The MW Automotive Thread

[Sketch]

My ride:

1987 Corolla GT-S

I've invested a lot of time, money, blood, sweat and tears into this car. It's been a DIY (do-it-yourself) project from start to finish.

One of the first major modifications I did to this car was a complete suspension. overhaul. After driving the car in almost stock trim for about a year an a half, I felt that I knew the car's limits intimately. After months of research and consideration I decided that a front short stroke coilover conversion would be the most logical route to take, I'd have any spring rate I want avaliable to me in the form of standard 2.5" race coils, as well as the ability to run MR-2 shock inserts which open up a much larger selection of the aftermarket to me. The rears were a no brainer, TRD offers every spring rate imaginable at reasonable prices, and Camaro shocks are bolt-on, and provide much greater travel from a lower stance than stock sized AE86 shocks (and again, big aftermarket support).

The staging ground.... all the parts I had collected up to a week before installation.

Here is a pic of the stock struts before being disassembled.

One of the problems that is common when lowering these cars is that you end up sacrificing overall suspension travel due to the length of the shock body above the spring perch. If you lower the car too much, the shock runs out of travel under very hard compression and bottoms out. When one of your suspension components bottoms out or your coils bind your spring rates jump from lets say... 6kg/mm to infinity kg/mm, dangerous to say the least. In order to overcome this I decided to use shock inserts intended for an MR-2, they are approximately an inch shorter than the stock Corolla GT-S shock inserts which means a lower stance without sacrificing travel.

This diagram is kind of crappy and totally not to scale, but it should illustrate the reasons for going with a short stroke setup.

1. The strut with the black coil is a stock strut unit.

2. The strut with the blue coil is a typical lowering or race spring. The shock rod is compressed into the shock body and has signifigantly reduced travel due to the shorter spring.

3. The strut with the red coil is a short stroke setup.

(I pwn3d teh ms paynt!!11)

To accomidate the shorter shock inserts I sent my stock strut tubes off to AMT Machine Works in downtown Vancouver. This is how they looked when I got them back. The stock spring perch was removed, as well as as inch from the center of the strut tube. Adam welded on a new perch with retainer for the ground control coilover sleeves to sit on. He also machined retaining rings for the top to keep the sleeves sitting snugly.

I sprayed them with a couple coats of VHT chassis paint and assembled them. This is what they looked like all together; GC Coilovers, TRD Upper Strut mounts, T3 RCA's, and KYB AGX shock inserts.

I did all the work myself (sans machining), it took me about 5 hours total on the street with a floor jack and hand tools.

Here are some pics on the car...

The rear setup is pretty simple, short stroke KYB AGX's (Camaro) with TRD Japan race coils.

The car handles like dream, I've honestly never driven any vehicle as nimble and tossable as this car. What it lacks in power it more than makes up for with it's epic levels of grip. The only problem I had once I was done with the suspension was wheelspin, I found that whenever I would floor it at the apex of a corner, I would light up my inside rear tire... this in turn would cause me to lose a lot of speed on my corner exits. The solution? A limited slip differential was needed.

Sooo not too long ago I got my hands on a slightly used TRD 1.5 way LSD form ebay and got to work. I popped the axles out of the housing, dropped the driveshaft, removed the 3rd member and sent it to the local Toyota dealership to have them install the diff into the member. I was going to do it myself, but it is extremely precise work and would have required investment into expensive tools that would probably only be used once.

A pic of the car waiting for the diff.

Problems arose once I got the 3rd member back, I bolted it up to the axle housing, but when I tried to place the axles back in the splines didn't line up... turns out that the seller had mislabeled the auction, what he sold me was a diff for the 1985 model year which had different shaped splines from the 86-87 models

Luckily one of the members of a local Oldschool Toyota club was generous enough to give me a complete 1985 rear axle for free! I got it home, ripped it apart and sure enough the axles slid in with butter (after cleaning the rust off the bearing caps).

Anyhow, the LSD cured my wheelspin problem, I can't believe how much it has tightened my lines. Oh and I can do WICKED doughnuts now.

Anyhow, I've done a lot more to the car, but the suspension and LSD made the biggest differences so I figured they would be worth writing about.

