<![CDATA[my mom rawks]]>for xmas, i am the proud owner of a 1984 mercury grand marquis le.. this shit is dope. its posh. its got like 16 way adjustable seats and it's 'ride engineered' or so it says on the dash. its also got a big ass v8, which admittedly isn't that cool when the car weighs like.. a metric fuckton, but its bigger than any other engine i've ever had so points for that. now all i need are some wire hubcabs and i'll be ridin' like some sort of pimp. no driving the rx7 for me this winter. big ass ride=roXor.. comfy seats=pwnz.

word to your mother.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/1080/my-mom-rawksRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 02:41:50 GMTTue, 28 Dec 2004 01:44:58 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:02:23 GMT]]>a tII swap may indeed be a possibility cuz as it sits anything i do with it will be expensive. if i just buy a new na shortblock it will be cheaper but time consuming and ill still be stuck with all the wonky 19 year old shit that sits on my current block (electrical gremlins galore). if i swap it out for a new na longblock, it will be not as time consuming but more expensive and ill still have an na rx7, which isn't actually bad at all, no good for stoplight racing or anything of that sort but pretty quick and fun as hell to drive, they handle like you wouldn't believe. but i still want a turbo. a tII swap would be even more expensive and time consuming seeing ass all the hardware from the steering rack back would have to go, so it would be just as well to buy a TII instead. selling it, i wouldn't get much for it. the car itself is in great shape, a really nice car indeed, but with a motor needing to be rebuilt.. most people want the car they buy to be 'running', so i cant believe i would be able to sell it for any substantial amount of money, it was cheap to begin with. the one thing that will NOT happen to it is a trip to the junkyard.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/20019https://fargostreet.com/post/20019Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:02:23 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:53:19 GMT]]>uhm.. i read it in the owners manual if that helps.. it sez 5.0 or 5.8, i still have no idea which one i have 🙂

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/20018https://fargostreet.com/post/20018Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:53:19 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:38:22 GMT]]>

out there wrote:
where did you get your engine specs from? i used this page because it was the first one that looked like it had what i wanted
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:pmBBz5bGUVMJ:www.wiseco.com/PDFcatalogs/auto04-ford.pdf+ford+351+bore+stroke&hl=en

I've got no certain specs. Just been selling parts and service for a little over ten years. I guess some of it actaully sunk in. LOL.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19523https://fargostreet.com/post/19523Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:38:22 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:31:14 GMT]]>i guess now we know better than to listen to those muscle car guys 😉
hmm... after figuring it out in inches too, it comes to 351. how odd that anyone would declare such an obvious miscalculation to be fact?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19516https://fargostreet.com/post/19516Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:31:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:21:46 GMT]]>I just converted 351 cubic inches to litres using my calculator...then did the same for 350 cubic inches.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19505https://fargostreet.com/post/19505Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:21:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:20:21 GMT]]>

out there wrote:
i realize that... but that doesn't mean the numbers are accurate. people can refer to them as 5.7L all they want, they're still 5.8
102mm bore x 88.9mm stroke x 8cyl = 5.811L
True, never looked at it that way, I guess it comes down to metric mm being smaller increments than inches therefore being more accurate. Damn it, I just learned something on a site that is notoriously offtopic and flamed to hell. Thanks for ruining my day 😄

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19502https://fargostreet.com/post/19502Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:20:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:19:33 GMT]]>where did you get your engine specs from? i used this page because it was the first one that looked like it had what i wanted
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:pmBBz5bGUVMJ:www.wiseco.com/PDFcatalogs/auto04-ford.pdf+ford+351+bore+stroke&hl=en

