If they asked you...
2/14/05, 09:57 AM
#22
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by grabbergreen@February 10, 2005, 12:54 AM
-- Nobody living outside of a trailer park with mountains of rusted Camaros and Challengers uses cubic inches anymore.
-- Nobody living outside of a trailer park with mountains of rusted Camaros and Challengers uses cubic inches anymore.
I would love to see BOTH, a Mach 1 "Twister" edition and a Cammer BOSS 302.
Mach 1 - live axle, 5.4 litre 3-valve, N/A, 6-speed, limited production, around $33K. :worship:
BOSS 302- IRS, street version of the Cammer 5.0, N/A, 5-speed, limited production, around $39K.
Both should be available w/ "grabber" colors, matte "black outs" where needed. Maybe some functional hood scoops, optional louvers, all of the corresponding graphics.....
2/14/05, 11:04 AM
#23
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Boss 281.
I'd keep it a smaller, but rather highly tuned 281 4V mod motor, which I think would best reflect the character of the original Boss 302. That would be backed up by a nice, tight 6 speed MTX with perhaps a SMG/DSG type tranny as an option. Also, as with the Boss 302, the emphasis would be on a well balanced, overall performance package with handling and braking being just as important as simple straight line speed. Thus a good IRS, big brakes, sharpened chassis and overall good chassis tuning would be a must.
Mach I 5.4.
As opposed to the smaller, highly tuned, road and race track oriented Boss 281, the Mach I 5.4 would be a straight line drag strip, street light bomber. Put in the big 5.4 in either 3 or 4V trim and tuned primarily for low to mid range power and a broad torque band. Since ride and handling would be secondary to its strip duties, keep the live axle with a higer ratio rear end. Suspension would be optimized for good off the line launches.
Bullitt.
Sort of a cross between a Boss 281 and Mach I. It would have many of the Boss's chassis and and the Mach's drivetrain. Sort of a gentleman's performance car: understated, refined yet quite competent over a variety of situations. It would have the Mach's big, easy power combined with the Boss's more refined and capable chassis wrapped in a very clean, highland green body.
Pony.
Combine the upcoming 3.5 V6 and 6 speed MTX with the Boss's chassis for the ultimate handling Mustang.
I'd keep it a smaller, but rather highly tuned 281 4V mod motor, which I think would best reflect the character of the original Boss 302. That would be backed up by a nice, tight 6 speed MTX with perhaps a SMG/DSG type tranny as an option. Also, as with the Boss 302, the emphasis would be on a well balanced, overall performance package with handling and braking being just as important as simple straight line speed. Thus a good IRS, big brakes, sharpened chassis and overall good chassis tuning would be a must.
Mach I 5.4.
As opposed to the smaller, highly tuned, road and race track oriented Boss 281, the Mach I 5.4 would be a straight line drag strip, street light bomber. Put in the big 5.4 in either 3 or 4V trim and tuned primarily for low to mid range power and a broad torque band. Since ride and handling would be secondary to its strip duties, keep the live axle with a higer ratio rear end. Suspension would be optimized for good off the line launches.
Bullitt.
Sort of a cross between a Boss 281 and Mach I. It would have many of the Boss's chassis and and the Mach's drivetrain. Sort of a gentleman's performance car: understated, refined yet quite competent over a variety of situations. It would have the Mach's big, easy power combined with the Boss's more refined and capable chassis wrapped in a very clean, highland green body.
Pony.
Combine the upcoming 3.5 V6 and 6 speed MTX with the Boss's chassis for the ultimate handling Mustang.
2/14/05, 12:00 PM
#24
GT Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rhumb+February 14, 2005, 12:07 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rhumb @ February 14, 2005, 12:07 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>A Boss 281.
I'd keep it a smaller, but rather highly tuned 281 4V mod motor, which I think would best reflect the character of the original Boss 302. That would be backed up by a nice, tight 6 speed MTX with perhaps a SMG/DSG type tranny as an option. Also, as with the Boss 302, the emphasis would be on a well balanced, overall performance package with handling and braking being just as important as simple straight line speed. Thus a good IRS, big brakes, sharpened chassis and overall good chassis tuning would be a must.