List of all the stuf I've done to the old girl.... (all with basic hand tools)

----------------------------------------------------

Front Susp:

TRD upper strut mounts

Shortened (-40mm) OEM strut housings /w grond Control coilovers

Eibach 2.5" id race coils

KYB AGX MR-2 damper inserts (4 way)

T3 roll center adapters

Rear Susp:

TRD Japan race coils

KYB AGX Camaro shocks (8 way)

Brakes:

Brembo blank rotors

Hwak HPS pads

Wheels / Tires:

Riken Reverse Mesh 14x6.5 (+10mm)

Yokohama AVS ES100

Drivetrain:

TRD 1.5 way LSD

Chassis:

SAFT(?) strut tower brace

Whiteline poly bushings (lower control arms, rear 4 links)

Energy Suspension swaybar links & poly bushings

Misc:

Deleted power steering

Deleted clutch fan

10 inch rad mounted electric fan /w adjustable temp activated switch

replaced stock airbox with cheapo mushroom filter

JDM Kouki Trueno bumper & brackets

[Lightning]

ah you B........i mean, lucky guy! I can't even find an AE86 in Florida at all...

[Commander McBride]

Sweet ride, Max. I've finally decided that by February of next year, I'll trade in my Civic HX Coupe for a 2006 Ford Mustang V6. As much as I want a GT, it's completely out of my budget. Next year's model will feature a new option package called the "Pony Package," which costs $1,195 over the V6's price. The package, which includes foglamps (smaller than the GT's), a retro-style grille layout and the GT's 17" Bullitt rims, makes the V6 look much more substantial than its base model.

(When replying to this thread, please remove all tags before posting.)

310907[/snapback]

Don't even bother with a V6. Ford is supposed to be matching GM's "Employee Discount" deal, which will put the GT in your range. Alternately, think about a new Civic Si or something similar. The Mustang is huge, and the big engine and two doors, as well as the Mustang reputation, will make insurance huge. Hell, for the price, you could have a recent WRX, or, with some good bargaining, even a new one.

Edited July 15, 2005 by Commander McBride

[yellowlightman]

Don't even bother with a V6. Ford is supposed to be matching GM's "Employee Discount" deal, which will put the GT in your range. Alternately, think about a new Civic Si or something similar. The Mustang is huge, and the big engine and two doors, as well as the Mustang reputation, will make insurance huge. Hell, for the price, you could have a recent WRX, or, with some good bargaining, even a new one.

311129[/snapback]

You're kind of missing the point of a Mustang, as neither a Civic SI (blech) or WRX are remotely the same kind of car as the Mustang, nor do they have the same sense of style and design the Mustang does. Never thought I'd say that about a modern Ford, hah...

[Commander McBride]

No, that's a given, I'm simply saying that those cars are a much better choice, in the performance segment, than the V6 Mustang is. The GT is a good choice, by all reports, but, IMO, the V6, especially with the "Pony Package", amounts to little more than factory rice.

[yellowlightman]

No, that's a given, I'm simply saying that those cars are a much better choice, in the performance segment, than the V6 Mustang is. The GT is a good choice, by all reports, but, IMO, the V6, especially with the "Pony Package", amounts to little more than factory rice.

311144[/snapback]

The stupid poilers and ground effects on the WRX don't count as factory rice?

The Civic SI is a poor choice for performance anyways, it's FWD and overweight. Not to mention it looks like a two-door minivan. Not to mention, if you were going for straight performance you could get a lot more car than a WRX for the same money.

I'm guessing the style and looks of the Mustang are what's appealing to A7, and in that respect the Mustang beats both the SI and WRX considerably. Not to mention, everything I've heard is that the new V6 is quite competent unlike it's craptacular predecessors.

[Commander McBride]

The Subaru equivelant would be putting the skirts, spoiler, and fogs on a 2.5RS.

Maybe Si was a bad example, it was just what I thought of in the price range.

Seriously, though, I'd wait for the Ford price drop, and get a GT. (Or, hell, an RX-8...)

[bsu legato]

I'd hardly call the "Pony Package" rice. The graphics are pretty subtle compared to some of the stripe packages in the Mustang's history. The rims are just "plain old" Bullit rims, which IMO are some of the finest looking factory rims Ford has ever given its pony and look far more at home on the 05-06 than they ever did on the 99-04 models. So all that really leaves is the corral and driving lights. Considering that you can get driving or fog lights on just about everything these days, I don't see the big deal.

Or perhaps, as Yellowlightman suggested, A7 just plain likes the Mustang. Hell, the way gas prices are going, my next car will have an engine with less than half the displacement of my 5.0! As much as I'd love a new GT, its just getting too expensive to drive these things.

