<![CDATA[Mustangs]]>I am not a huge fan of NOS, so I wouldnt do that, so far I have just done some appearance stuff like 18 Motegi rims and low pro Toyo tires and the 02 style wing, what do you peeps think about a supercharger?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/78/mustangsRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 13:23:39 GMTWed, 23 Jun 2004 06:39:51 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:01:07 GMT]]>

92BlackTT wrote:
"ever hear of a carb".....why are we all still trying to step back in time? There is probably a reason your the only one in your neighborhood who can rebuild one....

geez.......i knew this comment was coming :rolleyes:

i was just suggesting a low cost alternative to running fuel injection. not everyone can afford fuel injection on a custom setup. ya gotta start somewhere.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11660https://fargostreet.com/post/11660Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:01:07 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Thu, 04 Nov 2004 04:46:32 GMT]]>"ever hear of a carb".....why are we all still trying to step back in time? There is probably a reason your the only one in your neighborhood who can rebuild one....

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11591https://fargostreet.com/post/11591Thu, 04 Nov 2004 04:46:32 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Thu, 04 Nov 2004 03:55:36 GMT]]>

turbogeek wrote:
easy there slugger... 🆒
just giveing some shit I have to cant go anywere my trannie is fucked

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11565https://fargostreet.com/post/11565Thu, 04 Nov 2004 03:55:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Thu, 04 Nov 2004 03:52:50 GMT]]>

My NOva wrote:
NO know one has ever heard of a carb Ya jackass

easy there slugger... 🆒

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11561https://fargostreet.com/post/11561Thu, 04 Nov 2004 03:52:50 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Thu, 04 Nov 2004 03:34:52 GMT]]>

turbogeek wrote:
i'm quite familiar with the 302 aftermarket...
do you realize that about 95% of that stuff works on the 351?

why would I run an expensive 347 stroker, when I could build a less expensive 351 and get similar power figures? or better yet........i could build a 351 stroker for the same cost as a 347

read what some of these guys are doing.......and tell me the 351 doesn't have better potential.
http://www.corral.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=55

ever hear of a carb?
NO know one has ever heard of a carb Ya jackass

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11550https://fargostreet.com/post/11550Thu, 04 Nov 2004 03:34:52 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Thu, 04 Nov 2004 02:59:30 GMT]]>

dubbsy wrote:
cough

302 aftermarket is HUGE....
Run a 347 if it's a drag car, 331 if it'd get a bunch of use. Then have endless choices for heads, intakes, off the shelf cams.....

i'm quite familiar with the 302 aftermarket...
do you realize that about 95% of that stuff works on the 351?

why would I run an expensive 347 stroker, when I could build a less expensive 351 and get similar power figures? or better yet........i could build a 351 stroker for the same cost as a 347

read what some of these guys are doing.......and tell me the 351 doesn't have better potential.
http://www.corral.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=55

not to mention, the 4.2L motor would run off stock electronics...the 302/351....well that'd be interesting.

ever hear of a carb?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11528https://fargostreet.com/post/11528Thu, 04 Nov 2004 02:59:30 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:54:52 GMT]]>

turbogeek wrote:
.........a 351 will have more potential in the long run than a 302....

cough

302 aftermarket is HUGE....
Run a 347 if it's a drag car, 331 if it'd get a bunch of use. Then have endless choices for heads, intakes, off the shelf cams.....

either way, you guys make me laugh. Pete Campbell just FINALLY gernaded his 460HP 4.2L stock block in his mustang (mind you a very similar V6 to the 3.8L), and is blaming it on fuel issues (data logger showing him going way lean at the top end before it blew).

This is simply with a powerdyne blower and a 25hp shot of Nitrous for ACT cooling (and probably a head/cam package)...

runs 11.3, looking for 10s after he rebuilds the 4.2L with stock parts (he wants to see how far he can take a stock block)

there's NO sense in putting a 351W in the car "and making 700hp" for the street. Hell, you'd have a hard enough time hooking up that 460rwhp in a street driven car...

not to mention, the 4.2L motor would run off stock electronics...the 302/351....well that'd be interesting. Transmission, I think, would mate up (I believe MDs car is a 5 speed..)...not positive. Everything else would have to come from a 94-95 GT.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11498https://fargostreet.com/post/11498Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:54:52 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:16:30 GMT]]>

turbogeek wrote:
oh yeah.....i'm not saying they're spectacular or anything. just figuring if you do a swap.........a 351 will have more potential in the long run than a 302....and way more potential than the 3.8 he's talking about.
id dis agree u can do a lot more to a 302 then a 351 put the 302 in to smaller and lighter cars buddy of mine sawped a 232 for 302 ands run 400+whp i his truck

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11482https://fargostreet.com/post/11482Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:16:30 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:08:46 GMT]]>

My NOva wrote:
nah 351 have there limits just like anyother engine

oh yeah.....i'm not saying they're spectacular or anything. just figuring if you do a swap.........a 351 will have more potential in the long run than a 302....and way more potential than the 3.8 he's talking about.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11481https://fargostreet.com/post/11481Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:08:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:09:04 GMT]]>

turbogeek wrote:
then you don't know how to build one...
nah 351 have there limits just like anyother engine

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11453https://fargostreet.com/post/11453Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:09:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:23:58 GMT]]>

Jim wrote:
351 are slow

then you don't know how to build one...

