Close



Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 65 of 65
  1. #51
    FEP Super Member Mr Joshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Spencer, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,646

    Default

    Problem is most of the people commenting on how to assemble this project are over thinking and over engineering this. The ZF is going to cost you $17k sure it has the correct bolt pattern to bolt up to a modular or 302/351w, but you're going to pay.. The Getrag used is made in larger numbers with wider access to aftermarket parts, etc..
    The simple economics of it all is just easier to stomach for a first rendition of a project car of this magnitude. Use the K.I.S.S. method for your projects. Get all your dimensions down, get your math sorted out, then assemble, measure, re-measure, measure again, cut, reassemble, test. I'd like to think that in using the IRS cradle, you'll be cutting a third or more off your fabrication time and conforms to the K.I.S.S. method, no need to reinvent the wheel on this. The FWD Lincoln v8 idea would be great in theory but the packaging would be tougher, as you'll have to fabricate you mounting points in a more confined environment between the two wheel tubs. moving the engine forward will provide closer 50/50 weight distribution. With the FWD Lincoln setup your entire drive line is over the rear portion of the car lending to an uneven distribution of weight. Not what Iíd call the best solution to the mid engine mustang dilemma. Xctasy has brought out some good information as far as previous attempts at manufacturing mid engine cars with a similar size/weight/configuration as the foxbody platform. Heís most certainly correct in saying that this project would be difficult and not to be taken on lightly. Re-engineering a front engine RWD car to a rear engine RWD platform has its inherent difficulties as he mentioned. Cooling, weight distribution, mounting points, packaging, handling, etc..
    Allgosvo also brought up a good link for reference. The packaging and scope however of that project is going far above and beyond the K.I.S.S. method, and has a sizeable budget to work with.

    Tangent time.
    Where the FWD Lincoln setup would be useful, would be to transplant the rear-engine setup in first, then transplant the FWD setup into the front of the car creating dual engine setup. Increasing the complexity of the project and bringing it closer to a Suzuki Escudoesk level. Twice as much planning and engineering than a mid/rear engine mustang project alone.

    All in all I still think itís a workable project within a limited budget to get the basics down without going hog wild on the first iteration.
    Quote Originally Posted by PaceFever79 View Post
    Why use a Fox body for such a custom designed super car?
    Because Foxbody Project!
    83 GT w/ T-Tops(JeffCleaned)
    2016 Nitrous Blue Focus RS

  2. #52
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    good points made here.

    A little general knowledge...the mid engined car isn't one you can cost cut with. You can use the KISS approach with a low centre of gravity car, but you always end up in the same place. Lotus, the lowest cost sports mid engined car, they never saved on gearboxes or cylinder blocks, they used the best production parts, and upgraded to win. Imagine a Lotus Esprit with a Land Rover gearbox or a Europa with a Mini gearbox, or a Vector with a leaf spring axle. Americans who use the KISS approach never use 100% production parts on a special build car, they innovate just like Colin Chapman and Ak Miller did, making really basic cars do amazing stuff by not being affraid to steal the newest IFS or steering or gearbox, and then modifiy it even more.

    You can use a lightweight Renault/Deloreon DMC gearbox, or a Colotti. Save some cash that way.

    Or the VW Audi Porsche G50 or ZF gear 5 DS 25 (asside from the Citroen SM/Maserati/Lotus Colotti, the ZF it is the only mass produced mid engined transaxle and was fitted to the Ford GT40 MK1 and MK3, De Tomaso Mangusta, De Tomaso Pantera, Maserati Bora, Lancia 037, BMW M1, and Saleen S7)

    They solve a problem at cost. You can cost cut, but the result is always the same. Substandard.

    Look at the Countach replicar with a Tremec 5 speed, a true work of art. It cost a whole heap to recast a transmission to replicate the Lambo's Toyota Tercel style affair.