[areaseven]

Don't even bother with a V6. Ford is supposed to be matching GM's "Employee Discount" deal, which will put the GT in your range. Alternately, think about a new Civic Si or something similar. The Mustang is huge, and the big engine and two doors, as well as the Mustang reputation, will make insurance huge. Hell, for the price, you could have a recent WRX, or, with some good bargaining, even a new one.

311129[/snapback]

If you read the disclaimers, the Ford Family Plan does NOT include the Mustang. And I'm trying to move away from FWD, so a Civic Si is completely out of the question.

Speaking of disclaimers, did you even read the one below the Mustang pic I posted?

[yellowlightman]

The Subaru equivelant would be putting the skirts, spoiler, and fogs on a 2.5RS.

Funny you bring the 2.5RS up, since the original came riced from the factory more than any other car I can think of.

Seriously, though, I'd wait for the Ford price drop, and get a GT. (Or, hell, an RX-8...)

311163[/snapback]

Again, still not the same kinda car. The V6 makes a lot of sense, since I'm guessing A7 wasn't planning on racing it anyways. The V6 has better gas mileage and lower insurance.

[Commander McBride]

Actually, I agree, the RS was totally riced. Way overboard for a 160HP car...

As for the Mustang, I'm not disputing that it's a good car, I just think better can be had for the money. However, it's still a quite good choice, if the styling really appeals to you, and RWD is always nice.

[reddsun1]

Oh, so that's the "Pony Package" you mentioned earlier. The car I spoke of is different--apparently it's a local dealer "custom" accessory package. I'll see if I can get a pic and post it. They definitely want to make theirs passable as GT's, as they feature regular grilles, and full size driving lights bolted to the top of the bumper. They also have twin 6" wide LeMans stripes running the length of the body, on the bumpers/hood/roof/trunk [quite possibly, next to Gulf blue w/orange center stripe, has to be the most overused/abused color scheme in the automotive world]. To be honest, I'm not too crazy about the idea--going to such lengths to give such an aggressive, performance oriented look to a car that obviously isn't such. All show and no go, I say.

Sweet ride, Max. I've finally decided that by February of next year, I'll trade in my Civic HX Coupe for a 2006 Ford Mustang V6. As much as I want a GT, it's completely out of my budget. Next year's model will feature a new option package called the "Pony Package," which costs $1,195 over the V6's price. The package, which includes foglamps (smaller than the GT's), a retro-style grille layout and the GT's 17" Bullitt rims, makes the V6 look much more substantial than its base model.

(When replying to this thread, please remove all tags before posting.)

310907[/snapback]

Edited July 16, 2005 by reddsun1

[reddsun1]

Woo Hoo! Glad the forums are back! How's this for an update on the "Batmobile" look? Lambo is said to be planning limited production of this "Concept S" car sometime in the near future...

Edited July 16, 2005 by reddsun1

[reddsun1]

Wow, this pic is really not flattering to F. Alonso at all. Considering that she's seated, and still looking him in the eye, jeez he must be a runt. Looks like even horse-jockeys could crack short jokes on this guy...

Well, apparently I can't add a pic to this post w/out altering my immediately previous post. WTF?

Edited July 16, 2005 by reddsun1

[reddsun1]

AMG to produce the world's most powerful naturally aspirated V8 engine with it's 6.3L powerplant. This monster will produce numbers that'd make any fan of Detroit's ground pounders of old positively green with envy:

Displacement: 6208 cc

Compression: 11.3 : 1

Output: 510hp @ 6800 rpm

Max torque: 630Nm @ 5200 rpm [isn't that like, over 750 lb/ft?! Yikes!]

Too bad the cars their motors go in are usually very heavy Grand Tourers or Sedans. But then again, I'm guessing AMG wants to keep a relatively low profile, and cater to a very select, narrow clientele when it comes to marketing these cars. I'm guessing the target audience is usually mature, very well-off financially, interested in affluence and luxury, and not in tire-shredding shenanigans on public roadways.

[LORD KUNGFU]

Subaru WRX > Mustang(even with "pony package").

[trueblueeyes]

Subaru WRX > Mustang(even with "pony package").

311226[/snapback]

...my mommy can beat your mommy up!

...shaddup and get back in your Yugo until you have something useful to add.

[Commander McBride]

Subaru WRX > Mustang(even with "pony package").

311226[/snapback]

You won't hear any argument from me.....

