hmmmmm......V6?

Well.......here i got with another random question:

The last generation V6 had 190-193hp on it. Now.....a 1985 fox body has around 200hp? which one would be faster?? The V6 cuz its lighter? HOw bout comparing a fox body GT with the current 210hp V6?

:S

fox car would be faster cuz it's a v8 and makes a ton more torque (300 ft-lbs). it's also a lighter car since it has less sheetmetal.

fox GT 5spd vs fox4 v6 = owned.

Now you see, that pisses me off. 94-95 mustang GT rolled of the showroom floor with a measly 215HP which was down previous years of 225. Now there cranking out V6's with 210hp? Im sorry but that's total bullshit.:disappoin

Now I know many of you are going to say well its a new and improved motor. Sorry I aint buying that either. With all the aftermarket crap out there you can't tell me that Ford could'nt have come better than 215hp. E7TE heads, give me a break these heads shouldn't be on go carts let alone Mustangs.

fox car would be faster cuz it's a v8 and makes a ton more torque (300 ft-lbs). it's also a lighter car since it has less sheetmetal.

fox GT 5spd vs fox4 v6 = owned.

ACTUALLY A STOCK 1985 GT PUTS OUT AROUND 210 HP AND 265 LB/FT TORQUE WHERE THE 2005 V6 PUTS OUT 210 HP AND 235 LB/FT OF TORQUE.

85 FOX GT VS. 05 V6= CLOSER RACE THAN YOU THINK!!

[QUOTE=eillob]Now you see, that pisses me off. 94-95 mustang GT rolled of the showroom floor with a measly 215HP which was down previous years of 225. Now there cranking out V6's with 210hp? Im sorry but that's total bullshit.:disappoin

YOU SHOULD BE EVEN MORE PISSED WHEN FAMILY SEDANS AND SUVS ARE PUTTING OUT 300+ HP, AND THOSE SEDANS ARE V6'S. IMO, IT TOOK TOO LONG FOR THE GT'S TO SEE THOSE NUMBERS!! BUT HEY THAT'S WHAT THE AFTERMARKET IS FOR!

Now I know many of you are going to say well its a new and improved motor. Sorry I aint buying that either. With all the aftermarket crap out there you can't tell me that Ford could'nt have come better than 215hp. E7TE heads, give me a break these heads shouldn't be on go carts let alone Mustangs.

I agree, but for some reason it's always been like this. I think the major reason for it is simply for Ford to make the Mustangs more affordable, and yet appeal to the "V8" crowd (So many people think right away that V8 = Power and go out and buy a V8 with no clue whatsoever what its capability is)

I bought my car bone stock and I knew the limitations of it, I've been doing the standard bolt on upgrades and so far I'm happy with the progress.

well to anser u power hungry guys........

have you ever wondered why a stang was sooo cheap? u look at an integra and the price tag is north of a stang's, yet it has less hp. The mustang is essentially a sports car for EVERY1. Rich or poor. Not restricted to the reaches of the rich. If ford wanted to, they can make a 450hp 50,000 mustang GT......im sure many want that, but how many ppl can actually afford it? It would put the mustang up in the supra category. Furthermore, with fewer customers, the stang would not carry the image it has now......a car which every1 can relate to, as a car they drive daily, or a realistic dream car. So making a super priced sports car, the mustang will just die out.....much like the supra and skyline.

Now back to the V6 horrible headers...yes i think thats why the base car is so dirt cheap and theres aftermarket so you can custom your own cars.

And i think maybe a stock to stock, a V6 of 2001 may own a V8 of 1994.....just because i think the V8 is much heavier with only 15 more hp?

OK vette7t9 you raise some good points. I agree the mustang was made to be affordable for everyone. It just seems to me like they went out of they're way to screw up the 94-95 models. I mean they went down in horsepower, the computers used in them were the worst of any model ever produced. The computer itself was programmed to rob horsepower. Then there are 1.74 intake / 1.46 exhaust valves? I mean Im not asking for aluminum GT40 heads from the factory but give us something. After all we now have a heavier car and a motor thats struggling to make power. I think they could have just done better in the horsepower dept. 215 hp on the fly and maybe 190 at the wheel is just pathetic.

Even now, you can run right out and buy this new GT with 300hp out of the box for less than $25 grand. Thats affordable, my point being is that if they can do it now they sure could have done it then.

