what kind of BIG toys do we all drive???? - Page 7

JTM · #91 01-29-2003, 09:39 PM

i would like to own a car that does wheelies.. im thinknig datsun 510 twin turbo or turbo rotary engine, i coudl do a 350 transplant but its alot of $$$... id just like to once own a car that needs a tubbed rear end.. man that would own prostreet FOREVER!

clex · #92 01-29-2003, 10:30 PM

2 hondas... both stock and proud
#1: blacked out phantom grey pearl 1992 accord coupe lx with 164,800 miles
#2: brand spankin' new silver 2003 accord sedan ex

ShadowMage · #93 01-30-2003, 12:50 AM

.....'97...ford ranger....ugh.

hehe But seriously I like it and all it just weighs WAAAAY to much for the power that the poor little engine pumps out. But hopefully once I pay it off at the end of this year I can get me either a Toyota 4runner or bB. Not sure which right now...we'll see.

skater252000 · #94 01-31-2003, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ShadowMage
.....'97...ford ranger....ugh.

hehe But seriously I like it and all it just weighs WAAAAY to much for the power that the poor little engine pumps out. But hopefully once I pay it off at the end of this year I can get me either a Toyota 4runner or bB. Not sure which right now...we'll see.

Does it have the 2.3 V4 in it or however many liters it is? Cuz those lag like my graaaaaaandmaw!

boostmonger · #95 01-31-2003, 03:14 AM

that 2.3 wasn't supposed to be a naturally aspirated engine though.it was originally designed for the english escort cosworths, as a turbo 2.3.then it trickled into the american market as the mustang svo motr, the t-bird turbo motor, and the merkur xr4ti motor, in the 80's.it wasn't until alittle later on that ford decided that it might make sufficient power as a non turbo in the truck, and escorts, and such.i mean think about it.it has two spark plugs per cylinder.that's just crazy.

ShadowMage · #96 01-31-2003, 07:24 AM

Yep it's the 2.3, it's not THAT slow. hehe And I've been wanting to do some mods to the engine itself but seeing as how I don't have the money all I've done is replace intake (ghetto ram air setup) and muffler (Flowmaster Delta 40). But it's a good truck, I like it. Better than what I had before (1989 Chevy Cavalier w/ 250,000+ miles).

skater252000 · #97 01-31-2003, 06:34 PM

If I were you I wouldn't waste anymore $$$ on that engine in upgrades. Nothings really gonna make it comparable to even a V6, so why lose money over it?

JTM · #98 01-31-2003, 07:01 PM

they have late 80's turbo rangers, i believe they had the 2.3

ShadowMage · #99 02-01-2003, 12:03 AM

Skater: uuuuh...actually you're wrong there. I've done some research on all the mods one can do for the engine and there is quite a bit. If I had the dough I could easily get the ranger (without going street illegal) to around 200 to 225 HP. Now if I really wanted some HP I could just do an engine swap from an old 83 Mustang SVO or SVT w/ Turbo'ed 2.3 (Or as mentioned before a Merker or even the Thunderbird Turbo coupe) which pumped out around 200 to 245 HP stock. From there, with one of those, it'd be easily raised to 300 HP. Anywho like I said it all comes down to how far you wanna go and how deep your pockets are. But anyways, I'll stop rambling now...

Mock not the power of a 4-banger!

boostmonger · #**100** 02-01-2003, 02:46 AM

the first vehicle i drove daily was an 89 ranger sport with that motor.i have actually seen someone do the mustang svo conversion on that truck back in like 96.and it ran 13's all day long.it's a good motor.you see it built in the cosworths to 450-700hp all the time.just pick up a uk edition max power.

skater252000 · #**101** 02-01-2003, 09:47 PM

Your right, but.... I just don't see the point in droppin money into such a weak engine to begin with. And if you were gonna spend the cash to drop in a new engine, why go with another 2.3?! There's so many small block V8's that would just slide right into the engine bay of a Ranger, and it's not like companies don't make the adaptors either? Ima stop rambling too now!

ShadowMage · #**102** 02-02-2003, 12:17 AM

True true! I have also considered the 302 engine swap for my ranger (yes the mustang 302

). It fits in ok...with lots of modification to the compartment and from all I've heard of my fellow Ranger owners (the two or three that were psycho enough to do it) said it was a massive pain the butt. Oh well...one can dream. I'd love a turboed V8 anything personally but alas money forbids.

Anyway...'till I pay off this truck and get enough to buy a new car...I'll just keep truckerin'!

boostmonger · #**103** 02-02-2003, 02:58 AM

i know a guy who did the 302 swap into an 86.it was sick.don't get me wrong, it was real sick.but, it was just like most of the s-10 350 swaps i've seen.without a 4 link rear end, you amost have to run high gears in it, (3:08 or higher) to even hookup, because of the ridiculous weight distribution factor.don't get me wrong they are real dope, and if you mash it down, they're tire burning machines, but trying to get the power to the ground is just too much hassle.

JTM · #**104** 02-05-2003, 09:26 PM

is that a jetta?

#**105** 02-08-2003, 08:36 PM

HA