  3. #53
    FEP Super Member Mr Joshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Spencer, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    They solve a problem at cost. You can cost cut, but the result is always the same. Substandard.
    I Agree on all points except the gearbox selection, I hope you're not referring to the Getrag 6 speed as a substandard part. A high rate of manufacturing with a good hp/trq rating with plentiful access to aftermarket parts and lower used cost. I would think this makes it a perfect candidate for this project. The Colotti, Renault and ZF are nearly impossible to find, the cars you're listing are rare production cars as are their transaxles. If you've got cash, here's a good candidate to use for this.
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Complete-eng...fc2ed7&vxp=mtr
    One Ford GT drivetrain. $37,000 BIN
    Cutting costs is one thing, going hog wild is another.
    K.I.S.S
    83 GT w/ T-Tops(JeffCleaned)
    2016 Nitrous Blue Focus RS

  4. #54

    Default

    Off topic here. But, something that might be even better than a mid/rear engine fox would be a AWD fox mustang. There is a group of Eclipse/Talons here that spank just about anything due to their AWD traction.

    I'm thinking move the engine back far enough to gain clearance for a front axle without having to raise the motor. This would improve the front to rear weight balance of the car. Moving back the drivers seat position would create room for a transfer case. Not sure what front axle would be best to use. Seems to me that this would be a cheaper route to an "exotic" style fox mustang. Possibly more functional as well.

    Jess
    Currently own;
    1979 Mustang, v6 swapped to EFI 393, custom installed m122 blower, 4r70w trans, Megasquirt II, T-top swaped in.
    Previously owned;
    1990 Mustang, 545 BBF, C-4 with brake, ladder bars.
    1983 Mustang, 1984 SVO Mustang
    1984 Mustang convertible, v6 swapped to 351
    1986 Mustang GT, 1989 Mustang GT convertible
    1992 Mustang coupe, 4 swapped to 302

  5. #55

    Default

    I actually like the awd idea, but wouldnt you lose a considerable amount of top speed by doing that?
    I checked out the getrag trans Mr Joshua referred to earlier, and I would be forced to get the trans thats rated at 650nm, ( like 479 ft lbs ). That leaves me with about 100 ft lbs of torque. So I wouldn't be able to upgrade the engine that much later down the road without destroying the trans. Is there a beefier version thats not a Ford Gt one?
    A true Mustang enthusiast not only takes care of his own, but looks after the wellness of all other's.
    My ride:
    86' Mustang GT hatch w/t-tops
    previous rides:
    91' Mustang LX vert
    89' Mustang GT 25th Anniversary edition
    84' Mustang LX hatchback
    85' Mustang LX coupe
    88' Thunderbird turbo coupe

  6. #56
    FEP Super Member Mr Joshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Spencer, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustang-junky View Post
    Off topic here. But, something that might be even better than a mid/rear engine fox would be a AWD fox mustang. There is a group of Eclipse/Talons here that spank just about anything due to their AWD traction.

    I'm thinking move the engine back far enough to gain clearance for a front axle without having to raise the motor. This would improve the front to rear weight balance of the car. Moving back the drivers seat position would create room for a transfer case. Not sure what front axle would be best to use. Seems to me that this would be a cheaper route to an "exotic" style fox mustang. Possibly more functional as well.

    Jess
    Subaru STI drive train.
    Not sure how the boxer engine would be suited to be between the foxes frame rails.
    I'd have to take a few measurements on my STI to be certain.
    Too tired to look up specs for that drive train atm.
    It'd certainly be interesting that's for sure.
    83 GT w/ T-Tops(JeffCleaned)
    2016 Nitrous Blue Focus RS

  7. #57
    FEP Member Ttopcapri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Morinville, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    On a Subaru, the front half shafts stick out of the side of the trans. I believe the entire engine hangs in front of the axle centerline because of this. Not exactly ideal for handling. If you want to push the engine back to a front-mid position and have AWD (which should allow you to keep the Coyote 5.0), you're going to have to use a seperate transfer case, driveshaft and front diff, not an integrated unit like the Scooby. Think GMC Syclone / Typhoon. I think the added weight and driveline losses of AWD are going to make for an overall worse performing car though. With 400 HP, it would be faster 0-60 but after that you're loosing ground. Handling would be worse (than the same front-mid engine setup with RWD) and I also think it would be more work than your original mid-engine idea.
    Currently Foxless

  8. #58
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    I haven't over thought this. I started low, with a KISS aproach in 1987 after five years study.

    There are definate issues with mid engine cars one has to consider. And for everyone, I have proof.