[/b]
I'd keep it a smaller, but rather highly tuned 281 4V mod motor, which I think would best reflect the character of the original Boss 302. That would be backed up by a nice, tight 6 speed MTX with perhaps a SMG/DSG type tranny as an option. Also, as with the Boss 302, the emphasis would be on a well balanced, overall performance package with handling and braking being just as important as simple straight line speed. Thus a good IRS, big brakes, sharpened chassis and overall good chassis tuning would be a must.
[/b]
A DOHC variant of the current 4.6L (Windsor?) would definitely be cool, especially if Ford would develop a variable exhaust valve timing, which Mercedes-Benz has just started doing with their new 3.5L V6. More power AND more efficiency? Where do I sign up?!?
<!--QuoteBegin-rhumb@February 14, 2005, 12:07 PM
Mach I 5.4.
As opposed to the smaller, highly tuned, road and race track oriented Boss 281, the Mach I 5.4 would be a straight line drag strip, street light bomber. Put in the big 5.4 in either 3 or 4V trim and tuned primarily for low to mid range power and a broad torque band. Since ride and handling would be secondary to its strip duties, keep the live axle with a higer ratio rear end. Suspension would be optimized for good off the line launches.
Bullitt.
Sort of a cross between a Boss 281 and Mach I. It would have many of the Boss's chassis and and the Mach's drivetrain. Sort of a gentleman's performance car: understated, refined yet quite competent over a variety of situations. It would have the Mach's big, easy power combined with the Boss's more refined and capable chassis wrapped in a very clean, highland green body.
Pony.
Combine the upcoming 3.5 V6 and 6 speed MTX with the Boss's chassis for the ultimate handling Mustang.
[/quote]
I definitely agree with you on the Pony. It really should be a freer-revving, higher-RPM performer than the V8-powered 'stangs, and I have a hunch that Ford's upcoming Duratech 35 would be able to deliver that.
Looks like you've got all the bases covered-- this is, indeed, probably the most interesting of the responses to this thread yet.
In my opinion, I think the following switches could work pretty well:
1) I'd rather see an all-aluminum 5.8L V10 in the Mach 1. Nothing says straight-line performance like "V10". In 3v form, it would be a great engine. In 4v form with dual veriable cam timing, it would be a monster!
2) IMHO, the BOSS deserves the fresher, more sophisticated 5.4L V8. I'm also not sure the BOSS would need IRS-- perhaps the beefier live axle from the upcoming Shelby Cobra Mustang could work well with a more advanced front suspension? I definitely agree with you on the brakes, though. Big, meaty BREMBO's would be a must.
I'd also take this opportunity to introduce an idea that I missed in my first response to this thread--
A brand-spanking new Mercury grand tourer, built off of DEW Lite. Its design theme will be sleek and modern, whereas the Mustang's is retro and "butch". Its base engine would be Ford of Australia's Barra-182 inline-6. In its native form, this engine produces 245 horsepower and 280 lb/ft, but could be tuned to be freer-revving. Since its valvetrain is a 4v DOHC, you could probably add variable exhaust valve timing for even more power and better efficiency. Perhaps a naturally-aspirated version of the 5.4L V8 from the Ford GT could be an option? IRS would certainly be standard, as would be a tasteful leather interior.
Since the "Cougar" name left on a very bad note, perhaps they can call it the "Puma" or "Capri"?
And, while I'm adamantly-opposed to seeing something like AWD or "Manu-matic" in a Mustang, I don't think it would be a bad idea to offer them with this Mercury.
2/14/05, 07:55 PM
#25
GT Member
Join Date: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll join the chorus for a Boss 302 using the "Cammer" engine.
Styling-Using the 1969 Boss 302 as a template with the C-stripe, black out hood, blacked out rear light panel, blacked out headlight buckets, filled in C-pillar windows.
Engine- 5.0L Cammer engine with individual throttle body injection. 350-400 hp (underrated of course)
Suspension- IRS! The Boss 302 has always been the "handling" Mustang, meant for road racing.
Interior- I really don't care. Some Boss 302 stitching on the seats or badging, something of the sort. But no need to go crazy.
Price-Between 32,000 to 35,000.
Frankly, I don't care, just give me any V-8 Mustang with IRS....please!
Styling-Using the 1969 Boss 302 as a template with the C-stripe, black out hood, blacked out rear light panel, blacked out headlight buckets, filled in C-pillar windows.
Engine- 5.0L Cammer engine with individual throttle body injection. 350-400 hp (underrated of course)
Suspension- IRS! The Boss 302 has always been the "handling" Mustang, meant for road racing.
