 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / March 2007Of Old Farts and dinosaurs...
I'm 52 years old. I bought my last new car when I was 39. In 1993, at the same time I bought TFrog, my wife picked up a brand-new Escort GT. That car became my son's first car, when Jean picked up a new Mercury Mystique. After her second new Mystique (now my daughter's car), Jean moved on to the Ford Escape, and is now driving her second, a new 2007 model. My daughter, who was 11 in 1993, learned to drive with the Princessmobile*, moved on to a '99 Escort, and now drives my wife's '99 Mystique. In 1993, George Bush 41 watched as William Jefferson Clinton was sworn in for his first term in office as President of the United States. Today, Mrs. Clinton is running for the office. In 1993, Jerry Orbach was introduced as Detective Lenny Briscoe. He's dead now. In 1993, my computer was running with Windows 3.1, which incorporated the new DOS 6.0. I remember the day I installed an extra 4MB of RAM, doubling my capacity, and then swapping my 2400 baud modem for an amazing 14,400. Somewhere in there, I began my life as an AOLer (already with 3,000,000 users), after having toyed with CompuServe and Prodigy, and I've been "TFrog93" ever since. Today, I'm using a computer and peripherals that would have only been dreamed of in "Star Trek." In 1993, the Philadelphia Eagles were in their second season under the great Rich Kotite, who, thankfully, would later parlay a 7-9 season into a head coach position with the New York Jets. The Eagles would then begin their four-year flirtation with an equally fine head coach, Ray Rhodes. In 1993 (don't hold me to it), we were using a Pentax K1000 that Jean picked up for a college filler course in black & white photography. The K1000 was the camera that every student had to have, fully manual with no bells or whistles. I later picked up the Pentax ZX-M, then my first digital (1.3megapixel), my second digital (3megapixel), and now a D-SLR with a growing list of lenses. In 1993, it was all about the Wu-Tang Clan. In 1993, there were still fewer than 150 sites on the new World Wide Web. Also in 1993, Mark Andreesen came out with "Mosaic X", which allowed far greater use of graphics over the internet (does anyone remember the all-text AOL?), which, in turn, gave rise to Netscape Navigator and Windows Internet Explorer. The race was on. In 1993, we had one television in the house - a 19" Zenith with a clunky channel knob and UHF. We had to get up and walk over to the TV to change the channel. Today, we have HDTV, surround sound, 5-disc DVD changer, and cable hookups in all of the bedrooms. In all areas of my life but one, I have seen amazing changes, undreamt of in my philosophy. And every day I go out and start up my 1993 Ford Mustang, now with 204,000+ miles, which I still love and still plan on keeping. dwight * Princessmobile - see http://www.tfrog93.com, click on CFrog. > I'm 52 years old. I bought my last new car when I was 39. > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > * Princessmobile - see http://www.tfrog93.com, click on CFrog. You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are part of the family. It's just about time for the LX to be "born again" as a restomod, so I am starting with my plans. Suggestions are most welcome. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC > You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and neck > there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are part of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies > Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC Engine. Body. Interior. Make your lists. I start as "if money were no object" and then pare it down to "things I really should do." Engine: new crate engine all the way down to new serpentine belts. Body: new black paint job down to just replacing that cracked windshield grille. Interior: (this may be where my focus is this year) I'd love to have new seats and harnesses, but there's the mundane: Trim pieces have come loose, there's a shock tower plastic cover missing in the hatch area, and (I drive with the left window down a lot) do I try to clean the headliner or replace it? I suppose, all in all, TFrog is in pretty good shape, so if I just stuck to the cosmetic, it would look great. But, as an investment in its future, I need to prepare to spend some serious money. dwight >> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Engine. Body. Interior. My list reads drivetrain, suspension, body, interior (if I get that far). > Make your lists. I start as "if money were no object" and then pare it > down to "things I really should do." > > Engine: new crate engine all the way down to new serpentine belts. I'm going with drivetrain, which includes a crate engine coupled to something like a LenTech. My Auburn is sill fine, so the rear end should be ok as is. > Body: new black paint job down to just replacing that cracked > windshield grille. I want to have the unibody straightened out and trued, and I need to have some front end issues resolved. The last idiot that put the car on a flatbed chained the front end incorrectly and the chains distorted the front support underneath the radiator. That all needs to be sorted out. There are also a few other odds 'n' ends like trim pieces (and yes, the windshield grille) and a few dings here and there, but the color will remain the same - Calypso Green. > Interior: (this may be where my focus is this year) I'd love to have > new seats and harnesses, but there's the mundane: Trim pieces have > come loose, there's a shock tower plastic cover missing in the hatch > area, and (I drive with the left window down a lot) do I try to clean > the headliner or replace it? The interior of the LX is still pretty good except for the headliner, the sun shades, and the ashtray cover. Seats need a good cleaning, but they are still fine. I even have the original netting for the hatch area. > I suppose, all in all, TFrog is in pretty good shape, so if I just > stuck to the cosmetic, it would look great. But, as an investment in > its future, I need to prepare to spend some serious money. > > dwight I'm thinking 10 grand should take care of the drivetrain and stuff with the suspension like bushings, control arms, etc. The springs are Steeda and I'll need shocks/struts, but the basics are there. Subframes are there, and I have the caster/camber plates too. 10 grand should get me to the point where all that's left will be cosmetics. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My list reads drivetrain, suspension, body, interior (if I get that > far). I lump the suspension in with the body, otherwise body would be entirely cosmetic. On my list, body includes the underpinnings. (Oh, yeah... one of my Koni quad shocks is leaking, too - add that to the list.) >> Make your lists. I start as "if money were no object" and then pare it >> down to "things I really should do." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > something like a LenTech. My Auburn is sill fine, so the rear end > should be ok as is. Five years ago, my list included the crate engine, matched to a new manual trans and complete exhaust makeover. Well, since then I've had the tranny overhauled and now added the H-pipe to my cat-back, so I've got the exhaust covered. Everything but the new engine. >> Body: new black paint job down to just replacing that cracked >> windshield grille. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > windshield grille) and a few dings here and there, but the color will > remain the same - Calypso Green. (I was talking about TFrog, natcherly. I know you like that Calypso. As you know, I almost bought your car - a Calypso Green hatchback, but decided to go with the black at the last moment.) >> Interior: (this may be where my focus is this year) I'd love to have >> new seats and harnesses, but there's the mundane: Trim pieces have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they are still fine. I even have the original netting for the hatch > area. Somehow, I ended up with two of those rollup hatch covers. Maybe one was left over from the '84 after I sold it. But it hasn't been in the car since I brought it home from the dealership. >> I suppose, all in all, TFrog is in pretty good shape, so if I just >> stuck to the cosmetic, it would look great. But, as an investment in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies > Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC Wow... When I priced this out, I figured $10-$12K would give me everything, including the killer black paint job... Now, as we contemplate restoration... RESTORATION!...I'm going to have to go back and figure out what all of this means in 2007 dollars. :() >>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > yeah... one of my Koni quad shocks is leaking, too - add that to the > list.) I don't remember - does TFrog had subframe connectors? I seem to recall that the suspension on your car was pretty much stock. >>> Make your lists. I start as "if money were no object" and then pare >>> it down to "things I really should do." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the tranny overhauled and now added the H-pipe to my cat-back, so I've > got the exhaust covered. Everything but the new engine. Sounds good. What about add-ons like headers, intake, cam, etc.? >>> Body: new black paint job down to just replacing that cracked >>> windshield grille. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > As you know, I almost bought your car - a Calypso Green hatchback, but > decided to go with the black at the last moment.) Yes, it's ironic. The LX I ended up with was the last automatic on the lot (that was one of the conditions my wife made me agree to), so I had no choice in color. Actually, I didn't like it all that much for the first month or so. But the color definitely grew on me, and I just love it now. That color's all but disappeared. >>> Interior: (this may be where my focus is this year) I'd love to have >>> new seats and harnesses, but there's the mundane: Trim pieces have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was left over from the '84 after I sold it. But it hasn't been in the > car since I brought it home from the dealership. Forgot all about that thing - mine's still working fine. The spring still has the tension and the shade isn't ripped at all. Just a bit discolored from the sun. >>> I suppose, all in all, TFrog is in pretty good shape, so if I just >>> stuck to the cosmetic, it would look great. But, as an investment in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >:() Now that I've reviewed my list, I'm thinking 13-15k will do it. 10 just won't be enough. >>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I don't remember - does TFrog had subframe connectors? I seem to recall > that the suspension on your car was pretty much stock. It's all on the website, but yes - subframes, strut tower brace, lower chassis brace. This was done early on. That leaking Koni has to be at least 10 years old. Not bad! >>>> Make your lists. I start as "if money were no object" and then pare >>>> it down to "things I really should do." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sounds good. What about add-ons like headers, intake, cam, etc.? The least of the crate engines at FordRacing.com puts out 340 horses, and (I believe) comes with a mild cam and GT40 heads. No intake, so I'd probably match it up with the GT40 intake manifold (?). http://www.fordracingparts.com:80/crateengine/302smallblock.asp is what I'm looking at. >>>> Body: new black paint job down to just replacing that cracked >>>> windshield grille. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > first month or so. But the color definitely grew on me, and I just love > it now. That color's all but disappeared. Yeah, slim pickin's in September '93. The largest Ford dealer in Philadelphia had only a few left on the lot. I was the reverse - it had to have a stick, so the choice was black or the Cayman Green. >>>> Interior: (this may be where my focus is this year) I'd love to have >>>> new seats and harnesses, but there's the mundane: Trim pieces have [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Now that I've reviewed my list, I'm thinking 13-15k will do it. 10 just > won't be enough. Not by a long shot. :() >>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >>>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > chassis brace. This was done early on. That leaking Koni has to be at > least 10 years old. Not bad! How'd you like the Konis? I ended up going with Tokicos, and now that I'm almost in the AARP, they are a bit too firm for my taste. >>>>> Make your lists. I start as "if money were no object" and then >>>>> pare it down to "things I really should do." [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and (I believe) comes with a mild cam and GT40 heads. No intake, so > I'd probably match it up with the GT40 intake manifold (?). I wonder what flows better - the Cobra intake or the GT40... > http://www.fordracingparts.com:80/crateengine/302smallblock.asp is > what I'm looking at. Yup. >>>>> Body: new black paint job down to just replacing that cracked >>>>> windshield grille. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Philadelphia had only a few left on the lot. I was the reverse - it > had to have a stick, so the choice was black or the Cayman Green. Yes. I recall not liking the '94 body style at all. I definitely wanted the Fox car. >>>>> Interior: (this may be where my focus is this year) I'd love to >>>>> have new seats and harnesses, but there's the mundane: Trim pieces [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >:() I hope to save a few $$ by reusing some of my existing stuff. Rear, body stuff (subframes, upper/lower bracing, motor stuff, etc.). However, I should probably replace the mundane stuff like the A/C, PS pump, etc. Those things are destined to fail soon. >>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >>>>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > I wonder what flows better - the Cobra intake or the GT40... The GT40 upper flows better than the Cobra. It has smoother bends but is also more expensive. It looks cool as hell too. >> http://www.fordracingparts.com:80/crateengine/302smallblock.asp is >> what I'm looking at. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > However, I should probably replace the mundane stuff like the A/C, PS > pump, etc. Those things are destined to fail soon. "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in news:Gv6dnYVT_PXtb3 _YnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@giganews.com: > The GT40 upper flows better than the Cobra. It has smoother bends but > is also more expensive. It looks cool as hell too. Well, I guess I could sell the Cobra and add a few more $$ into the budget for the GT40. I guess I'd better spring for the 65mm TB as well. > "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in news:Gv6dnYVT_PXtb3 > _YnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, I guess I could sell the Cobra and add a few more $$ into the budget > for the GT40. I guess I'd better spring for the 65mm TB as well. The increase over a Cobra intake isn't substantial. The Cobra is actually a little better from a torque perspective while the GT40 delivers more peak hp. Definitely stay with a 65mm throttle body/spacer. It is the sweet spot for a N/A 302. Any larger and you'll give up too much low/mid range torque. You might want to have the upper and lower intakes port matched and smoothed. If you want to get fancy maybe even get them extrude honed. >> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in news:Gv6dnYVT_PXtb3 >> _YnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the upper and lower intakes port matched and smoothed. If you want to > get fancy maybe even get them extrude honed. Definitely want that torque. That's almost more important to me than horsepower. The way I see it is the pieces themselves would be phase I, porting/polishing/extrude honed would be phase II and beyond. >>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >>>>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > How'd you like the Konis? I ended up going with Tokicos, and now that > I'm almost in the AARP, they are a bit too firm for my taste. In combination with the bracing and the lowering springs, the Konis were TIGHT. But keep in mind that they are adjustable, too. I usually run with them tightened up max, but one or two 360-degree turns on both loosen up the ride well enough for most passengers. >>>>>> Make your lists. I start as "if money were no object" and then >>>>>> pare it down to "things I really should do." [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Yes. I recall not liking the '94 body style at all. I definitely > wanted the Fox car. That's why I bought TFrog. Waited to see the '94s on the lot, then scrambled to find a leftover '93. >>>>>> Interior: (this may be where my focus is this year) I'd love to >>>>>> have new seats and harnesses, but there's the mundane: Trim pieces [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > However, I should probably replace the mundane stuff like the A/C, PS > pump, etc. Those things are destined to fail soon. Air pump. That one threw