifold. A good choice is the FRPP(Ford Racing Performance Parts) GT-40 manifold. It doesn't lose much power if any down low, and will make it breath much easier up top. You'd be best off getting new heads/cam and intake manifold all at the same time though. Along with a valvetrain to support it.

The LX is the exact same as the GT in every mechanical aspect. Only difference is that the LX is a dressed down(lighter) version. They came with more plain looking wheels from the factory too.

And you're right about the newer mustangs being more rigid. But you can fix that easily with some subframe connectors(SFCs).

Check out www.50mustangandsuperfords.com and read around a bit.

And another GREAT site for improving mustang handling is www.maximummotorsports.com which is who I think I'll use if/when I build up a 5.0 for auto x.

Altimas
11-12-2005, 01:35 PM
thank dude!

flatlander757
11-12-2005, 08:03 PM
n/p

any more questions, just shoot :smile:

Altimas
11-13-2005, 11:41 PM
So is it true since most of the lx's are 4 bangers (?) that insurance is cheaper?

And how much is it (if I do it) to just get the handling decent, not like super dooper?
Like to tighten up the handling but too hardcore, just for a street car?

camaroincal
11-14-2005, 11:02 AM
I'll let you in on a secret...

EVERY mustang from 1979 to 2004 is built on the same chassis.

The fox bodies(79-93) are lightest and came with the 5.0.

The SN95(94-95) were much heavier and came with the 5.0 as well, which were the last years it was produced in the Mustang.

From 96 to 98 it had a 2 valve 4.6L SOHC which doesn't respond very well to modifications because the heads are severely choked. Best off staying away from these.

99 to 04 were the real good years of the 4.6. They were 4 valve and breathed much easier. They weren't lacking balls like the 2 valve did. These respond VERY well to forced induction I might add(read: 03-04 Cobra)

The 4.6L has an extensive aftermarket. There are tons of mustangs flaunting well over 400hp locally. They are quite magnificent.

Though I'd say 5.0s just have something special about them. I have a love for pushrods. :icon16:

The fox body mustangs are preferred to the others mainly because they are so damn light in comparison. You can gut a fox and buy some weight saving suspension pieces and it will weigh in around 2900(as opposed to I think 3400 for stock "New Edge" Mustangs).

If creature comforts and a refined interior are more important then I'd say go for a 99-04 stang. If you wanna look badass and have a great handling car, go for a 5.0 Fox body.

Also... To break down how fox bodies are different since it spanned for so many years:
79-85 were carbuerated
86-93 were fuel injected
79-86 had the funny looking 4 lens front ends (http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/rpmotors/images/85gtred460.gif)
87-93 had the more refined looking front end (http://www.colemanitis.com/gallery/mustang/images/mustang080704b.jpg)
86-88 had a Speed Density computer, which basically means you need a computer tune for EVERY modification that changes volumetric efficiency on it
89-93 were MAF(Mass Air Flow) which did not require constant tuning for new mods, so it is generally easier to work with
93 had cheaper pistons which generally aren't as good as used in previous years, also the GT was rated 10hp less than 92(though some argue this is because they introduced the Cobra and needed to make the Cobra look better)

Not too bad for a Chevy guy eh? :lol:

So to sum it up: if you decide on a Fox body, go for 89-92. You could always go for an 86-88, and just convert to MAF which costs around $1000 if I remember correctly. The only problem with 86 is something about the pistons not having a certain kind of oiling pin or something and makes it hard to use aftermarket cams or something along the lines of that. So if you DO decide to do a conversion to MAF, stick with 87 or 88.

Also Convertibles (http://www.speedaddiction.com/images/Mycars/89%20Vert/89conv.jpg) are heavier than Hatchbacks (http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid60/p7abeb469098371ff9eddd554a0b93a04/fc509ccc.jpg) which are heavier than the Notchback (http://www.mustangmods.com/data/3172/larry01.jpg)

And a GT 5.0 is heavier than an LX 5.0. The LX was designed to be a plain jane factory sleeper and weighed a bit less than the GT.