Interior- I really don't care. Some Boss 302 stitching on the seats or badging, something of the sort. But no need to go crazy.
Price-Between 32,000 to 35,000.
Frankly, I don't care, just give me any V-8 Mustang with IRS....please!
2/15/05, 06:51 AM
#26
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cammer would be a sweet engine, though not being a production piece, I would worry about its cost. A Hi-po, 4V 4.6, which isn't any less fresh than the tall deck 5.4, might be a better cost-benefit motor and more likely to see the light of day. An interesting motor might be the AJ motor, which is a touch smaller, lighter and more hi-tech than the Mod family. That might well represent the character of the original Boss 302 which was a very small motor relative to the hulking V8s of the day but perhaps a bit more hi-tech with its Cleveland heads. Just a thought anyway.
As for IRS, absolutely. The Boss 302 was all about Nth degree handling and had a lot of attention focused on the suspension. In today's realm, an IRS would be absolutely necessary to go toe to toe with its competitors on the race track and more so, the back roads. A live axle, even a good one like the Stang currently has is great for the strip, good for cruising and street light racing on smooth roads, but falls well short of competitive standards on anything more demanding than that. People often laud the live axle's ability to put down the power, but only in a very narrow perspective of off the line, smooth road acceleration. What about putting down the power around a challenging set of bumpy, back road switchbacks that would have a live axle doing a rather lively Riverdance rendition?
Interior? Very serious and functional. A set of good Recaros, aluminum pedals, thick steering wheel and perhaps clearer, less stylized gauges.
Exterior? I wouldn't necessarily try to replicate the '69's or '70's -- been there, done that, dated before it leaves the factory floor. What about a newer, modern iteration with perhaps just a subtle Boss 302 reference for those in the know? A thinking man's performance piece rather than some garish reproduction or clownish race car wanna be.
As for IRS, absolutely. The Boss 302 was all about Nth degree handling and had a lot of attention focused on the suspension. In today's realm, an IRS would be absolutely necessary to go toe to toe with its competitors on the race track and more so, the back roads. A live axle, even a good one like the Stang currently has is great for the strip, good for cruising and street light racing on smooth roads, but falls well short of competitive standards on anything more demanding than that. People often laud the live axle's ability to put down the power, but only in a very narrow perspective of off the line, smooth road acceleration. What about putting down the power around a challenging set of bumpy, back road switchbacks that would have a live axle doing a rather lively Riverdance rendition?
Interior? Very serious and functional. A set of good Recaros, aluminum pedals, thick steering wheel and perhaps clearer, less stylized gauges.
Exterior? I wouldn't necessarily try to replicate the '69's or '70's -- been there, done that, dated before it leaves the factory floor. What about a newer, modern iteration with perhaps just a subtle Boss 302 reference for those in the know? A thinking man's performance piece rather than some garish reproduction or clownish race car wanna be.
2/16/05, 02:43 PM
#27
Cobra Member
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by grabbergreen@February 9, 2005, 11:54 PM
Note, however, that the horsepower/liter ratio will probably be higher for the 5.4L, as it is newer from head to toe than the 4.6L, which has been around since god-knows-when. So, we're probably looking closer to 400hp.
-- MSRP around $31K
Note, however, that the horsepower/liter ratio will probably be higher for the 5.4L, as it is newer from head to toe than the 4.6L, which has been around since god-knows-when. So, we're probably looking closer to 400hp.
-- MSRP around $31K
MSRP is already around $31K (Loaded, but an SE will surely cost more that a GT)
I'm with crazyhorse, hudster, and Merlot...Boss 302, 3V or 4V, 6-sp. manual, IRS, bigger brakes, Shaker hood, C-stripe, and I'll have mine Grabber Orange, please
price would probably come in somewhere around $35K
What's with all these prices $30-$32K? :scratch: By the time 07 rolls around the GT's will cost that much.
2/16/05, 04:12 PM
#28
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power passenger front seat; inside remote release; more color selections; more wheel selections; telescopic function on steering wheel as well (the Focus has this!); some type of dome light somewhere behind front seats; brighter map lights; more performance options...but done in style and not just paint or decals on the car; ducktail spolier option; satelite radio option built in; heated seats (also available on the Focus!); performance brakes (bigger rotors, slotted and bigger disks);
gas pistons for hood; and front strut tower brace; biggr anti-sway bars (front and rear); an exhaust system that would put Borla and Flowmaster, etc. to shame. :mellow:
gas pistons for hood; and front strut tower brace; biggr anti-sway bars (front and rear); an exhaust system that would put Borla and Flowmaster, etc. to shame. :mellow:
2/16/05, 05:37 PM
#29
GT Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PACETTR@February 16, 2005, 3:46 PM
What about the 5.4 is different from the 4.6 in the 05 Stang?