me. Air pump? I'll continue to have the accessories replaced as they fail, rather than plan on failure. That's part of the price for holding onto a car this long. Might be time to start touring the junkyards in Philadelphia, too... :() >>>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck >>>>>>>> and neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] > accessories replaced as they fail, rather than plan on failure. That's > part of the price for holding onto a car this long. My air pump's been stationary for years now. Been running a short belt for quite a while. Exhaust gets a little stinky sometimes, but there's no inspection here and I'm no Al Gore. ;) The crate motor will never see an air pump. > Might be time to start touring the junkyards in Philadelphia, too... > >:() I dunno. How could we put old, used parts on a brand new crate motor? I might have to go new. But the budget will probably dictate that. >><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's just about time for the LX to be "born again" as a restomod, so I > am starting with my plans. Suggestions are most welcome. I'm a big fan of the sleeper look. Maybe lower it a tad and keep the exterior and interior looking bone stock. No one will know the car's potential unless they crawl under it, open the hood or witness the throttle getting hammered. How much horsepower do you want to make? That will determine a lot of other things. > > You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and neck > > there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are part of the > > family. > > It's just about time for the LX to be "born again" as a restomod, so I > > am starting with my plans. Suggestions are most welcome. > I'm a big fan of the sleeper look. Maybe lower it a tad and keep the > exterior and interior looking bone stock. No one will know the car's > potential unless they crawl under it, open the hood or witness the > throttle getting hammered. And you know Joe, I'm with Mike on this. I vote keep it a plain Jane on the outside & interior, but have King Kong power under the hood. A super clean car will always get noticed, and if you want more attention simply dropping the hammer on the strong running car will get you plenty. > How much horsepower do you want to make? That will determine a lot of > other things. 300 RW would be plenty fun/and very streetable. Patrick > And you know Joe, I'm with Mike on this. I vote keep it a plain Jane > on the outside & interior, but have King Kong power under the hood. A > super clean car will always get noticed, and if you want more > attention simply dropping the hammer on the strong running car will > get you plenty. I keep seeing the reverse. Big bulging hoods on 4-cylinder Foxes. >> How much horsepower do you want to make? That will determine a lot of >> other things. > > 300 RW would be plenty fun/and very streetable. > > Patrick The "mild" crate engine is supposed to produce 340hp. Unless I'm wrong (usually the case), it's a straight drop-in replacement. http://www.fordracingparts.com/crateengine/302smallblock.asp (I see it's also gone from about $3200 five years ago to $4300 today.) dwight >> And you know Joe, I'm with Mike on this. I vote keep it a plain Jane >> on the outside & interior, but have King Kong power under the hood. A [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > dwight As I responded to Patrick and Michael, the M-6007-XE3M is just about the perfect engine. The E303 cam is great with the automatic and when everything is said and done it should be able to put out close to 300 RWHP. You should get more with the 5-speed. The only thing extra I'll need is a set of shorty headers. I've already got the Cobra intake and the bigger MAF. >>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and neck >>> there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are part of the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 300 RW would be plenty fun/and very streetable. The nice thing about fuel injection and computer control is that nearly all hp levels are very streetable nowadays. I would opt for a 302 block stroked to 331/347 cubic inches or just go for the gold and get a stroked 351W. A 351W stroked to 392 cubic inches is a cheap and easy build and will give 400+ rwtq/rwhp if done right. When I get back into my '89 LX it will sport a 427W with motor mounts that let me keep the stock hood. Blowers are nice but I want the reliability and simplicity of a N/A engine. To keep the torque levels I have now I need cubic inches. You'd give up the KB puffer for more cubes? Patrick > >>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and neck > >>> there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are part of the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > reliability and simplicity of a N/A engine. To keep the torque levels I > have now I need cubic inches. > You'd give up the KB puffer for more cubes? It's a tough choice but I would. I have so many gadgets on the car from DIY computer programming, A/F meters, knock sensors, water/and/or alcohol injection etc. that it takes the fun out of it for me. I want something I can start up and drive with absolutely no hassles and, IMO, a N/A big cube engine it the best choice. When a car is designed from the factory for forced induction like the '03+ Cobras etc. a blower makes good sense. Converting a car that wasn't designed for it is expensive and frustrating at times to keep running. The one thing the KB has taught me is that a lot of torque is what I REALLY like. It can make just going to the grocery store for milk an adventure. ;) > Patrick > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> reliability and simplicity of a N/A engine. To keep the torque levels I >> have now I need cubic inches. >> You'd give up the KB puffer for more cubes? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the KB has taught me is that a lot of torque is what I REALLY like. > It can make just going to the grocery store for milk an adventure. ;) That's exactly why I like the Dak. It's certainly not a hot rod, but the 345 ft lb of torque is nice to have, especially with the 3.92 rear. >> > You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >> > neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> I'm a big fan of the sleeper look. Maybe lower it a tad and keep the >> exterior and interior looking bone stock. The car's already lowered about 1-1/2" with the Steeda sport springs. It sits perfectly right now, although we have to be careful on rough roads or we'll rip out the exhaust on a nice bump. No way it'll go through a car wash. ;) > No one will know the car's >> potential unless they crawl under it, open the hood or witness the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > attention simply dropping the hammer on the strong running car will > get you plenty. I totally agree with you guys, but it's already got a Cervini 'glass hood with a small cowl, maybe 1" or so. That's the only giveaway. >> How much horsepower do you want to make? That will determine a lot >> of other things. > > 300 RW would be plenty fun/and very streetable. > > Patrick I looked at dwight's link in the next post, and even the "mild" M-6007- XE3M would be nice. It's available with the E303 cam, which should work well with the automatic. The hyper pistons should be ok seeing that it'll be n/a. It's also very reasonably priced. >>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > roads or we'll rip out the exhaust on a nice bump. No way it'll go > through a car wash. ;) I would probably go with no more than 1". Maybe even 1/2". >> No one will know the car's >>> potential unless they crawl under it, open the hood or witness the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > well with the automatic. The hyper pistons should be ok seeing that > it'll be n/a. It's also very reasonably priced. The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many new cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at the flywheel. I guess that is to be expected as technology marches on. >>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at the > flywheel. I guess that is to be expected as technology marches on. 340 is more than the new Mustang puts out, and in a lighter body would be that much faster. "Many new cars"? Uhhhh.... doubt it. dwight >>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >>>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > 340 is more than the new Mustang puts out, and in a lighter body would be > that much faster. "Many new cars"? Uhhhh.... doubt it. A bone stock 5.0L would do 0-60 with a manual tranny in about six seconds