So if at all possible get an 89-92 LX notchback 5.0.

::takes breath::

Yep except that starting in 1988 in Cali they had MAF. Then everywhere else starting in 1989.

flatlander757
11-14-2005, 03:09 PM
Yep except that starting in 1988 in Cali they had MAF. Then everywhere else starting in 1989.

Ahh you're right, I forgot about that!

88 Mustangs is the ONLY thing California is good for :icon16:

jk

So is it true since most of the lx's are 4 bangers (?) that insurance is cheaper?

And how much is it (if I do it) to just get the handling decent, not like super dooper?
Like to tighten up the handling but too hardcore, just for a street car?

I can't really comment on insurance, but I doubt it's a huge difference. They see V8 and Mustang on the card still. I know for me, the insurance difference between a V6 Camaro and my Z28 was about $40 a year. So likely it won't matter too much if at all.

Now, it sounds like you just want something that is fun to drive, doesn't give up daily comforts, but is sporty enough to hold it's own against other stockish cars.

My suggestions would be:
-Maximum Motorsports Chassis Brace Package (http://www.maximummotorsports.com/mmcbp.asp) (includes Subframe connectors, strut tower brace, and K-member brace) Just make sure to get the full length SFCs, they are much more rigid. ~$350 depending on mustang model and year

-MAC progressive rate lowering springs (http://www.laurelmountainmustang.com/index-1024.htm) $190
-KYB AGX adjustable shocks (http://www.laurelmountainmustang.com/index-1024.htm) These will allow you to tweak the suspension to how you want. $415
-MAC caster-camber plates (http://www.laurelmountainmustang.com/index-1024.htm) You need these for lowered cars if you want alignment to go smoothly and not worry about horrible tire wear. $160

-Swaybars, torque arm, panhard bar, etc etc.... do whatever you want or feel you need to enhance handling further. Stiffer chassis and

That should get what you feel you need to obtain for a fun to drive street car. Don't forget that new wheels and tires will have a huge impact on how it handles, but it is also the most costly. My advice is use Maximum Motorsports for all of your chassis stiffening goodies and then call up Laurel Mountain for springs/shocks/camber plates and I think you will need spring isolators as well which are pretty cheap, like $20 or so maybe?

Gah, the www.laurelmountainmustang.com website is run with flash, so my links all just take you to the main page. It's easy to find, go to Late Model >>> Suspension and Handling >>> and the subcategories are there, you should be able to find the products I listed.

Altimas
11-14-2005, 06:11 PM
Ahh you're right, I forgot about that!

88 Mustangs is the ONLY thing California is good for :icon16:

jk



I can't really comment on insurance, but I doubt it's a huge difference. They see V8 and Mustang on the card still. I know for me, the insurance difference between a V6 Camaro and my Z28 was about $40 a year. So likely it won't matter too much if at all.

Now, it sounds like you just want something that is fun to drive, doesn't give up daily comforts, but is sporty enough to hold it's own against other stockish cars.

My suggestions would be:
-Maximum Motorsports Chassis Brace Package (http://www.maximummotorsports.com/mmcbp.asp) (includes Subframe connectors, strut tower brace, and K-member brace) Just make sure to get the full length SFCs, they are much more rigid. ~$350 depending on mustang model and year

-MAC progressive rate lowering springs (http://www.laurelmountainmustang.com/index-1024.htm) $190
-KYB AGX adjustable shocks (http://www.laurelmountainmustang.com/index-1024.htm) These will allow you to tweak the suspension to how you want. $415
-MAC caster-camber plates (http://www.laurelmountainmustang.com/index-1024.htm) You need these for lowered cars if you want alignment to go smoothly and not worry about horrible tire wear. $160

-Swaybars, torque arm, panhard bar, etc etc.... do whatever you want or feel you need to enhance handling further. Stiffer chassis and

That should get what you feel you need to obtain for a fun to drive street car. Don't forget that new wheels and tires will have a huge impact on how it handles, but it is also the most costly. My advice is use Maximum Motorsports for all of your chassis stiffening goodies and then call up Laurel Mountain for springs/shocks/camber plates and I think you will need spring isolators as well which are pretty cheap, like $20 or so maybe?