MSRP is already around $31K (Loaded, but an SE will surely cost more that a GT)
What about the 5.4 is different from the 4.6 in the 05 Stang?
MSRP is already around $31K (Loaded, but an SE will surely cost more that a GT)
I was originally under the impression that the 5.4 was a different engine from the 4.6
Apparently the only point in which they really differ is that the 5.4 has a longer stroke and a taller block to support that longer stroke-- apparently, the modular engine doesn't take particularly well to any modifications to the bore.
Maybe it's time for a new V8 engine program, seeing as how we haven't really seen ANY modular V6's or V10's, like there was originally supposed to be.
So...
5.0 Cammer, anyone? B)
2/16/05, 07:31 PM
#30
Legacy TMS Member
Feh... Ford needs to let the SOHC 3v architecture mature. Besides the number of cams and valves doesn't nessecarily indicate better power.
Case in point, the LS1 - 500+ hp is just a cam, exhaust and head swap away. The hemi is probably an even better performance motor.
The only reason I mention a head swap is because its cheaper than porting LS1 stockers.
Why do these engines make such killer power? (displacement aside) Its all in the airflow management. Especially in the case of the LS1, only a died in wool Ford guy or a fool doesn't recognize chevy's pushrod V8's as some of the best engines in the world.
Now take that same approach with the 3v heads which on paper has all the advantages - no pushrods to bend the ports around, a lighter valvetrain for more aggressive cams (I'm not talking duration here, I'm talking lift and ramp rates) combine that with a kick **** port and combustion chamber along with the one area Ford has a clear advantage, namely variable timing , dump the crazy stuff like shutters used in the intake ports and go with it so the only advantage Dodge and Chevy has is displacment.
Case in point, the LS1 - 500+ hp is just a cam, exhaust and head swap away. The hemi is probably an even better performance motor.
The only reason I mention a head swap is because its cheaper than porting LS1 stockers.
Why do these engines make such killer power? (displacement aside) Its all in the airflow management. Especially in the case of the LS1, only a died in wool Ford guy or a fool doesn't recognize chevy's pushrod V8's as some of the best engines in the world.
Now take that same approach with the 3v heads which on paper has all the advantages - no pushrods to bend the ports around, a lighter valvetrain for more aggressive cams (I'm not talking duration here, I'm talking lift and ramp rates) combine that with a kick **** port and combustion chamber along with the one area Ford has a clear advantage, namely variable timing , dump the crazy stuff like shutters used in the intake ports and go with it so the only advantage Dodge and Chevy has is displacment.
2/16/05, 11:33 PM
#32
GT Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by bob@February 16, 2005, 8:34 PM
Why do these engines make such killer power? (displacement aside) Its all in the airflow management. Especially in the case of the LS1, only a died in wool Ford guy or a fool doesn't recognize chevy's pushrod V8's as some of the best engines in the world.
Now take that same approach with the 3v heads which on paper has all the advantages - no pushrods to bend the ports around, a lighter valvetrain for more aggressive cams (I'm not talking duration here, I'm talking lift and ramp rates) combine that with a kick **** port and combustion chamber along with the one area Ford has a clear advantage, namely variable timing , dump the crazy stuff like shutters used in the intake ports and go with it so the only advantage Dodge and Chevy has is displacment.
Why do these engines make such killer power? (displacement aside) Its all in the airflow management. Especially in the case of the LS1, only a died in wool Ford guy or a fool doesn't recognize chevy's pushrod V8's as some of the best engines in the world.
Now take that same approach with the 3v heads which on paper has all the advantages - no pushrods to bend the ports around, a lighter valvetrain for more aggressive cams (I'm not talking duration here, I'm talking lift and ramp rates) combine that with a kick **** port and combustion chamber along with the one area Ford has a clear advantage, namely variable timing , dump the crazy stuff like shutters used in the intake ports and go with it so the only advantage Dodge and Chevy has is displacment.