[trueblueeyes]

All joking aside, I love the styling of the new Mustang. I think it looks better than 90% of average vehicles on the road (not including exotics). And the GT's 4.6 3 valve looks to be a real performer. And I think the '07 Shelby Cobra is pure sweetness. It will be our third SVT vehicle, and the one I am most excited about. We have a local dealer willing to guarantee availability of it with $7,000.00 down. I can't wait, and I really hope there are no delays in production.

[Commander McBride]

I agree, it is a very nicely styled vehicle. However, an RWD coupe that weighs ~3500lb? That's what turned me off. They do quite well at the track, but making it do so means losing streetability.

[myk]

The new-old Mustang is growing on me, as is the new "cough" Charger. I must say that particular car will NEVER supplant my '69 Charger R/T however. Has anyone seen or read the Motor Trend Bullitt themed article on those two cars? It'll make you a fan of both to be sure...

At 300 stock horsepower the Mustang has FINALLY become a car to be proud of on the streets. I never could understand why Ford let the F-bodies have that much of a power advantage over the 'Stang all those years, but I guess when you outsell the competition at least 2 to 1 power really doesn't matter...

Edited July 16, 2005 by myk

[yellowlightman]

I agree, it is a very nicely styled vehicle. However, an RWD coupe that weighs ~3500lb? That's what turned me off. They do quite well at the track, but making it do so means losing streetability.

311252[/snapback]

It's a pony car, not a sports car. It's purpose is to go in a straight line, so weight isn't as important.

As for LordKungfu comparing the WRX and the Mustang... you're completely missing the point. They're very different cars designed for very different purposes.

[Commander McBride]

Well... they are both performance-oriented cars, in the same price segment. It's natural for comparisons to arise. Additionally, it's been made clear that this Mustang was designed to perform quite well in the corners, and, by all reports, it does that quite well. I do like the styling a helluva lot better than the monstrosity Subaru is calling the '06 Impreza... (And I dislike the 04-05, too)

[Jawjaw]

Pony car, muscle car, sports car, whatever. It's all about performance and enjoyment behind the wheel. That sort of thing doesn't have to cost $50k+ like so called true sports cars.

[bsu legato]

I never could understand why Ford let the F-bodies have that much of a power advantage over the 'Stang all those years, but I guess when you outsell the competition at least 2 to 1 power really doesn't matter...

311253[/snapback]

I think that's a two-part answer. First up would be the near replacement of the Mustang with what came to be known as the Probe. When that didn't happen, Ford was content to let the 'Stang continue on in its then-current form. This would be the late 80's, when the 5.0 reached its apex. Development of the 5.0 engine basically stopped with the 1987 model year, or 1989 if you count the addition of Mass Air. Meanwhile GM had dropped their boat anchor 5L and switched to the 5.7. Although this gave them a jump in horsepower, the two cars were still fairly close in terms of torque and the Mustangs lower curb wieght kept things closer. The only real improvement in Stang performance in these days would have been the '93-95 Cobras, which used Ford Racing cylinder heads and intakes.

The real problem began in 1996 when Ford switched the tried and true 5.0 for the dismal 4.6 SOHC. Torque dropped off and the GM cars left the GT Mustang in the dust. Even the early 4.6 DOHC Cobras were barely a match for them, and only just. IMO, the ideal soultion would have been to hold off introducing the SOHC 4.6 for another year or two, until it was ready to produce the power it did in its 260 hp 1999 incarnation. The 245 hp GT40 5L from the Cobra should have been the motor for the GT, while the Cobra could have kept its DOHC 4.6. It woun't have beaten the GM pony cars but it would have kept things a lot closer.

[LORD KUNGFU]

311252[/snapback]

It's a pony car, not a sports car. It's purpose is to go in a straight line, so weight isn't as important.

As for LordKungfu comparing the WRX and the Mustang... you're completely missing the point. They're very different cars designed for very different purposes.

311280[/snapback]

"It's a pony car, not a sports car. It's purpose is to go in a straight line, so weight isn't as important."

Not to be argumentative, but that statement could not be farther from the truth. In fact, in drag racing, the weight of the car is the single most important factor besides engine power and tire grip. Ask anybody thats been involved in racing for advice and building a race car and they will tell you to strip your car and make it as light as possible. Of course you could overcome a weight issue with more horsepower, but you would still want to make your car as light as you can.