flat and with an automatic maybe seven seconds flat, at best. With a 340 hp crate engine you might shave a full second off those times at best. I can manage 4.6 seconds in my 89 LX with about 500 hp at the flywheel. That would probably put Joe's LX (with automatic and crate motor) at 5.5-6.0 seconds for a 0-60 run. There are many cars that can match that time today. Here are a few: Camry - V6 0-60 in 5.8 seconds http://www.caranddriver.com/features/12404/2007-toyota-camry-v-6.html Nissan Altima 0-60 in 5.9 seconds http://www.caranddriver.com/features/12402/2007-nissan-altima-35se.html Mazdaspeed 3 0-60 in 5.8 seconds http://www.caranddriver.com/features/12399/2007-mazdaspeed-3.html Subaru Imprezza 0-60 in 5.6 seconds http://www.caranddriver.com/features/12406/2007-subaru-impreza-wrx.html I could keep digging but I think these prove my point. It isn't difficult to find cars that are running very respectable 0-60 times. Plus, many of the above cars are running low 14 second quarter miles and getting great gas mileage too without a single modification. Anyone wanting to dominate the overwhelming majority of vehicles these days with a vintage Mustang had better bring 400-500 hp to the table and/or one trick rear suspension. There are some four wheel drive rockets that my car couldn't take even in a straight line. All you need to do is look at where the Vette/Cobra, and even the Mustang GT, have to be from a horsepower perspective to be considered high performance cars. The bar is set high nowadays. >>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck and >>>>>>> neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our Mustangs are [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > horsepower perspective to be considered high performance cars. The bar is > set high nowadays. Amen. >>>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck >>>>>>>> and neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Amen. Granted, 340hp is fairly commonplace these days, but not in a lightweight RWD platform like the Fox Mustang. A few other things that might set the LX apart would be that it already has an Auburn along with 3.73s, and a LenTech (or comparable) can be had with a variety of ratios. At any rate, which would be the more desirable to drive - a freshened up Fox Mustang or a stock Camry? Not a difficult choice... ;) >>>>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck >>>>>>>>> and neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > At any rate, which would be the more desirable to drive - a freshened up > Fox Mustang or a stock Camry? Not a difficult choice... ;) I wasn't accounting for style. I'll take a nice, strong Fox Mustang any day over most new cars. I've quit trying to get my LX into the position of domination from a hp perspective. I can't keep up with the current power levels and keep the car safe for the street. I would need to be thinking of 600+ rwhp/rwtq and that is just a silly amount of power for that car. IMO, 500 is the jagged edge limit. Its next incarnation will be geared toward an all around fun, dependable ride and not a take no prisoners build up. You're doing the right thing with the crate motor. Just install whatever makes you happy and satisfied. Any more than that is a waste of time, money and sanity. >>>>>>>>>> You've long since surpassed me with the mileage (we were neck >>>>>>>>>> and neck there for a while), but I'm with you 100%. Our [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > I wasn't accounting for style. That's prolly a good thing. ;) > I'll take a nice, strong Fox Mustang > any day over most new cars. Michael, we've always been pretty much on the same page there. > I've quit trying to get my LX into the > position of domination from a hp perspective. I can't keep up with > the current power levels and keep the car safe for the street. Very good point. At that level you're competing with OEM engineering not to mention budgets. > I > would need to be thinking of 600+ rwhp/rwtq and that is just a silly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > whatever makes you happy and satisfied. Any more than that is a waste > of time, money and sanity. Indeed. I think that's prolly the best balance in the real world. OTOH, my Bucket-T will need definitely need wheelie bars... ;) >>>>> 340 is more than the new Mustang puts out, and in a lighter body >>>>> would be that much faster. "Many new cars"? Uhhhh.... doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > makes you happy and satisfied. Any more than that is a waste of time, > money and sanity. Couple of points here, if I may... 1) I won't question the figures you threw out, but I find it weird. I don't have much of a problem with those cars now, even with my lousy 205hp. 2) I admit that I don't go looking for races, especially with a Camry or Mazda 3. Hell, I don't go looking for races, period. (They do find ME on occasion, though.) The reason I'm looking forward to an increase in power is when I come out of a tight turn looking at an open road ahead of me. Burning rubber from one red light to the next, just to prove that my car is faster than some stranger's, is not my idea of fun. dwight >>>>>> 340 is more than the new Mustang puts out, and in a lighter body >>>>>> would be that much faster. "Many new cars"? Uhhhh.... doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > 1) I won't question the figures you threw out, but I find it weird. I don't > have much of a problem with those cars now, even with my lousy 205hp. The 302 makes very good low/mid range torque which allows for good performance without bouncing off the rev limiter. My guess is the garden variety Camry/Mazda owner can't drive worth a $hit and is unwilling to wind the engine out to redline to get the best acceleration. In a contest where both drivers won't go north of 4,000-5,000 rpm the low/mid range torque of a 302 is a big advantage. This is just a guess on my part as to why you don't have trouble. > 2) I admit that I don't go looking for races, especially with a Camry or > Mazda 3. Hell, I don't go looking for races, period. (They do find ME on > occasion, though.) The reason I'm looking forward to an increase in power is > when I come out of a tight turn looking at an open road ahead of me. Burning > rubber from one red light to the next, just to prove that my car is faster > than some stranger's, is not my idea of fun. We have the same taste. I love the torque the KB puts out across the rpm range. Coming out of a corner in third gear at 2,500-3,000 rpm and rolling into the throttle is a rush with 460 ft-lbs of torque at the wheels. The acceleration just gets stronger the closer I get to redline. It also doesn't suck that I can be rolling along in third gear at 2,500 rpm, mash the throttle and send the tires up in smoke for as long as I want as the a$$ end of the car drifts sideways leaving two solid black stripes on the pavement. :) >> Couple of points here, if I may... >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > torque of a 302 is a big advantage. This is just a guess on my part as to > why you don't have trouble. This morning, I was cut off by a Maxima. I'm not proud of it, but I was easily able to reel him in at above 90mph, hold him off as he tried to pass on a 270-degree exit ramp, and then left him behind far too quick. Statistically, a Maxima should be able to handle my poor little 205hp Fox easily. This guy wasn't anywhere near as good as he thought he was. >> 2) I admit that I don't go looking for races, especially with a Camry or >> Mazda 3. Hell, I don't go looking for races, period. (They do find ME on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > want as the a$$ end of the car drifts sideways leaving two solid black > stripes on the pavement. :) Oh, that's alright. The only time that happens to me is when I screw up. :() >>> Couple of points here, if I may... >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Oh, that's alright. The only time that happens to me is when I screw up. I like to screw up. ;) > >> The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many new > >> cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at the > >> flywheel. I guess that is to be expected as technology marches on. > > 340 is more than the new Mustang puts out, and in a lighter body would be > > that much faster. "Many new cars"? Uhhhh.... doubt it. > A bone stock 5.0L would do 0-60 with a manual tranny in about six > seconds flat and with an automatic maybe seven seconds flat, at best. