I have also seen folks drench the inside port where some sensors are for the IACV where sludge builds up with the liquid cleaner, once it dries it turns hard.

 

Took my girls to the autoshow today. Seeing my teenager behind the wheel of a new Stingray... too funny.

God I'm getting old, but I swear the car that spoke to me was the Lincoln MKZ, in pearl white with saddle brown leather, fully loaded with a 400hp V6TT AWD drivetrain.

There was this beautiful Mercedes Coupe with no B-pillar. Damn, that was nice.

The new Acura NSX. Oh my god.

I also liked the Bandit. Ford is making another Mustang Bandit.

 

MKZ is not bad at all. Would probably ride a lot nicer up there too. IT's damn quick as well... mid 13s and it grips at 0.94gs, WTF.

I need to get my damn exhaust done.

 

I think you mean Bullitt


https://www.caranddriver.com/news/20...-and-info-news

 

Hahahaha!! Yes, wow, can't believe I wrote "bandit". OMG

IIRC, Pontiac released a "bandit" Firebird for the last few years of the 3rd Gen, which was no bueno. Had a fake shaker scoop which didn't actually shake, LOL. Just bolted to the hood, and wrapped with huge rubber molding. So wrong, it hurts.

 

I don't think that was a factory option on the 3rd gen, could be wrong though....

There were a lot of SMH moments with the old F body, like the 2.5 iron duke, 90 horsepower, and 0-60 in around 20 seconds

 

I have to say I COMPLETELY disagree with making "economical" lower HP engines for what are supposed to be muscle or sports cars. I think at minimum you get the base model with fewer amenities but still get a strong engine and then a couple of high HP options. No 4cyl Mustangs, Camaros, etc. No 6s either honestly.

I know someone will bring up the twin turbo v6 Mustang and it's potential with a tune, but still not right to me.

 

Agree to a point, but not everyone wants MPG in the low-mid teens. Base model muscle cars have came a long way. Not that I'd ever get a muscle car without the muscle though

BTW, there is no twin turbo V6, the ecoboost application in the Mustang is a 4 cylinder.

 

Mustangs and Camaros begat the Muscle Car movement. Yet, three-quarters of the first-gen Mustang were 6-cylinder with automatics. When the Camaro debuted two years after the Mustang is when the Pony Car HP war started. Chrysler and American Motors had no choice but to follow suit.

Everyone of their base models had a six or small V-8. I think a 300 horse V-6 Mustang would be a hoot.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

While you are correct, most folks don't know the difference. Mid-size and full-size coupes and sedans got big performance so the moniker became Muscle Car and included the Pony Cars.

 

You had me at "you are correct". Didn't read the rest.

 

Lol! I've been watching Engine Masters and Roadkill Garage on Youtube to get my daily dose of vitamin iron. Detroit flavor.

 

I wrote what I thought was a funny piece on the futility and pointlessness of V8-less muscle cars

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/every...-ho-1579309468

 

The modular 4.6 hit its stride with the New Edge Mustang of '99, turning the GT from a low 15 second car to a high 13 second car overnight and putting the Mustang GT back into the dog fight with the LS1 F bodies

The 99 Mustang was still slow, and no where near on par with the LS1

https://www.caranddriver.com/compari...ved-comparison

Check out the 0-130 time, a staggering 12.1 second difference. I had a LT1, and had no problem with 4.6 Mustangs. With full bolt on's I could just barely pull on a stock LS1