And i think maybe a stock to stock, a V6 of 2001 may own a V8 of 1994.....just because i think the V8 is much heavier with only 15 more hp?

A 94 gt mustang has 25 more hp not 15.It also has around 60lb/ft tq more then the 01 v6 and the cobra has even more.So no, an 01 v6 will not "own" a v8 of 94 it will lose to both the Gt and cobra stock.

OK vette7t9 you raise some good points. I agree the mustang was made to be affordable for everyone. It just seems to me like they went out of they're way to screw up the 94-95 models. I mean they went down in horsepower, the computers used in them were the worst of any model ever produced. The computer itself was programmed to rob horsepower. Then there are 1.74 intake / 1.46 exhaust valves? I mean Im not asking for aluminum GT40 heads from the factory but give us something. After all we now have a heavier car and a motor thats struggling to make power. I think they could have just done better in the horsepower dept. 215 hp on the fly and maybe 190 at the wheel is just pathetic.

Even now, you can run right out and buy this new GT with 300hp out of the box for less than $25 grand. Thats affordable, my point being is that if they can do it now they sure could have done it then.

I agree....and I think they could of least tried to match the hp with the firebird/camaro.

well to anser u power hungry guys........

have you ever wondered why a stang was sooo cheap? u look at an integra and the price tag is north of a stang's, yet it has less hp. The mustang is essentially a sports car for EVERY1. Rich or poor. Not restricted to the reaches of the rich. If ford wanted to, they can make a 450hp 50,000 mustang GT......im sure many want that, but how many ppl can actually afford it? It would put the mustang up in the supra category. Furthermore, with fewer customers, the stang would not carry the image it has now......a car which every1 can relate to, as a car they drive daily, or a realistic dream car. So making a super priced sports car, the mustang will just die out.....much like the supra and skyline.

Now back to the V6 horrible headers...yes i think thats why the base car is so dirt cheap and theres aftermarket so you can custom your own cars.

And i think maybe a stock to stock, a V6 of 2001 may own a V8 of 1994.....just because i think the V8 is much heavier with only 15 more hp?


well i might agree w/ you but ive raced my friends anniversary 03' v6...it was close til i hit third and started pushen him hard...

what i dont get is Ford puts a 3.0l 220hp v6 in a SHO but only 150hp in a 3.8l v6 Mustang, and 215 from a v8? After looking at the Yamaha motor ford ovbiously knows how to make a 220+hp v6, and 10yrs later the 4.0l is still only at 210hp. The SHO v6 has put ever v6 in a ford since then to shame. it even has more power then the j-spc that probe drivers love

Well I think the SHO is an all together different animal. I think Ford would look real silly putting a Yamaha motor in there all american pony car. Secondly even if they did they would have a tuf time trying to sell the GT if the V6 was putting out more HP.

Well I think the SHO is an all together different animal. I think Ford would look real silly putting a Yamaha motor in there all american pony car. Secondly even if they did they would have a tuf time trying to sell the GT if the V6 was putting out more HP.


I didn't mean USE a SHO Yamaha motor, but use its design concept to make a SHO Duratec motor.

that would be a great idea. but again......cost? at a sub 20K car....

i guess the cheapest way to make power is to enlarge displacement. there is no replacement for displacement!! cheaper to enlarge the engine than to tune the intake and exhaust, or even chip it.

is it possible to have a sub 15 second V6, stock??

its kinda like which person tends to be stronger? with smaller displacement engines representing a smaller person, and vice versa, the logical reasoning would be larger person can benchpress more. BUT a smaller person can be made to be that powerful, through strenuous excercise, which in the engine world equals to tuning. so hope that explains why theres no replacement for displacement.