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > motor) at 5.5-6.0 seconds for a 0-60 run. There are many cars that can > match that time today. Here are a few: > Camry - V6 0-60 in 5.8 secondshttp://www.caranddriver.com/features/12404/2007-toyota-camry-v-6.html > Nissan Altima 0-60 in 5.9 secondshttp://www.caranddriver.com/features/12402/2007-nissan-altima-35se.html > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > be from a horsepower perspective to be considered high performance cars. > The bar is set high nowadays. Mike, Dwight was talking faster. You're talking quickness. Trap speed vs E.T. As we all know our nose-heavy, fairly torquey, Fox Mustangs suffer horribly from a lack of traction -- the reason why these newer sedans are a threat on a quick dash, even for a Fox Mustang with added fire power. (Ever notice that the turner Foxes -- Saleen, Roush, etc. dispite lots of horsepower would still have a hard time breaking into the 12s on street tires?) So going back to the point I think Dwight was trying to make, a 340 HP Fox would mow down many new performance cars in a rolling start where the traction issue would be mostly nullified and its relatively lightweight (especially compared to most newer cars) would be a big advantage. Patrick >>>> The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many new >>>> cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at the [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > nullified and its relatively lightweight (especially compared to most > newer cars) would be a big advantage. I think you are making a somewhat valid point but three of the four cars I listed are trapping 99 mph with low 14 second ETs in the 1/4 mile. These are CD numbers so there is probably more to be had with a good, aggressive driver. The average driver of a stock Fox Mustang with a manual transmission will do the 1/4 in the low 14 second range at just under 100 mph. These new grocery getters are doing the same. Plus they are doing these times with an automatic transmission. Run one of them against a bone stock automatic 5.0L Mustang and it wouldn't even be a close race. They would beat it by well over a full second in the 1/4 mile. It would take a 340 hp crate motor in the Mustang just to make it a close race. Heck, the cars I listed are within 1/2 a second of the new Mustangs setting in Ford's showrooms. >>>>> The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many new >>>>> cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at the [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > Heck, the cars I listed are within 1/2 a second of the new Mustangs > setting in Ford's showrooms. Then along with a crate engine comes the modifications necessary to make use of all that power where the rubber meets the road. Otherwise, us poor Foxes would just sit and spin. :() >>>>>> The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many >>>>>> new [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > :() Absolutely. I don't buy for a second that my 1993 GT would get eaten by a Camry. I don't care what the bench racers say. The only thing that passes my 5.0 off the line is it's own a.s end. Those cars have no traction. In the lightest rain you can break the rear out by just tapping the gas on sticky W-rated tires with AA traction ratings. Personally, if I was building one, I'd put more $ into the grip and use all that torque even on a stock engine. Brad I'm not disputing these new sedans vs a stock 5-liter Fox (their number would be close); we were comparing these new sedans against a Fox sporting 340HP. And in this case, again factoring out the Fox's lack of traction -- using a street start), a 340HP Fox would eat them up, AND be plenty strong to take on most ($20K-$40K price range) performance cars today. Patrick > >>>> The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many new > >>>> cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at the [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > a close race. Heck, the cars I listed are within 1/2 a second of the > new Mustangs setting in Ford's showrooms. Patrick, I'm glad you posted that. ;) Joe > I'm not disputing these new sedans vs a stock 5-liter Fox (their > number would be close); we were comparing these new sedans against a [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> Camry - V6 0-60 in 5.8 >> >> secondshttp://www.caranddriver.com/features/12404/2007-toyota- camry >> >> -v-6.html >> >> >> Nissan Altima 0-60 in 5.9 >> >> secondshttp://www.caranddriver.com/features/12402/2007-nissan- altim >> >> a-35se.html >> >> >> Mazdaspeed 3 0-60 in 5.8 >> >> secondshttp://www.caranddriver.com/features/12399/2007-mazdaspeed- 3 >> >> .html >> >> >> Subaru Imprezza 0-60 in 5.6 >> >> secondshttp://www.caranddriver.com/features/12406/2007-subaru- impre >> >> za-wrx.html >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> are within 1/2 a second of the new Mustangs setting in Ford's >> showrooms. Are you saying I'm wrong? ;) > Patrick, I'm glad you posted that. ;) > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >>> are within 1/2 a second of the new Mustangs setting in Ford's >>> showrooms. Nah, just looking for a feel-good excuse to get the 340hp motor. ;) > Are you saying I'm wrong? ;) > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] >>>> are within 1/2 a second of the new Mustangs setting in Ford's >>>> showrooms. > Patrick, I'm glad you posted that. ;) If I can run the same traps as these new sedans and I only have 235, I'm pretty sure I'd wipe them out if I had 105 more ponies. Patrick > > I'm not disputing these new sedans vs a stock 5-liter Fox (their > > number would be close); we were comparing these new sedans against a > > Fox sporting 340HP. And in this case, again factoring out the Fox's > > lack of traction -- using a street start), a 340HP Fox would eat them > > up, AND be plenty strong to take on most ($20K-$40K price range) > > performance cars today. > > Patrick > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > >> are within 1/2 a second of the new Mustangs setting in Ford's > >> showrooms. >> Patrick, I'm glad you posted that. ;) > > If I can run the same traps as these new sedans and I only have 235, > I'm pretty sure I'd wipe them out if I had 105 more ponies. I'm not saying a Camry can walk over a Fox Mustang with no options (i.e. light weight), slicks, other mods and/or a very good driver. They can more than hang with the AVERAGE bone stock Fox Mustang sporting a manual transmission. Run one against a bone stock Fox car with an automatic and my money will be on the new Camry V-6. An otherwise stock Fox Mustang with a crate motor and an AUTOMATIC transmission isn't going to destroy some of these new sedans. To do that they would have to run 0-60 times in under five seconds and burn through the 1/4 mile in the low 13 second range. IMO, you'll need a lot more than just a crate motor to make that happen. A bone stock 5.0L Mustang with an automatic would be lucky to run the 1/4 mile in under 15 seconds. I know because I owned one for two years. They were not that fast. Since 10 hp is worth about a tenth in the 1/4 mile that extra 105 hp you get with the crate motor might shave a full second off the ET to get the car to the high 13s at best. Throw slicks on the Mustang and a few other mods and things change but then we are talking about a different race. >>> Patrick, I'm glad you posted that. ;) >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > slicks on the Mustang and a few other mods and things change but then we > are talking about a different race. Michael, from my experience you are basically correct, although playing with the shift points and tire pressures might get you close to 15 flat. Best time my LX with an AOD ever did was 14.4 @ 96.95mph at about two feet above sea level. That was with an Auburn, 3.73s, Cobra intake, UD pulleys, 75mm MAF, and street tires. Tranny was basically a stock rebuild, and I did the 1-D-1 thing to hold 2nd during the run. I figured that setup was around 230-240hp give or take, so an extra 100 hp would take me into the high 13s at around 100mph, especially with a LenTech or something similar. >>>> Patrick, I'm glad you posted that. ;) >>> If I can run the same traps as these new sedans and I only have 235, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > hp would take me into the high 13s at around 100mph, especially with a > LenTech or something similar. We are both on the same page. I wasn't referring to a Mustang with modifications like a rebuilt tranny with a shift kit and some engine mods etc. just a bone stock car. With your tranny and a crate motor I would expect about what you said, mid to high 13s for the quarter and trapping about 100-105 mph. In their day the Fox Mustangs were the $hit but time has marched on and a bone stock one is not going to dominate, or even win, depending on the new car it runs against. > > If I can run the same traps as these new sedans and I only have 235, > > I'm pretty sure I'd wipe them out if I had 105 more ponies. > I'm not saying a Camry can walk over a Fox Mustang with no options (i.e. > light weight), slicks, other mods and/or a very good driver. They can > more than hang with the AVERAGE bone stock Fox Mustang sporting a manual > transmission. And I agree with this. > Run one against a bone stock Fox car with an automatic > and my money will be on the new Camry V-6. Me too. An otherwise stock Fox > Mustang with a crate motor and an AUTOMATIC transmission isn't going to > destroy some of these new sedans. Auto trans, 3.73 gears, shift kit and a 340 crate motor and it's a wipe out. > To do that they would have to run > 0-60 times in under five seconds and burn through the 1/4 mile in the > low 13 second range. IMO, you'll need a lot more than just a crate > motor to make that happen. See above. > A bone stock 5.0L Mustang with an automatic would be lucky to run the > 1/4 mile in under 15 seconds. I know because I owned one for two years. > They were not that fast. I agree. 