RangerM Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 As a companion to the Autoblog thread. Did the Camaro (early 80s) REALLY deserve to get a 2.5L 90-bhp 4 cylinder? or the Mustang with the 2.3L? Gas was reasonably cheap, and both had decent 6s available at the time (IIRC). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 As a companion to the Autoblog thread. Did the Camaro (early 80s) REALLY deserve to get a 2.5L 90-bhp 4 cylinder? or the Mustang with the 2.3L? Gas was reasonably cheap, and both had decent 6s available at the time (IIRC). Iron Duke for the win...I think the better choice than the 2.3, is did the Mustang deserve the 255 V8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted December 31, 2008 Author Share Posted December 31, 2008 Iron Duke for the win...I think the better choice than the 2.3, is did the Mustang deserve the 255 V8. Did that motor replace the 302, or were both available (why?) and the 255 was an option? If both were available, does that mean the Mustang had 4 engines available in the early 80s? (4, 6, and 2-8s?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 2010 Mustang V6. Police Interceptor CVs. Lincoln MKS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Did that motor replace the 302, or were both available (why?) and the 255 was an option? If both were available, does that mean the Mustang had 4 engines available in the early 80s? (4, 6, and 2-8s?) It replaced the 302 from 1980MY until 1982MY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang_sallad Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 The old 210hp Ford Fivehundred and Freestyle. Really decent cars, but underpowered in this day and age. Too bad the D35 wasn't ready in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Here we go: 1980 2.3 2V I4 88 hp 2.3 2V I4 Turbo 150 hp 3.3 1V I6 91 hp 4.6 2V V8 119 hp 1981 2.3 2V I4 88 hp (Mustang's 1st 5-speed manual optional with this engine) 3.3 1V I6 94 hp 4.6 2V V8 115 hp 1982 2.3 2V I4 86 hp 3.3 1V I6 87 hp 4.6 2V V8 120 hp 5.0 2V V8 157 (1st of the modern GTs) 1983 2.3 1V I4 90 hp 2.3 EFI I4 Turbo 145 hp 3.8 2V V6 105 hp 5.0 2V V8 175 hp (1st 5-speed for the V8) 1984 2.3 1V I4 88 hp 2.3 EFI I4 Turbo 145 hp 2.3 EFI I4 Turbo 175 (SVO) 3.8 CFI V6 120 hp 5.0 CFI V8 165 hp (auto, 1st time AOD offered) 5.0 4V V8 205 hp (manual) The curb weight for the base 1980 Mustang was 2497 pounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Here we go: 1980 2.3 2V I4 88 hp 2.3 2V I4 Turbo 150 hp 3.3 1V I6 91 hp 4.6 2V V8 119 hp 1981 2.3 2V I4 88 hp (Mustang's 1st 5-speed manual optional with this engine) 3.3 1V I6 94 hp 4.6 2V V8 115 hp 1982 2.3 2V I4 86 hp 3.3 1V I6 87 hp 4.6 2V V8 120 hp 5.0 2V V8 157 (1st of the modern GTs) 1983 2.3 1V I4 90 hp 2.3 EFI I4 Turbo 145 hp 3.8 2V V6 105 hp 5.0 2V V8 175 hp (1st 5-speed for the V8) 1984 2.3 1V I4 88 hp 2.3 EFI I4 Turbo 145 hp 2.3 EFI I4 Turbo 175 (SVO) 3.8 CFI V6 120 hp 5.0 CFI V8 165 hp (auto, 1st time AOD offered) 5.0 4V V8 205 hp (manual) The curb weight for the base 1980 Mustang was 2497 pounds. The 255 V8 was 4.2L not 4.6L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 Cars that were better than their engines..... - ANY Ford product with the AXOD + 3.8 combo! - Porsche 924 (with the right engine, it was the 944!) - VW Beetle--maybe? - AC Ace (was much better with a Ford V8 in it......) - Model A Ford - '39ish Lincoln Zephyrs (had a terrible V-12 made, IIRC, out of one and a half flatheads) - The Avanti - Any cheap Italian car. - Any cheap British car. And, of course, any Jaguar XJ Series III with a Chevy small block. I'm going to start my own thread in a similar vein.... Stay tuned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 The old 210hp Ford Fivehundred and Freestyle. Really decent cars, but underpowered in this day and age. Too bad the D35 wasn't ready in time. Wasn't it 203hp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted January 1, 2009 Author Share Posted January 1, 2009 Cars that were better than their engines..... - The Avanti I'm assuming you are referring to the Studebaker Avanti from the early 60s. What was the Avanti's problem? Quality? I'd thought the Avanti (supercharged) set land speed records in its day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted January 1, 2009 Author Share Posted January 1, 2009 As a follow up, I'd also like to nominate the Ford EXP. Back in the day, I thought it was a pretty decent looking car that didn't deserve to be associated with the Escort, much less saddled with its engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 I'm assuming you are referring to the Studebaker Avanti from the early 60s. What was the Avanti's problem? Quality? I'd thought the Avanti (supercharged) set land speed records in its day. My mistake--even the R1 had pretty respectable power numbers. I had been under the impression that the base V8 was a dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 In fact the Avanti was a car that did not deserve its fate. The swan song of Studebaker, and (if memory serves) the last major piece of industrial design by the guy that cooked up the Exxon logo. And, hey, while I'm waxing nostalgic--those were the days------Charles & Ray Eames, Raymond Loewy, Saul Bass-------days when designers were just designers period, with no prefixes to their titles..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterstern Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) The Lotus Esprit with the V8 Twin Turbo engine... Edited January 2, 2009 by peterstern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 As a companion to the Autoblog thread. Did the Camaro (early 80s) REALLY deserve to get a 2.5L 90-bhp 4 cylinder? or the Mustang with the 2.3L? Gas was reasonably cheap, and both had decent 6s available at the time (IIRC). These drivetrain combos were planned at the height of the 2nd Gas Crisis. So yeah they made sense during 1979-81. [Just needed better 4 bangers] In fact, V8's were ready to be killed, until gas prices eased in 1982-84. Only by 1986 did prices come back down to 70 cents to a dollar a gal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.