And true, and Stang and WRX are different cars. I prefer the WRX just because I think in looks better and I do prefer rally racing and cars with suspension and overall handling than just a lot of horsepower. I just dont find the mustang to be very appealing in its design, except for the saleen wich look a lot better. The mustang looks good the first time, but gets old very fast. Not to mention driving it is a bore. You can get in my old 84 rabbit, smoke the tires all day long, and it will cost you less to put new tires on the car than to fill the tank on the mustang. ALso, you can give your passengers pemanent G-face in the rabbit. Of course this argument can go on forever, but the fact is that any car can be better than the other with enough money.

[yellowlightman]

          Not to be argumentative, but that statement could not be farther from the truth. In fact, in drag racing, the weight of the car is the single most important factor besides engine power and tire grip. Ask anybody thats been involved in racing for advice and building a race car and they will tell you to strip your car and make it as light as possible. Of course you could overcome a weight issue with more horsepower, but you would still want to make your car as light as you can.

311317[/snapback]

I'm aware of the importance of weight, but in a straight line the weight can be overcome with power (as you said), which is why muscle cars can weigh a lot and still make decent runs down the quarter mile.

In a handling-oriented car, weight can't be offset as easily. If it's heavy, it's heavy, and it's probably going to handle like poo.

[valkyrietestpilot]

i agree with the weight issue "yellowlightman".i know alot guys who are into custom vw's & alot of them that did the VR6 conversion into their older A2 golfs were disappointed when they were fast as hell,but handled like doo-doo.too much wieght up front for a car designed to perform & handle well with a lighter mill.i believe wolkswagen corrected this when they released the R32.the special suspension & all-wheel-drive i believe,fill all the earlier shortcomings of having a big VR6 mill in such a small platform.

i think it depends largely on what you have too.i'm a little into performance dragboats too & really,large displacement torque is the order of the day when it come to fighting the resistance of water.wieght always comes into play,but can be offset alot by a shrewd hull choice.a 19-22' catamaran (tunnel) style-hull w/ a blown bigblock chevy & an american turbine jet outback will put you well into the 100mph range & smoke just about anyone who challenges you.the way the hull interacts with the water will decide how she handles.tunnel hulls slice through chop & allow alot of air to be channeled underneath to mix with the water,thus eliminating alot of drag.

small engines like what's powering the WRX will get alot done on pavement,but try to use that mill in a boat,hehehehe,you won't have to worry about your hair catching on fire,that's for sure.if the big,torquey V-8's fade from the street,i'll bet you'll always find 1 easily on the water.

just click that thumbnail below and enjoy that nasty kat.

Edited July 17, 2005 by valkyrietestpilot

[yellowlightman]

I think that's a two-part answer. First up would be the near replacement of the Mustang with what came to be known as the Probe. When that didn't happen, Ford was content to let the 'Stang continue on in its then-current form.

311307[/snapback]

Ford was really trying to replace the Mustang with the Probe? While the Probe had it's merits and the Mustang wasn't exactly in it's prime when the Probe came out, it just seems like a very odd choice.

[Lightning]

I think that's a two-part answer. First up would be the near replacement of the Mustang with what came to be known as the Probe. When that didn't happen, Ford was content to let the 'Stang continue on in its then-current form.

311307[/snapback]

Ford was really trying to replace the Mustang with the Probe? While the Probe had it's merits and the Mustang wasn't exactly in it's prime when the Probe came out, it just seems like a very odd choice.

311424[/snapback]

let's just say that if the Mustang had been turned into a Probe....Ford would've had a LOT of burning crosses on the front lawn at Dearborn.

anyhow, as to the Mustang vs. WRX comment: Sure, they are in the same price range, but the Impreza was a 4WD FAMILY CAR, the WRX is just it's performance package, and it's not even supposed to be for the street! remember, the WRX is supposed to perform on dirt and snowy roads, not just on pavement as many of the ricers love to do (I'm not bashing you for your car choice McBride, they are good cars....if used correctly). The Mustang is a PONY CAR, not a FAMILY CAR........I just wish people would get it through their minds....

EDIT: I was rummaging through this month's Road and Track and I found my favorite pic of the WRX to date, it's covered in mud except for the windshield!! at least they know what the blasted thing's supposed to be used for.

and for the record, I prefer the EVO over the WRX.

Edited July 17, 2005 by Lightning 06

[Commander McBride]

Worry not, as soon as I can get some stock wheels and tires and some softer springs, my car's gonna be all over the rallycross course.