BTW, those damn vtec kids...technology replaces displacement my ass. tune a 4.6 as good as you tune a friggin 2.0, and you still get more power. much more.

that would be a great idea. but again......cost? at a sub 20K car....

i guess the cheapest way to make power is to enlarge displacement. there is no replacement for displacement!! cheaper to enlarge the engine than to tune the intake and exhaust, or even chip it.

is it possible to have a sub 15 second V6, stock??

yes there is, weight and gearing. If thereis no replacement then why is a 1.8l Type-4 running mid-high14's yet a 4.0 mustang only low 15's? because of WEIGHT AND GEARING

and if you wanna go vs a GT a 2000 ITR can hit a 14.5 with 1.8 i4 but a GT will only run a 13.9-14.0? is only .5-6 faster then a i4

and the itr will kill both car on the autoX

a better example is the 00 Si(1.6l) vs the 02 Si(2.0l): The 02 makes the same hp at lower rpm, and makes more tq yet it is slower then the 00 Si because it weights more and isnt as well geared.

that would be a great idea. but again......cost? at a sub 20K car....

i guess the cheapest way to make power is to enlarge displacement. there is no replacement for displacement!! cheaper to enlarge the engine than to tune the intake and exhaust, or even chip it.

is it possible to have a sub 15 second V6, stock??

Yeah I agree with that. Maybe I should be like burly and look into a 351W.

SHO was a Stock v6 that would hit 14's
with free intake mods and weight redux a v6 stang can hit 14's

SHO was a Stock v6 that would hit 14's
with free intake mods and weight redux a v6 stang can hit 14's
I've never seen an SHO take the 1/4 but I have drivin one. Mid to high 14's sounds about right.

I don't know about this V6 stang hitting 14's even with the mods you speak of. What year V6 are you talking about?

2000, a company hd a ringer "stock" do a high 14, they emptied the trunk, removed back seat, and did free intake mods then got 14.8(?)

BTW, those damn vtec kids...technology replaces displacement my ass. tune a 4.6 as good as you tune a friggin 2.0, and you still get more power. much more.:loser:

Yeah, but can you put a 4.6 into a stock chassis and keep it under 3000 lbs?

And why must the Muscle Car Guys mess with the Tuners so much? Both sides of the coin are equally as worthy. I just read an article in this month's HCI magazine about an Acura RSX that ran a 9.86 @ 140mph, and a Honda CRX that ran an 11.07 @ 121mph, both running ALL MOTOR, so that totally blows your "technology can't replace dispacement" theory out of the water.

People need to stop thinking that the size of the motor is the only thing that you need to be concerned with when choosing a car to race. Have you ever looked at the power to weight ratio on an import car? Especially the higher-end ones (RSX, Integra, Supra, CRX Si, etc.) It's staggering!

Now compare that to, let's say, a Mustang. While a Mustang may have 250+ hp, it also weighs more! Take a Dodge SRT-4 and put them on a strip, the SRT-4 (stock) will hammer a Mustang, not because it has more power, but just simply because it's hauling alot less weight around. (a stock SRT-4 runs high 13's stock)

Don't get me wrong, you can't beat a v-8 in terms of power. (and the sound of a V-8 is wonderful, but stop being so one-sided, and finally realize that you aren't the only ones that can build a fast cars. And that there's nothing wrong with being a "Tuner".... Just like there's nothing wrong with building a muscle car. :smile:

honestly all i get reving at me is mustnag GT's and Cobras. I've never had any hondas, or nissans mess with me. What sup with that.

what i dont get is Ford puts a 3.0l 220hp v6 in a SHO but only 150hp in a 3.8l v6 Mustang, and 215 from a v8? After looking at the Yamaha motor ford ovbiously knows how to make a 220+hp v6, and 10yrs later the 4.0l is still only at 210hp. The SHO v6 has put ever v6 in a ford since then to shame. it even has more power then the j-spc that probe drivers love


What about the SVO?

honestly all i get reving at me is mustnag GT's and Cobras. I've never had any hondas, or nissans mess with me. What sup with that.I don't know whats up with that. Maybe your escort intimidates them.:lol:

And as far as your comment Kingcalibra, I would love to see this article on an Acura RSX running 9's at 140mph or a CRX running 11's at 121. Talk is cheap where is your proof? What mag, article and page did you see this? Because that sounds like total BS to me. NO power adder? Prove it.

And as far as your SRT-4 Neon goes, I raced and beat one in a convertible. He ran a 14.3 against my 13.7 go figure.

Don't get me wrong if your into tuners thats fine. What I don't like about tuners is all the bench racin and lying that seems to follow.
Huge mufflers, all the stickers and of course don't forget the huge unpainted all aluminum wing on the deck lid.
What most of these tuners around here forget is that all that crap doesn't make you fast. What makes you fast is the thousands of dollars in high performance high tech parts and equipment that needs to go under the hood to make that small displacement motor not only keep up with that V8 but outrun it. Can it be done of course it can, you put enough money in anything and you can outrun whatever you want.