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19501https://fargostreet.com/post/19501Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:19:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:17:33 GMT]]>It's just at the border line. A 289 and 300 is a 4.9 and a 302, 305, 307 are all 5.0's whether it's GM, Ford, Chrysler etc. A 350 is a 5.7 a 351 is a 5.8 and 360 is a 5.9.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19499https://fargostreet.com/post/19499Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:17:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:17:30 GMT]]>i realize that... but that doesn't mean the numbers are accurate. people can refer to them as 5.7L all they want, they're still 5.8
102mm bore x 88.9mm stroke x 8cyl = 5.811L

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19498https://fargostreet.com/post/19498Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:17:30 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:14:32 GMT]]>ok...it comes out to 5.73 liters for a 350 and 5.75 for a 351....my bad

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19495https://fargostreet.com/post/19495Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:14:32 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:12:43 GMT]]>really? wow...didn't think 1 cubic inch would bump it from 5.7 (Chevy 350 cid) to 5.8 (Ford 351 cid)....guess I'm wrong

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19493https://fargostreet.com/post/19493Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:12:43 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:11:13 GMT]]>Actually it is listed as a 5.8 liter.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19492https://fargostreet.com/post/19492Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:11:13 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:59:09 GMT]]>351 is a 5.7 liter as well though....

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19487https://fargostreet.com/post/19487Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:59:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:58:20 GMT]]>ford does have the 351

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19486https://fargostreet.com/post/19486Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:58:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:26:48 GMT]]>

Bad93ex wrote:
It probably does a have a 302. Those were an extremely common motor for Ford Vehicles in V8 applications. It is just too bad it isn't in a lighter vehicle.
its most likely 5.0 cause 5.8??? have anyone heard of a 5.8liter? 5.7 is chevy they are some bad ass cars

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19458https://fargostreet.com/post/19458Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:26:48 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:13:37 GMT]]>It probably does a have a 302. Those were an extremely common motor for Ford Vehicles in V8 applications. It is just too bad it isn't in a lighter vehicle.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19449https://fargostreet.com/post/19449Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:13:37 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:08:28 GMT]]>

86fc3s wrote:
well.. the rx7 is currently without compression on the rear rotor, may just be a stuck seal, not looking good tho, so im not really sure. i don't think im going to worry too much except just the normal tricks to unstick a seal on a rotary until spring tho if its actually a dead hole and i have to look at either selling it, rebuilding it, or dropping in a new motor. tII conversion maybe? i dunno. if the motor is indeed 'done for', hey, it lived 19 years, not too shabby.
i think you should do the tII swap, that would be pimp. not very many 2nd gen rx7 in town done up.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19444https://fargostreet.com/post/19444Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:08:28 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:06:11 GMT]]>as for the motor in the land yacht, i don't know what it is exactly. its either a 5.0 or a 5.8 but thats all i know, i havent had a chance to actually look at it in the daylight with work and all. it does haul the car around with a reasonable amount of authority tho.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19442https://fargostreet.com/post/19442Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:06:11 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:04:40 GMT]]>well.. the rx7 is currently without compression on the rear rotor, may just be a stuck seal, not looking good tho, so im not really sure. i don't think im going to worry too much except just the normal tricks to unstick a seal on a rotary until spring tho if its actually a dead hole and i have to look at either selling it, rebuilding it, or dropping in a new motor. tII conversion maybe? i dunno. if the motor is indeed 'done for', hey, it lived 19 years, not too shabby.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19440https://fargostreet.com/post/19440Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:04:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:38:40 GMT]]>what's going to happen to the rx7?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19292https://fargostreet.com/post/19292Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:38:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to my mom rawks on Tue, 28 Dec 2004 05:17:31 GMT]]>does this car have a 302cid w/ variable venturi carburator? if so I drove one like it briefly in HS (it was my parents old beater car, and the car I learned to drive in....lol) Several years after highschool (1997 maybe) I ran the ol' POS in several demolition derbies before I finally broke the driveshaft (original radiator in stock location still on the beast).

Ahh...the memories.:D

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/19217https://fargostreet.com/post/19217Tue, 28 Dec 2004 05:17:31 GMT