73s, 08s and even 27s with the old AOD is not a rapid transit system. But with the normally installed 73s or 4.10s, and shift kit, things get livened up quite a bit. >Since 10 hp is worth about a tenth in the 1/4 mile that extra 105 hp you get with the crate motor might shave a full second off the ET to get the car to the high 13s at best. With just the above mods I've seen them run mid 14s. > Throw > slicks on the Mustang and a few other mods and things change but then we > are talking about a different race. Not sure how we got a 340 crate behind _just_ an automatic. I agree they're a bigger challenge to make them fast. I assumed we were talking about the common racers choice -- a 5-speed. And in this case, with one packing a 340 HP crate, your common Camrys, Altimas, etc, are going to get roasted. Patrick >> > If I can run the same traps as these new sedans and I only have >> > 235, I'm pretty sure I'd wipe them out if I had 105 more ponies. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Patrick The stock AOD is a POS. Throw a LenTech behind that 340 crate motor with 3.73s (see above) and some decent rubber and you have _consistent_ mid-13s at worst. That's a fairly decent step above most cars today. > I'm not disputing these new sedans vs a stock 5-liter Fox (their > number would be close); we were comparing these new sedans against a > Fox sporting 340HP. And in this case, again factoring out the Fox's > lack of traction -- using a street start), a 340HP Fox would eat them > up, AND be plenty strong to take on most ($20K-$40K price range) > performance cars today. I guess Joe will have to get the crate motor installed and then go out hunting to know who is right. >>>>>> The trouble is that in today's world 340 hp isn't excessive. Many new >>>>>> cars would more than hang with a Fox Mustang sporting 340 hp at the [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> a close race. Heck, the cars I listed are within 1/2 a second of the >> new Mustangs setting in Ford's showrooms. >> I'm not disputing these new sedans vs a stock 5-liter Fox (their >> number would be close); we were comparing these new sedans against a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I guess Joe will have to get the crate motor installed and then go out > hunting to know who is right. We'll see what happens next year. If I give the truck to my son, I'll have to get a replacement vehicle. I really like having a truck, but the thought of a 340hp LX is very interesting. Joe >>> I'm not disputing these new sedans vs a stock 5-liter Fox (their >>> number would be close); we were comparing these new sedans against a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have to get a replacement vehicle. I really like having a truck, but > the thought of a 340hp LX is very interesting. Wait a minute. I thought your son was getting the LX. Has something changed? My great grandmother was born in the Oklahoma Territory in the proverbial sod hut. Married at 14, she arrievd in California in a covered wagon. She lived long enough to see the rise of telephones, cars, aircraft, radio, television, and computers, and watched man walk on the moon.... She raised 15 kids, and never owned a car. She'd still walk to the grocery to buy her groceries. Then she took a fall, broke her hip and went down hill from there. In 5000 years, someone will probably dig up her bones and marvel at the type of creatures which existed and wonder about their social existances. And nobody will care that her greatgrandson drove a 65 Mustang Fastback that ran on dino fuel. :0) LOL >I'm 52 years old. I bought my last new car when I was 39. > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >* Princessmobile - see http://www.tfrog93.com, click on CFrog. > My great grandmother was born in the Oklahoma Territory in the > proverbial sod hut. Married at 14, she arrievd in California in a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > :0) LOL Boy, you take the long view... I don't think that, in 5000 years, anyone is going to be around to dig up her bones. If they did, they wouldn't be able to tell any more from hers than from yours. It's very possible that the single biggest element of our society to live down through the ages is the fact that WE killed Mother Earth with all of our racing around on dino fuel, forcing mankind to either flee its home planet or adapt to living on a global-warmed-out rock. Ergo, you - as an active participant in the destruction - would hold more significance to future earthspawn than your great grandmother. dwight >>I'm 52 years old. I bought my last new car when I was 39. >> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >> >>* Princessmobile - see http://www.tfrog93.com, click on CFrog. >> My great grandmother was born in the Oklahoma Territory in the >> proverbial sod hut. Married at 14, she arrievd in California in a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > active participant in the destruction - would hold more significance to > future earthspawn than your great grandmother. IMO, humans are more like cockroaches than we care to admit. It will take much more than a good bout of global warming to kill us off completely. We have survived ice ages, scorching global warming and are still standing. There just won't be six billion of us around but there will be enough to carry on. There are just a few things, IMO, that can really kill us off completely. A large asteroid/comet slamming us, a huge super volcanic eruption, being in the path of a freak gamma ray burst and something we can do to ourselves.... creating a biological weapon, or mistake, that has the potential to kill even human on the planet. Right now I give odds to the biological route to do us in first. >>> My great grandmother was born in the Oklahoma Territory in the >>> proverbial sod hut. Married at 14, she arrievd in California in a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > standing. There just won't be six billion of us around but there will be > enough to carry on. There'll be three times our number living on half the land surface. But if we come up with something like Soylent Green and no longer need farming, even half the land surface would be more than enough. > There are just a few things, IMO, that can really kill us off completely. > A large asteroid/comet slamming us, a huge super volcanic eruption, being > in the path of a freak gamma ray burst and something we can do to > ourselves.... creating a biological weapon, or mistake, that has the > potential to kill even human on the planet. Right now I give odds to the > biological route to do us in first. I like the freak gamma ray thing. Imagine if we all turned into the Fantastic Twenty Billion. That'd be cool. I've always wanted to be able to fly. dwight >>>> My great grandmother was born in the Oklahoma Territory in the >>>> proverbial sod hut. Married at 14, she arrievd in California in a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > we come up with something like Soylent Green and no longer need farming, > even half the land surface would be more than enough. The only reason there are six billion of us now it due to the technology we have. Take that away and the numbers will drop like a rock. Most of us are too stupid to survive on our own wits. I imagine we can greatly add to the population levels if we use technology to keep us fed, clothed and sheltered. Wait until some geneticist finds a