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11371https://fargostreet.com/post/11371Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:23:58 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:22:42 GMT]]>351 are slow

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11370https://fargostreet.com/post/11370Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:22:42 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:00:17 GMT]]>

Johnsey wrote:
The ford v6 isn't the best for handling lots of hp, so if thats what you want get the chevy v6 or a 5.o.

Exactly. Pull engine....swap in 351.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/11369https://fargostreet.com/post/11369Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:00:17 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:02:57 GMT]]>(holy thread resurection batman!)

So mustangdude....you were out at the track on Sunday...

That thunderbird I was talking about....would be the white one that was with me. Ran 13.84 once he hooked the Nittos......in a v6

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/8501https://fargostreet.com/post/8501Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:02:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:30:47 GMT]]>Well that buddy I was talking about. Just put down 255/273 on a superflow dyno (I think dynojet conversions put it about 20hp/20tq higher) with a Vortech blown (8psi), aftercooled setup with RGR ported heads and a cam...(and a few other essentials)

I was talking to him and he was a bit worried about turning his block into swiss cheese and shut it down before the car ran out of power.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/989https://fargostreet.com/post/989Sat, 26 Jun 2004 04:30:47 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:29:18 GMT]]>do it...bottomline

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/886https://fargostreet.com/post/886Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:29:18 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Tue, 01 Jun 2004 04:28:46 GMT]]>i didnt say not to use nitrous i was just trying to give 2wheeler shit, nitrous is fun and cheap and somewhat reliable if used correctly, if u go around being scared of breaking something u shouldnt be driving a car let alone racing one, have fun live life and break something!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/299https://fargostreet.com/post/299Tue, 01 Jun 2004 04:28:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Mon, 31 May 2004 20:44:29 GMT]]>I'm not sure on what I will run but I guess I'll find out on the 5th.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/845https://fargostreet.com/post/845Mon, 31 May 2004 20:44:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Mon, 31 May 2004 08:46:49 GMT]]>I agree with ya dubsy, i wasnt saying he can't do it, shane wanted opinions, i was just putting the warning out there before he went nos happy.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/548https://fargostreet.com/post/548Mon, 31 May 2004 08:46:49 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Mon, 31 May 2004 05:10:49 GMT]]>depends who you're talking to. You could push 250Hp into that motor and blow it up if it's not tuned right. I've got a buddy who's looking for 300 or 350 out of an aftercooled vortech setup on a 3.8 thunderbird (yes, same motor) with the stock bottom end (ported heads and a cam on top), and with a "GOOD" tune it should last a while (although he's planning a new bottom end). Now there's always the option of building a 4.3 (stroked 4.2L), which can be done fairly cheaply (talking to this same buddy) if you know what you're doing.

Depends what you're looking for the car to do. If you've got the money and the knowledge, things can happen (heck, find info about Pete Campbell and his real quick 4.3 project stang).

(browse through v6power.net)

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/88https://fargostreet.com/post/88Mon, 31 May 2004 05:10:49 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Sun, 30 May 2004 20:25:10 GMT]]>the 3.8muststang guys have had problems blowing shit, unless your putting allot of aftermarket parts on with a power adder its not recomended. from my research experience, it would probally be cheaper to buy the 5.0 than to push the v6 past 300 and start blowing shit.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/841https://fargostreet.com/post/841Sun, 30 May 2004 20:25:10 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Sun, 30 May 2004 15:06:45 GMT]]>

Johnsey wrote:
I wouldn't go nitrous either
Just curious as to why not?

Johnsey wrote:
The ford v6 isn't the best for handling lots of hp
In your opinion, what is "a lot of hp"? 50? 75? 100?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/847https://fargostreet.com/post/847Sun, 30 May 2004 15:06:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Sun, 30 May 2004 09:10:51 GMT]]>Would be fun, probally beat easy though, I'm still stock. what 1/4 you running?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/852https://fargostreet.com/post/852Sun, 30 May 2004 09:10:51 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Mustangs on Sun, 30 May 2004 03:22:29 GMT]]>Hey one of you stangs wanna race

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/854https://fargostreet.com/post/854Sun, 30 May 2004 03:22:29 GMT