Bottom line muscle cars can run faster times in the 1/4 with a lot less money. Period

Autozone decorations and big wings don't win races.

I thought this was the mustang forum, why is everyone talking about economy cars. :screwy:

What about the SVO?

I was talking about non-FI cars

There is a replacement for displacement. Its called money! If you put the same amount of money into a v8 as you did in a tuner then who would when the V8 of course!

I don't know whats up with that. Maybe your escort intimidates them.:lol:

And as far as your comment Kingcalibra, I would love to see this article on an Acura RSX running 9's at 140mph or a CRX running 11's at 121. Talk is cheap where is your proof? What mag, article and page did you see this? Because that sounds like total BS to me. NO power adder? Prove it.

And as far as your SRT-4 Neon goes, I raced and beat one in a convertible. He ran a 14.3 against my 13.7 go figure.

Don't get me wrong if your into tuners thats fine. What I don't like about tuners is all the bench racin and lying that seems to follow.
Huge mufflers, all the stickers and of course don't forget the huge unpainted all aluminum wing on the deck lid.
What most of these tuners around here forget is that all that crap doesn't make you fast. What makes you fast is the thousands of dollars in high performance high tech parts and equipment that needs to go under the hood to make that small displacement motor not only keep up with that V8 but outrun it. Can it be done of course it can, you put enough money in anything and you can outrun whatever you want.

Bottom line muscle cars can run faster times in the 1/4 with a lot less money. Period

Autozone decorations and big wings don't win races.
Go to http://members.cardomain.com/kingcalbira69 and look at my car... it should describe perfectly my take on the Tuner Scene.

The yellow sticker you see on the side of my car is simply my sponsor, "MLK-Tuning" ( http://www.mlk-tuning.de 'they are pretty good at making stupid cars go fast' lol), and notice the complete absence of that retarded-ass wing. (as a matter of fact, my car has no spoiler.) I guess you could say I've taken a more "Adult" approach to tuning my car.

All of the additions on the outside of the car serve a purpose. To increase aerodynamics on an already aerodynamic car. (0.26 drag co-efficient) The suspension has been dropped and stiffened up to near race-car proportions. (sucks on bumpy roads. lol)

As far as performance mods go for the engine, they still remain mild, simply because it costs about 33% more to tune this car than it does for a Rice burner, simply because of the 16% tax in Germany, and the current Dollar to Euro exchange rate, so progress has been slow.

But I never lose focus on the main objectives... Speed, and Handling.... Apperance is secondary to me, but not unimportant. Personally, I don't care how fast a car is. If it's just a rusted out bucket of bolts with a bad-ass engine in it, it's still a rusted out bucket of bolts.......

As far as my other project, you may appreciate it a little more....

I'm currently getting ready to start working on a 5.0 engine swap into a Ford (Merkur in the US) Scorpio. We'll see where that goes. I will post picks on the forum as it progresses....

And as far as the RSX and the CRX go. Look in this month's issue of HCI: Hot Compact & Imports (Volume 5 Number 12 December 2004) in the "HCI Hot News" Section on page 8 for the CRX, and page 10 for the RSX....

OR, you can go to HCI's website and behold the 6 second Toyota Solara ( http://www.hcimagazine.com/News.asp?ID=15 ) or the 10 second ALL MOTOR Acura Integra ( http://www.hcimagazine.com/News.asp?ID=13 )

I don't BS about anything....

honestly all i get reving at me is mustnag GT's and Cobras. I've never had any hondas, or nissans mess with me. What sup with that.
Prolly cuz it's a Ford, too... That would be my only guess... I drive an opel, and i would rev at you too. Escorts are kinda seen as jokes around here....

thats what a Si thougth this morning :)

I thought this was the mustang forum, why is everyone talking about economy cars. :screwy:
Again.

The reason I bought mine is because i needed a v8 with a manual. I don't like the sound of the I4's. also, I hate the import scene with thier stickers and wings that look rediculous.

Kingcalibra Ill give you this, its definately a lot more tasteful that a lot of the tuners I've seen. Good luck with your project.

I pulled up those articles but they don't go into much specifics on the motors. Like I and others have said, you throw enough money at it and you can pretty much make it do whatever you like. If your into tuners thats cool but as far as I'm concerned there's no muscle like american muscle.