    I have studied cars for 36 years, and mid engined cars are a favourite. Death and carnage associated with the Mid engined evolution in the genepool has been primarily European, but much like American history, its true advancement came when Ferrari and Ford got the United States to finance the perfection of the set ups. Once again, the new Ford GT and the 512 LM were as cutting edge as you could get.

    There are other, much smarter 100% American based transmission solutions, but they cost big time.






    I don't know how you could save a cent on 17 K and get a better result than the race proven ZF. Steve Saleen didn't aggree, he got Randolph Austin Company from Texas to make one for him in six speed form from ZF parts.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/7592571@N05/3273677226/

    You could add height and centre of gravity, and get less dollars, but a mid engined car that will trip and fall under a monte carlo lane change.

    See http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/saleen-s7-road-test

    It's a pushrod engine with two valves per cylinder. That may sound a bit low-tech for a $400,000 car, but we're convinced of the packaging and low-end-power benefits that such engine architecture allows. Tally says the pushrod 16-valve layout is compact and permits mounting the engine low in the chassis. That also lowered the car's center of gravity and made room for a low-end torque-boosting tower of nine-inch-long intake runners.

    "What kind of American supercar would it be if it didn't have a pushrod V-8?" Saleen asks rhetorically. It has more than enough power: 550 horses at 5900 rpm and 525 pound-feet of torque at 4000 rpm. "The engine makes an ungodly amount of low-end torque," Tally notes. "At 3000 rpm it makes 500 pound-feet."



    Most amazing Richmond 5 speed gearbox with transfer case and Halibrand quick change, from a Kit car central LP500 ARMSTRONG


    http://www.kitcentral.com/index.php?...95364f396673ea

    https://sites.google.com/site/lambor...plica/1st-year





    I was involved in extensive study of transaxle transmissions from 1982 to 1987, with the design of a mid engined Mitsubishi V3000 blocked, quad cam headed project for my Technical Drawing class. After 1987, each year, I re-looked at the options, and the front drive Lincoln based Modular v8 3.937" bore spacing engine looked especially good in 1996, but it pushed the width too far for my planned sub 69" wide car. Its very hard to narrow the driven wheelpack down for the needed tire width. The Lincoln was an improvement on the 60 V8 SHO powerplant, which looked okay with a 4.08" bore spacing.

    The reality is that the mid engined exponents (Matra, DeTomaso, Ferrari, Maserati, Lancia, Lotus, Vector, Porsche, Panther 6, Alfa Romeo, Toyota, the Australian Bowell, Mirella and Triad specials) were constrained by transmission, the genesis, bane/achillies heal of the mid engined car.

    The problem with really strong, compact swaps (the whole modular front drive pack of the Lincoln 4.6 variants, the early THM 425 Caddillac/Tornado set up, the adoption of the typical front half of a 4 by 4 powertrain, the FF version of the Ford Sierra XR4X4Ti and Scorpio 4x4) were not so good for centre of gravity (cog). Its a major issue for a powerfull V8 in a mid engined car. It suffers the age old straight in understeer transiting to exit oversteer, but the transition becomes savage when cog goes upward. Mid engined cars with poor torsional rigidity are worse, like the old Mungusta. The evolution of the mid engined car is one of creating strength.

    The idea of front midships creates a problem, one of fire wall cutting, and a total loss of torsional ridgity. In Australia, the biggest percentage of early 70's Super Sedans had front mid ship engines, and they were dangerous, and a high horsepower fuel injected engine suffers fuel standoff, and major problem with engine fumes in a solar hot house...the drive compartment.

    The Pantera ran a Ford Pinto rack and pinion steering system, it failed to yield the promise of low steering effort and sharp, high gearing. The Mustang II copied the Pinto/De Tomaso set up, the Fox copied the Mustang II revised steering of 1977. The steering geometry is another issue.

  9. #59
    FEP Senior Member tcruise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    504

    Default

    I think a mid-engine Fox would be a cool project.

    Many Chevy Corvairs have undergone mid-engine conversions, mostly V-8, but also V-6. There were two mid-engine kits for the Corvair, one made by Crown Engineering, and one by Kelmark, both of which use the stock Corvair differential and gearbox (Corvairs have separate diff and trans instead of a transaxle). The Kelmark located the engine a little farther back than the Crown, which required special pivoting seats to enable the driver to get in/out.
    Another one that's been done is the Olds Toronado FWD drivetrain, with the TH425 3-speed automatic.
    A number of mid-engine conversions have used the Porsche 915 transaxle.
    Still others have done rear engine swaps to Buick 215 V-8 and LS1.
    1983 Mexican Mustang 5.0/4-spd
    1982 Capri RS 5.0 H.O.