About the number of valves, I think Ford has done an excellent job with their 24v SOHC valvetrain. I think moving to a 32v DOHC could also help, as it would allow variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust cams, similar to BMW's "Double VANOS", which is probably the finest VVT system in the world for production automobiles.
If Ford's new car lineup helps them get back into the black, I hope they can allocate more money toward engine development.
2/17/05, 08:41 AM
#34
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 4.6 and 5.4 are both on the same rung of the evolutionary ladder. Basically, the 5.4 is just a tall deck, stroked version of the 4.6 and indeed, most of the parts are interchangeable to a large degree. All the Mod motors are somewhat contrained in bore size, left over from its original inception as a low-po motor for the FWD Lincoln Continental, which is why Ford had to go to a V10 rather than just hogging out the jugs in the 5.4 to get a bigger motor yet.
Ford MoCo's AJ series V8 (T-Bird, LS, Jags) is probably a bit more technologically advanced and sophisticated and would likely be capable of greater specific (Hp/Liter) output, even if in a slightly smaller size. But it is also probably a more expensive motor and thus may suffer in the bang/$ ratio compared to the Mod motors. Always thought some version of this would make for a very interesting neo Boss motor as that would replicate the small, light, high-winding, high(er) tech character of the original Cleveland headed Boss 302 mill.
Another interesting FoMoCo motor is the decendant of the Taurus SHO 3.4 V8, designed and built by Yamaha. It has found itself, in 4.2(?) liter guise in the Volvo VX90 where its pumping out something like 330 hp. It's actually a 60 degree V8, so is a bit narrower for longitudinal mountings, but does require a balance shaft to keep it humming smoothly. Might make an interesting motor for Ford 500 SVT, which shares the Volvo S80/VX90 basic chassis...
Ford MoCo's AJ series V8 (T-Bird, LS, Jags) is probably a bit more technologically advanced and sophisticated and would likely be capable of greater specific (Hp/Liter) output, even if in a slightly smaller size. But it is also probably a more expensive motor and thus may suffer in the bang/$ ratio compared to the Mod motors. Always thought some version of this would make for a very interesting neo Boss motor as that would replicate the small, light, high-winding, high(er) tech character of the original Cleveland headed Boss 302 mill.
Another interesting FoMoCo motor is the decendant of the Taurus SHO 3.4 V8, designed and built by Yamaha. It has found itself, in 4.2(?) liter guise in the Volvo VX90 where its pumping out something like 330 hp. It's actually a 60 degree V8, so is a bit narrower for longitudinal mountings, but does require a balance shaft to keep it humming smoothly. Might make an interesting motor for Ford 500 SVT, which shares the Volvo S80/VX90 basic chassis...
2/17/05, 09:20 AM
#35
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rhumb@February 17, 2005, 10:44 AM
Another interesting FoMoCo motor is the decendant of the Taurus SHO 3.4 V8, designed and built by Yamaha.
Another interesting FoMoCo motor is the decendant of the Taurus SHO 3.4 V8, designed and built by Yamaha.
2/17/05, 10:44 AM
#36
GT Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rhumb+February 17, 2005, 9:44 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rhumb @ February 17, 2005, 9:44 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>The 4.6 and 5.4 are both on the same rung of the evolutionary ladder. Basically, the 5.4 is just a tall deck, stroked version of the 4.6 and indeed, most of the parts are interchangeable to a large degree. All the Mod motors are somewhat contrained in bore size, left over from its original inception as a low-po motor for the FWD Lincoln Continental, which is why Ford had to go to a V10 rather than just hogging out the jugs in the 5.4 to get a bigger motor yet.[/b]
Anything bigger would require an obscenely-long stroke. Would make a great truck motor, but not a good pick for a Mustang.
Originally posted by rhumb@February 17, 2005, 9:44 AM
Ford MoCo's AJ series V8 (T-Bird, LS, Jags) is probably a bit more technologically advanced and sophisticated and would likely be capable of greater specific (Hp/Liter) output, even if in a slightly smaller size. But it is also probably a more expensive motor and thus may suffer in the bang/$ ratio compared to the Mod motors. Always thought some version of this would make for a very interesting neo Boss motor as that would replicate the small, light, high-winding, high(er) tech character of the original Cleveland headed Boss 302 mill.