If your into tuners thats cool but as far as I'm concerned there's no muscle like american muscle.

You're absolutely right about that, that's why I also have a 1985 Mercury Capri (T-Tops) chassis sitting in my shop, waiting for a drivetrain.

BTW, you wouldn't happen to know where I can get an ECU for the 5.0, would you?

You're absolutely right about that, that's why I also have a 1985 Mercury Capri (T-Tops) chassis sitting in my shop, waiting for a drivetrain.

BTW, you wouldn't happen to know where I can get an ECU for the 5.0, would you?

Well I've got a Stock GT computer for a 94. Other than that I would check ebay.

I mean they went down in horsepower, the computers used in them were the worst of any model ever produced.

It's true :( the computer actually retards timing everytime the transmission shifts, it even does it on the T5's :(

Luckily I can tune around that with the EEC Tuner :)

haha your funny. 9 second no power adder?? or did i read wrong? [i skimmed the this thread]. sounds just like bragging to me. did you kno my bone stock escort can run 1.5s 0-60 and 4s 1/4 miles? betcha cant beat that! VTEC oh shit thats fast!!!!!

bak to topic:

i herd v6 mustangs hav a lot of low down torque, so ur satisfied when you hit the throttle and ur neck snaps bak. Atleast that wat my buddy told me cuz he tried one out. maybe for muscle car driver wannabes thats enuff to bring in sooooo many sales of the V6 off fords show floors. or maybe im wrong?

If a Zetec can be tuned to run high 10's N/A (no n2o either) I can see a RSX running better times with it's better after market support. The company that did the Zetec motor only stoped because Ford asked them to work on the 2.3 Duratec motor.

If a Zetec can be tuned to run high 10's N/A (no n2o either)

:screwy:

Esslinger Engineering ran 11.03 with high 10's in practice in their ZX2 S/R

Esslinger Engineering ran 11.03 with high 10's in practice in their ZX2 S/R

Where's your proof?

"Jason Alvarez
Hometown: Corona, California
Escort ZX2
Best: 11.05@123

News: Jason Alvarez and the all-motor Esslinger ZX2 have been competitive while using a Ford in a class that consists mostly of Hondas. Last year was the first time we saw Jason hit the track, and he made sure his presence was known blasting low 11s." - super street

"Jason Alvarez throwing down an [email protected] mph" - overboost.com
later his best became 11.03@128mph


here is a partial list of their mods, they wouldnt give out any more info on the car:
304crank hp
1725lbs(with driver)
billet WRC spec crank shaft, stock stroke
custom titanium rods
forged ultra lite je pistons
Esslinger billet main caps
ARP studs top and bottom
4 stage dry sump pump
Esslinger stage 3 cylinder head
custom cams
Esslinger shortly race header-exited through the bumper
TWM 50mm throttle bodies
Pectel engine management system
Gold Star ultra lite flywheel and clutch
Quaife 6 speed sequential transmission
custom axles
weld aluminum rims

It's true :( the computer actually retards timing everytime the transmission shifts, it even does it on the T5's :(

Luckily I can tune around that with the EEC Tuner :)

I tune around that with my right foot (Powershifts rule!). If the TPS never closes, no shift retard! Heh Heh,,,,

I think a quote from Carroll Shelby belongs in this thread: "Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races."

ZX2SR.net-That's all nice, but for the cash Esslinger has in their motor, my 3600 lb Cobra would be in the low 10's NA...(with over 400 cubic inches).

the sad thing is ford told tehm to use teh SVO mustnag motor to make the 8sec turbo focus instead of the new 2.3 duratec.

and the point was that the motors are capable of 10's. and thats only 34 crank, there is a turbo kit that gets a ZX2 318whp and it works as a daily driver, so teh motors ar more then capable of making higher numbers, but with the weigth difference there is not even any NEED to get 400+whp to get to 12's, or 11's. you also have to lok at aero dynamics also a v6 mustang maxes out around 120ish mph w/o the gov, while a ZX2 can go till close to mid 130's or 140's. there is a LOT more at play then hp, why to you think serious drag foci are wagons? beter aero dynamics.