way to double or triple the human life span. Then things will get ugly fast. Say we make it up to 20 billion people living on the planet. My guess is our technology prowess will be formidable and one of the wacky environmental or religious nuts will have the ability to whip up a nasty, fast acting virus to kill ever human on the planet or maybe just have it target 95% of the population to even things out again. IMO, this makes nuclear weapons look tame in comparison. We would be wishing for the days when a good old thermo nuclear war was our biggest threat. >> There are just a few things, IMO, that can really kill us off completely. >> A large asteroid/comet slamming us, a huge super volcanic eruption, being [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I like the freak gamma ray thing. Imagine if we all turned into the > Fantastic Twenty Billion. That'd be cool. Actually the gamma ray burst is feasible. It seems that during our rotation around the Milky Way there is a place where we are more likely to get hit by one. Some scientists think it is responsible for one of the mass extinctions that they can't link to any catastrophic event like an asteroid/comet impact, volcanic eruption etc. The burst would burn off the ozone layer, cause acid rain and turn the atmosphere toxic on a global scale that would wipe out all but the most hearty of life forms at the ocean bottom or deep underground. The really bad part of this is we would have absolutely no warning before it hit and it would be over in a flash (no pun intended). > I've always wanted to be able to fly. I want to be the rubber man. Then I am married to Jessica Alba. ;) >> My great grandmother was born in the Oklahoma Territory in the >> proverbial sod hut. Married at 14, she arrievd in California in a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >dwight Long view? 5000 years is less than the blink of an eye in geo time. Cultural and Physical Anthropologists dig up the bones of hominids around the world that are far far older than 5000 years and wonder at the lives they led. Archeologists dig through the refuse piles of past civilizations to discover what drove the society. I doubt it is too far beyond the imagination to believe that in 5000 or 500,000 years they will be digging through county dumps and cemetaries in a pursuit of better understanding of how they got to where they are. I expect there will be people still living that far in the future. After all, when the great extinctions have taken place, there have always been specie which survived and continued on. Some dinos survived even to the present time... just in modified forms... Throughout the history of man (and woman :0) there have been man made disasters and natural disasters which have greatly reduced the population levels. Wars. Plagues. Tsunamis. Etc. It's nature balancing out. Too many people and disease spreads quickly. Wars kill off the males and thus reduce the rate of population growth. We are long overdue for either man made or nature made. Is the earth warming? Of course. Is it caused by man? Good question. If it is, then how do we explain the ice ages and warm periods between ice ages? How do we explain the air quality being worse during various periods BEFORE industrialization? Al Gore and his side have no more idea of what drives the weather than those who argue that it's all a chicken little scenario. Man has not existed near long enough to see and understand the dynamics od earth's cycles. Like the man said.... follow the money. And the money is in the billions to those who can keep the global warming fears alive and promote their ideas on how to fix it. So, I'll continue to use dino fuel until something better comes along, just as I feel fairly certain you do if you drive, ride public transportation, use electricity, heat or cool your abode, and even feed and cloth yourself. :0) This public service announcement brought to you by High Desert Septic... "We're #1 in the #2 business." >>> My great grandmother was born in the Oklahoma Territory in the >>> proverbial sod hut. Married at 14, she arrievd in California in a [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > males and thus reduce the rate of population growth. We are long > overdue for either man made or nature made. As the standard of living improves for the world's population the rate of population growth will decrease substantially. It has happened in the developing countries of Europe and Asia. Japan is in a population free fall as is much of western Europe. The same will happen in India and China as they develop. Our population in the USA would be in decline if it weren't for immigration. I think the global population will peak sometime in the future and then start a steady decline to an equilibrium point. That is, if we don't kill ourselves off before then. > Is the earth warming? Of course. Is it caused by man? Good question. > If it is, then how do we explain the ice ages and warm periods between [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > chicken little scenario. Man has not existed near long enough to see > and understand the dynamics od earth's cycles. I always chuckle when I see someone say it hasn't been this warm for <insert your favorite number of millennium here> and I immediately want to ask them what caused it to be that warm way back then. They can't tell us but they believe they do know absolutely what is causing it today. The fear mongering we are hearing today about global warming was being said 25-30 years ago about GLOBAL COOLING!!! > Like the man said.... follow the money. And the money is in the > billions to those who can keep the global warming fears alive and > promote their ideas on how to fix it. You are dead-on with the above comment. This is more a money, and vote, grab than legitimate, accurate science. There has been an environmental doomsday scenario coming from the rabid environmentalists for the last 40-50 years. It amazes me how fast they can switch direction depending on the most recent snip it of data gathered. They definitely aren't long term thinkers. Anyone that believes we can control the global climate has been watching too much Star Trek. I give the whole global warming frenzy another 5-10 years before it is tossed overboard for the next environmental catastrophe. > So, I'll continue to use dino fuel until something better comes along, > just as I feel fairly certain you do if you drive, ride public > transportation, use electricity, heat or cool your abode, and even > feed and cloth yourself. The only thing that will stop the use of oil is economics. It will either be too expensive to use and/or a cheaper substitute will come to market. I don't see this happening for another 50 years, at least. As I recall, we had a very close call with human extinction when the populations "suddenly" dropped to an estimated 2000 total on the planet... and it now appears that it may have been the result of an exploding star's radiation. If that it accurate, it shows that there were survivors. In grade school we had "Duck and Cover" exercises. The pundits said that WW3 would end mankind. Personally, I always believed that there would be pockets of survivors in alpine valleys, and from those the populations would regenerate. A good example of nature healing itself can be seen in jungles and rivers.... In jungles, man can cut them down and build, but as soon as they are abandoned, they are quickly overgrown again. And flowing water actually cleans itself.... as the Sierra Club and other tree hugging groups point out while still claiming man is destroying the waters. Now, how can it be both ways? So, I do what I can to keep the environment clean (just like I do with my arteries), but I don't get all crazy and stupid about it like the Al Gore Desciples do. (Are we surprised Gollywood gave him and Oscar for his "movie"?). >>>> My great grandmother was born in the Oklahoma Territory in the >>>> proverbial sod hut. Married at 14, she arrievd in California in a [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >either be too expensive to use and/or a cheaper substitute will come to >market. I don't see this happening for another 50 years, at least. > As I recall, we had a very close call with human extinction when the > populations "suddenly" dropped to an estimated 2000 total on the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would be pockets of survivors in alpine valleys, and from those the > populations would regenerate. As I mentioned in another post, humans are more like cockroaches than we care to admit. > A good example of nature healing itself can be seen in jungles and > rivers.... In