Gah, the www.laurelmountainmustang.com website is run with flash, so my links all just take you to the main page. It's easy to find, go to Late Model >>> Suspension and Handling >>> and the subcategories are there, you should be able to find the products I listed.
I'll have to have my parents check since I will be under their insurance :naughty:
Those mods don't look too bad price wise at all :biggrin:

miata1.6
11-16-2005, 01:06 AM
If you are considering a four cylinder mustang then why not a 240SX. 4 banger mustangs I think have like 98 net horsepower, a nissan 240SX has like 130 horses to the wheels. you could get a 240 for around 1500.

Altimas
11-16-2005, 01:15 AM
4 banger stang?
Not I.
I make fun of 4 banger and 6 banger stang owners (as well as f-bodies)
If I wanted a slow car that handled well I'd get one like the one in your handle.

longlivetheZ
11-20-2005, 08:59 AM
240SX or Miata. Nuff said

:werd:

S14 240SX, man.

BobChestnut
11-20-2005, 10:53 AM
There was the svo mustang with a turbocharged 2.3l that had around the area of 180 bhp i forgot what years it was in but they still used the same engine in their rangers and i have one. Its a decent motor with no brageable horsepower but some good torque.

Altimas
11-20-2005, 12:04 PM
:werd:

S14 240SX, man.
iirc the S14 was a "softer" car so te s13 is better something?

longlivetheZ
11-20-2005, 12:37 PM
I like the look, fit and finish of the S14 infinately better, though.

I don't like mustangs. I HATE the 94-04 ones...the new ones are kinda ok-ish...the fox body ones are meh...the old ones are pretty cool...

...but the SVO...now THAT'S cool. Looks like poop, but it's rare and unique...something that can NOT be said for most Mustangs. Plus, it's got a turbo!!! I LOVE TURBOS.

FYI: The Mustang SVO was only made from 84-86. (Model years 84, 85, 85.5 and 86.) They all came with turbocharged, intercooled, SOHC engines that produced 175-205 hp depending on year.

Altimas
11-20-2005, 02:39 PM
I dunno.
I really like the old sced mr2s.. cant seem to find alot and the steering wheel is posited so my legs nearly, or do hit it.

flatlander757
11-20-2005, 02:45 PM
Do you have any idea how much one of those SVOs in anywhere near good condition cost? Let alone how hard they are to maintain?

longlivetheZ
11-20-2005, 04:47 PM
Maintenance wise, I dunno. Hard to find? Kinda. And they're not cheap if you can find a nice one...not EXPENSIVE for a car of it's age, but they can get up there.

If you're gunna look, look for an 85.5 one...they have the most power stock but they're also the rarest....REALLY hard to find.

flatlander757
11-20-2005, 08:44 PM
Maintenance wise, I dunno. Hard to find? Kinda. And they're not cheap if you can find a nice one...not EXPENSIVE for a car of it's age, but they can get up there.

If you're gunna look, look for an 85.5 one...they have the most power stock but they're also the rarest....REALLY hard to find.

Right, they are nice cars, but if the original poster still has a $4k budget, I doubt an SVO is feasible.

Altimas
11-20-2005, 09:41 PM
how come I can find a few 4th gen f-bodies for cheap not even with tons of miles (i.e 200K)?
Autos mostly..

longlivetheZ
11-21-2005, 05:15 PM
Actually, they are. You wouldn't find an immaculate example of one for 4G or less, but you could find one in decent shape that runs well if you look enough.

bill717
08-07-2010, 03:29 PM
:2cents:Mazda RX-7 is a really fun car. Fast, unique, tuneable. I think they are awesome and once you get in to the rotarys you will too.

Shpuker
08-08-2010, 09:34 PM
Threads from 2005 guys, leave it alone

Add your comment to this topic!