Ford MoCo's AJ series V8 (T-Bird, LS, Jags) is probably a bit more technologically advanced and sophisticated and would likely be capable of greater specific (Hp/Liter) output, even if in a slightly smaller size. But it is also probably a more expensive motor and thus may suffer in the bang/$ ratio compared to the Mod motors. Always thought some version of this would make for a very interesting neo Boss motor as that would replicate the small, light, high-winding, high(er) tech character of the original Cleveland headed Boss 302 mill.
<!--QuoteBegin-rhumb@February 17, 2005, 9:44 AM
Another interesting FoMoCo motor is the decendant of the Taurus SHO 3.4 V8, designed and built by Yamaha. It has found itself, in 4.2(?) liter guise in the Volvo VX90 where its pumping out something like 330 hp. It's actually a 60 degree V8, so is a bit narrower for longitudinal mountings, but does require a balance shaft to keep it humming smoothly. Might make an interesting motor for Ford 500 SVT, which shares the Volvo S80/VX90 basic chassis...
[/quote]
Actually, according to Motor Trend, the Volvo-developed D3 platform (Five Hundred, Montego, S80, XC90), in combination with a rear-biased AWD and this Yamaha motor, will be the makeup of the next Lincoln LS, so finding this motor in an SVT Five Hundred isn't really a stretch of the imagination.
The D3 platform, in combination with a front-biased AWD and a transversely-mounted 4.6L Triton (a la Mustang GT) is supposed to be the makeup of the next Lincoln Continental, which might outright replace the Town Car. How, exactly, are they going to shoe-horn a 4.6L Mod into this car? Motor Trend also mentioned that a 5.0L version should be available by then. I guess Ford is designing yet another engine block for yet another stroke capacity?
2/17/05, 11:34 AM
#37
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Special Edition WISH List:
Mach 1
- 4.6L 350 hp N/A with Shaker Standard
- 5 spd with Automatic Option
- Graphics package similar to '69 Mach 1 including blacked f/r spoilers
- "Super Cobra Jet" Option
- 4.6L SC 400 hp
- 5 spd or Auto
- "Drag Pak" Option - essentially a lightweight factory drag car
Boss 5.0
- 5.0L 400 hp N/A with Shaker option
- 5 speed with OD standard; Close-Ratio Optional
- "Grabber" colors including competition orange
- Lemans Stripe Optional
- Lowered suspension, larger brakes
- 18" Wheels Standard
- Option Delete Race Only model for road racers on a budget
Mach 1
- 4.6L 350 hp N/A with Shaker Standard
- 5 spd with Automatic Option
- Graphics package similar to '69 Mach 1 including blacked f/r spoilers
- "Super Cobra Jet" Option
- 4.6L SC 400 hp
- 5 spd or Auto
- "Drag Pak" Option - essentially a lightweight factory drag car
Boss 5.0
- 5.0L 400 hp N/A with Shaker option
- 5 speed with OD standard; Close-Ratio Optional
- "Grabber" colors including competition orange
- Lemans Stripe Optional
- Lowered suspension, larger brakes
- 18" Wheels Standard
- Option Delete Race Only model for road racers on a budget
2/17/05, 02:25 PM
#38
Cobra Member
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally posted by htwag@February 16, 2005, 5:15 PM
Power passenger front seat; inside remote release; more color selections; more wheel selections; telescopic function on steering wheel as well (the Focus has this!); some type of dome light somewhere behind front seats; brighter map lights; more performance options...but done in style and not just paint or decals on the car; ducktail spolier option; satelite radio option built in; heated seats (also available on the Focus!); performance brakes (bigger rotors, slotted and bigger disks);
gas pistons for hood; and front strut tower brace; biggr anti-sway bars (front and rear); an exhaust system that would put Borla and Flowmaster, etc. to shame. :mellow:
Power passenger front seat; inside remote release; more color selections; more wheel selections; telescopic function on steering wheel as well (the Focus has this!); some type of dome light somewhere behind front seats; brighter map lights; more performance options...but done in style and not just paint or decals on the car; ducktail spolier option; satelite radio option built in; heated seats (also available on the Focus!); performance brakes (bigger rotors, slotted and bigger disks);
gas pistons for hood; and front strut tower brace; biggr anti-sway bars (front and rear); an exhaust system that would put Borla and Flowmaster, etc. to shame. :mellow:
I suggested things similar to these in my post (all-wheel drive vert with heated seats) but these guys just want to talk big motors.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post