Ok look thats not proof, pictures and timeslips or even better online magazine articles are proof. I mean I don't mean to call you a liar and obviously you have a fetish for escorts. Why I'll never know but hey if escorts get you off so be it. The point here im trying to make is in order to have fun and enjoy learning from each other we can't just have people making outragous claims they can't prove. I think I speak for a lot of people on here when I say Im not indulged by bullshit. A tuned Vtec running 10's naturally aspirated? Escorts running low 11's? :disappoin Gimmie a break I ain't buying that.

I've spent to much time at the track and seen to many guys spending ridiculous amounts of money and running the piss out of there cars just to get into 12's if they can do that. 10's are rare out of 8cyl let alone some NA Vtec. Im not saying tuners can't run times like that because I have READ THOSE ARTICLES. Never seen it myself (execpt in the movies) but hey if its in a reputable mag ok. But even those tuner article I've read aren't making the claims you are.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand your point on weight. I have my share of kills in the Daytona when it's actually up and running. It's a high 13 second car, for under 2 thousand bucks. Only weighs around 2700 pounds. But, there is no replacement for the heads turning when my 306 comes to life and starts the lumpity-lump of its idle.Not to mention the overall feel of the motor making more grunt than that 4-cylinder. The rush of turbo spool is addictive, but the punch of over 350#s of torque is sick...

but the punch of over 350#s of torque is sick...


I'll second that.

Ok look thats not proof, pictures and timeslips or even better online magazine articles are proof.

you expect me to call Esslinger Racing and ask for a slip from the NIRA?
SuperStreet is a magazine and Overboost is a online magazine too. Are you just that fucking stupid? I wrote where i got the damn quotes. I've even talked to Jason when Ii did a write up on his car for a ZX2 site, he used to be a member of teamzx2 even.

want to see the articles yourself?
http://www.superstreetonline.com/thehistoryof/16018/index8.html

https://www.overboost.com/story.asp?id=232 (also mentions 11sec CRX)

http://www.urbanracer.com/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=194 (slso mentions 9sec CRX and civics

No you moron, time slips, mag articles or websites are "examples of proof." Get your head out of your ass and learn to read. Why are we even talking about escorts anyway. Escorts suck REMEMBER.

Nobody here gives a damn about your escorts or your tuner articles. This is a mustang forum we were talking about mustangs. I don't recall anybody asking anything about Jason Alverez or what kind of time he was running so know your role or shut your hole.

your the one that asked for proof remember dumbass?

dont get pissed cuz i provided it

your the one that asked for proof remember dumbass?

dont get pissed cuz i provided itSee you still don't get it escort boy.


[QUOTE "If a Zetec can be tuned to run high 10's N/A (no n2o either)

This is what I asked you to prove which you still have not. These sites still do not support this statement.

Nobody said tuners couldn't run 11's but they sure as hell aint doing it with a simple tune NA.

You ever notice when ever we get into it we always seem to hear you raving at what somebody else is doing, or what somebody else is running. Isn't it sad to have to drive something you can't even talk about. It must be hell to have to drive around in a lousy escort. I can't imagine what its like to be taken at the light by some kid in his moms minivan. Damn are there even any forums for escorts? As often as I see you here I guess not. Now that I think about it you don't even fit in the tuner catagory, I've never seen an escort in a tuner magazine. You life must suck.

BITE ME ESCORT BOY

Youre a joke and so is your car.:loser:

You drive one of the slowest v8 mustangs in the last 15yrs look who is talking.

Good driver in a 94 convertable 5.0 is what 15.0, 15.1??
good driver in a ZX2 s/r is 15.5
thats only .6 on a stock Escort
an S/R with basic bolt-ons will run 15.1

how does it feel to have a v8 that could be beat by an i4 with bolt-ons?

and who the hell assumes that 'tune' = 'simple mods'? cuz unless thats what you think then I HAVE proven my point.

Yes it totaly sucks having a car that cost 16k but makes 18k Foci, and Si's like patheticly over priced at the track. Show me any AMERICAN i4 in the 80's or early 90's that was getting a large performance aftermarket. There isn't any, that why the Civics have had a huge start, but stock for stock there has always been a Escort on par with an Si.

forums for escorts?
- ZX2Racing.com
- EscortTuner.com
- ZX2.org
- FEOA.net
- EscortPower.net
- AutomotiveForums
- NWZX2
- zx2sr.net

and a few other smaller ones