jungles, man can cut them down and build, but as soon as > they are abandoned, they are quickly overgrown again. And flowing > water actually cleans itself.... as the Sierra Club and other tree > hugging groups point out while still claiming man is destroying the > waters. Now, how can it be both ways? Mankind can't destroy life on Earth. It is ridiculous to think we can. We could set off every nuke on the planet, dump every toxic chemical we have in the oceans and clear every square inch of land with bulldozers and in a few million years you wouldn't see a sign of our existence. We would be just an itch on Mother Nature's a$$ in terms of geologic time. > So, I do what I can to keep the environment clean (just like I do with > my arteries), but I don't get all crazy and stupid about it like the > Al Gore Desciples do. (Are we surprised Gollywood gave him and Oscar > for his "movie"?). Have you seen the most recent news about old Al Gore? He is preaching to us to conserve energy while just one of his 4-5 mansions uses 20x the electricity and natural gas of the average American home. I won't get into how much fuel his private jet trips consume. His portrait should be beside the word "hypocrite" in the dictionary. >>>>> My great grandmother was born in the Oklahoma Territory in the >>>>> proverbial sod hut. Married at 14, she arrievd in California in a [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >> either be too expensive to use and/or a cheaper substitute will come to >> market. I don't see this happening for another 50 years, at least. > > As I recall, we had a very close call with human extinction when the > > populations "suddenly" dropped to an estimated 2000 total on the > > planet... and it now appears that it may have been the result of an > > exploding star's radiation. If that it accurate, it shows that there > > were survivors. > > In grade school we had "Duck and Cover" exercises. The pundits said > > that WW3 would end mankind. Personally, I always believed that there > > would be pockets of survivors in alpine valleys, and from those the > > populations would regenerate. > As I mentioned in another post, humans are more like cockroaches than we > care to admit. > > A good example of nature healing itself can be seen in jungles and > > rivers.... In jungles, man can cut them down and build, but as soon as > > they are abandoned, they are quickly overgrown again. And flowing > > water actually cleans itself.... as the Sierra Club and other tree > > hugging groups point out while still claiming man is destroying the > > waters. Now, how can it be both ways? > Mankind can't destroy life on Earth. It is ridiculous to think we can. > We could set off every nuke on the planet, dump every toxic chemical > we have in the oceans and clear every square inch of land with > bulldozers and in a few million years you wouldn't see a sign of our > existence. We would be just an itch on Mother Nature's a$$ in terms of > geologic time. I almost agree. Unless the nukes throw of the normal rotation of the Earth. If the nukes don't, we could so radically change the planet that human existance could end. > > So, I do what I can to keep the environment clean (just like I do with > > my arteries), but I don't get all crazy and stupid about it like the > > Al Gore Desciples do. (Are we surprised Gollywood gave him and Oscar > > for his "movie"?). > Have you seen the most recent news about old Al Gore? He is preaching > to us to conserve energy while just one of his 4-5 mansions uses 20x the > electricity and natural gas of the average American home. I won't get > into how much fuel his private jet trips consume. His portrait should > be beside the word "hypocrite" in the dictionary. Do you know for a fact what he owns? And what he does on a daily basis to reduce his family's impact on the earth? As for his jet trips, at least he's using some of them to educate the public to start changing our ways -- something our current government has barely/ reluctantly done. Patrick >>> As I recall, we had a very close call with human extinction when the >>> populations "suddenly" dropped to an estimated 2000 total on the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Earth. If the nukes don't, we could so radically change the planet > that human existance could end. Since 99.99% of all the species that ever lived on the planet are now extinct I don't see us as bucking the trend and living till the Sun explodes. IMO, we'll be lucky to live another 5,000 years. >>> So, I do what I can to keep the environment clean (just like I do with >>> my arteries), but I don't get all crazy and stupid about it like the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > changing our ways -- something our current government has barely/ > reluctantly done. His electricity use is public record and a known fact. He even admitted it. If we all lived his lifestyle the global oil reserves would last 10 years at best. If someone wants to tell me how I should sacrifice for the good of the plant I expect them to walk their talk. I have a ton more respect for someone like Ed Begley Jr. or Daryl Hannah that actually DO SOMETHING instead of preach one thing and live a completely opposite lifestyle. Gore is an idiot, a hypocrite and using the whole environmental global warming movement to make a bloody fortune. If he wants to impress me or get my respect then he needs to radically change his lifestyle and live like he thinks the rest of us should. Until then he should shut his yap and figure out a way to keep his electric meter needles from spinning like the rear tires of my Mustang when I'm doing a burnout in third gear. > > I almost agree. Unless the nukes throw of the normal rotation of the > > Earth. If the nukes don't, we could so radically change the planet > > that human existance could end. > Since 99.99% of all the species that ever lived on the planet are now > extinct I don't see us as bucking the trend and living till the Sun > explodes. IMO, we'll be lucky to live another 5,000 years. But the extinction rate was gradual and allowed for evolution. Modern man has increased the extinction rate to an unprecedented rate, and that's without [yet] nukes thrown into the equation. > >>> So, I do what I can to keep the environment clean (just like I do with > >>> my arteries), but I don't get all crazy and stupid about it like the > >>> Al Gore Desciples do. (Are we surprised Gollywood gave him and Oscar > >>> for his "movie"?). > >> Have you seen the most recent news about old Al Gore? He is preaching > >> to us to conserve energy while just one of his 4-5 mansions uses 20x the > >> electricity and natural gas of the average American home. I won't get > >> into how much fuel his private jet trips consume. His portrait should > >> be beside the word "hypocrite" in the dictionary. > > Do you know for a fact what he owns? And what he does on a daily > > basis to reduce his family's impact on the earth? As for his jet > > trips, at least he's using some of them to educate the public to start > > changing our ways -- something our current government has barely/ > > reluctantly done. > His electricity use is public record and a known fact. He even admitted > it. If we all lived his lifestyle the global oil reserves would last 10 > years at best. If someone wants to tell me how I should sacrifice for > the good of the plant I expect them to walk their talk. If it's true (I'd like to hear his statement) he deserves the critizisim. But on the flip side look at how many live like that, and are in [higher] positions of power who could create/make as big, or bigger changes, but haven't done a damn thing. > I have a ton > more respect for someone like Ed Begley Jr. or Daryl Hannah that > actually DO SOMETHING instead of preach one thing and live a completely > opposite lifestyle. I agree, he should be walking the talk. > Gore is an idiot, a hypocrite and using the whole > environmental global warming movement to make a bloody fortune. I doubt a book and movie are going to make a noticeable difference in his lifestyle... being an x-VP he'll never be without. If he > wants to impress me or get my respect then he needs to radically change > his lifestyle and live like he thinks the rest of us should. Until then > he should shut his yap and figure out a way to keep his electric meter > needles from spinning like the rear tires of my Mustang when I'm doing a > burnout in third gear. With the amount of people/companies getting behind him I think he's making a much bigger impact than slowing the needles down on his electric meter ever would. Patrick |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message