[bsu legato]

Ford was really trying to replace the Mustang with the Probe? While the Probe had it's merits and the Mustang wasn't exactly in it's prime when the Probe came out, it just seems like a very odd choice.

311424[/snapback]

Yep, weird isn't it? From "Mustang 5.0 & 4.6 1979-1998"

Ford had owned a 25% stake in Mazda since 1979, curiously the same year that the Fox-bodied Mustang came to market. The Japanese were good at developing fuel efficient, four cylinder automobiles and also had the jump on implementing the flourishing move to front-wheel drive. the two companies were anxious to make use of their partnership, so a joint venture development program to develop a front-wheel drive sporty coupe began in 1982. Running prototypes were on the road by late 1985. Dubbed the SN8, the project was to yeild the 626 sports coupe for Mazda - and the new 1988 or 1989 Mustang for Ford.

It seems crazy from today's standpoint, in light of 305-horsepower Cobras, that Ford would even consider turning the Mustang into a front-wheel drive four cylinder carbuilt in connection with a Japanese company. But according to Janine Bay, chief program engineer for Mustang "That's what people were doing at the time That's the way we, and everyone else in the business, thought the market was heading." GM was making noise that the Camaro/Firebird was heading toward a V-6, front-wheel drive design. "There was a reluctance to want to add nameplates as well." said Bay. "There was a strong desire to 'play in that playground' and some people said 'well maybe the Mustang is a name we could put on it.'" Ford also knew the Fox platform couldn't last forever. But it didn't count on performance cars returning to popularity, nor did the corporateplanners expect fuel prices to remain relatively cheap. Above all, Ford underestimated the power of both press and pen.

We don't know who started it, but several automiotive journalists got ahold of the notion, as well as spy photos of the "Maztang" prototypes and told everyone that the V-8 Mustang's day was done. Autoweek, for example, broke a cover story in April 1987 showing amazingly accurate photos of the car, predicting the Fox-bodied Mustang would exit "around 1990, a year or so after the Maztang" debuts."

There were at least four groups of supporters who were outraged at the notion: Mustang enthusiasts, several Ford dealers, much of the automotive media, and a considerable faction within Ford itself. Mustang monthly mounted a letter writing campaign to "Save the Mustang." MM's editor Donald Farr wrote, "The descendants of the '79 Mustang, namley the GTs, pulled the Mustang out of the ditch dug by the Mustang II. And now, after the Mustang has clawed its way to the top of the pony car heap once again, Ford plans to turn it into a front-wheel drive copy of a Japanese car. Un-American, I say." Dealers also complained, and some of the more impassioned owners threatened never to buy another Ford product. Letters poured in. It was the best revolt since the Boston Tea Party. And to Ford's credit, it listened.

On August 27, 1987 just four months after the Auto Week article appeared, Ford announced that "Probe" had been the name selected for a sporty new front-wheel drive coupe to be sold beginning in mid-1988 as a 1989 model. In a November interview with WARD's, Ford divisional general manager Robert Rewey said "Probe is more in line with Japanese-type cars lik [Toyota's] Celica. It won't cannibalize our other lines." But it almost did.

This is also the reason the Mustang's 1987 remodel stayed onthe market so long (seven model years). Ford anticipated that Probe would replace it, so there was no need to have another product development program in process. Once it was decided  that Probe would be sold alongside the Mustang, the study team lead by John Coletti was formed that would begin work on the replacement for 1994.

Edited July 17, 2005 by bsu legato

[LORD KUNGFU]

"and for the record, I prefer the EVO over the WRX."

(make fart sounds with mouth after reading above statement).

[Commander McBride]

!!!!!!!!!!!

[reddsun1]

Some of the better executed concepts with the new Mustang from this year's SEMA...

#1: 3dCarbon

#2: Street Scene Equipment

#3: Steeda Autosports (don't like the rear spoiler legs, though)

#4: Roush Performance

None of the aftermarket tuners have yet attacked the hood design problem on the Mustang yet; since they've started racing them in Grand Am, it's been found that high air pressure builds up underhood at high speeds. The scoops on the coming Shelby GT 500 will address that though...

For those who can't wait for the GT 500 in '07 and don't mind voiding their warranty, there are already supercharger kits for the new 'Stangs from Paxton that promise HP numbers in the 410+ range (with intercooling).

Edited July 17, 2005 by reddsun1