  10. #60
    FEP Super Member Mr Joshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Spencer, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    I haven't over thought this. I started low, with a KISS approach in 1987 after five years study.

    There are definite issues with mid engine cars one has to consider. And for everyone, I have proof.

    I have studied cars for 36 years, and mid engine cars are a favorite. Death and carnage associated with the Mid engine evolution in the gene pool has been primarily European, but much like American history, its true advancement came when Ferrari and Ford got the United States to finance the perfection of the set ups. Once again, the new Ford GT and the 512 LM were as cutting edge as you could get.

    There are other, much smarter 100% American based transmission solutions, but they cost big time.






    I don't know how you could save a cent on 17 K and get a better result than the race proven ZF. Steve Saleen didn't agree, he got Randolph Austin Company from Texas to make one for him in six speed form from ZF parts.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/7592571@N05/3273677226/

    You could add height and centre of gravity, and get less dollars, but a mid engine car that will trip and fall under a Monte Carlo lane change.

    See http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/saleen-s7-road-test

    It's a pushrod engine with two valves per cylinder. That may sound a bit low-tech for a $400,000 car, but we're convinced of the packaging and low-end-power benefits that such engine architecture allows. Tally says the pushrod 16-valve layout is compact and permits mounting the engine low in the chassis. That also lowered the car's center of gravity and made room for a low-end torque-boosting tower of nine-inch-long intake runners.

    "What kind of American supercar would it be if it didn't have a pushrod V-8?" Saleen asks rhetorically. It has more than enough power: 550 horses at 5900 rpm and 525 pound-feet of torque at 4000 rpm. "The engine makes an ungodly amount of low-end torque," Tally notes. "At 3000 rpm it makes 500 pound-feet."



    Most amazing Richmond 5 speed gearbox with transfer case and Halibrand quick change, from a Kit car central LP500 ARMSTRONG


    http://www.kitcentral.com/index.php?...95364f396673ea

    https://sites.google.com/site/lambor...plica/1st-year





    I was involved in extensive study of transaxle transmissions from 1982 to 1987, with the design of a mid engine Mitsubishi V3000 blocked, quad cam headed project for my Technical Drawing class. After 1987, each year, I re-looked at the options, and the front drive Lincoln based Modular v8 3.937" bore spacing engine looked especially good in 1996, but it pushed the width too far for my planned sub 69" wide car. Itís very hard to narrow the driven wheel pack down for the needed tire width. The Lincoln was an improvement on the 60 V8 SHO power plants, which looked okay with a 4.08" bore spacing.

    The reality is that the mid engine exponents (Matra, DeTomaso, Ferrari, Maserati, Lancia, Lotus, Vector, Porsche, Panther 6, Alfa Romeo, Toyota, the Australian Bowell, Mirella and Triad specials) were constrained by transmission, the genesis, bane/Achilles heal of the mid engine car.

    The problem with really strong, compact swaps (the whole modular front drive pack of the Lincoln 4.6 variants, the early THM 425 Cadillac/Tornado set up, the adoption of the typical front half of a 4 by 4 power train, the FF version of the Ford Sierra XR4X4Ti and Scorpio 4x4) were not so good for centre of gravity (cog). Itís a major issue for a powerful V8 in a mid engine car. It suffers the age old straight in under steer transiting to exit over steer, but the transition becomes savage when cog goes upward. Mid engine cars with poor torsional rigidity are worse, like the old Mungusta. The evolution of the mid engine car is one of creating strength.

    The idea of front midships creates a problem, one of fire wall cutting, and a total loss of torsional ridgity. In Australia, the biggest percentage of early 70's Super Sedans had front mid ship engines, and they were dangerous, and a high horsepower fuel injected engine suffers fuel standoff, and major problem with engine fumes in a solar hot house...the drive compartment.

    The Pantera ran a Ford Pinto rack and pinion steering system, it failed to yield the promise of low steering effort and sharp, high gearing. The Mustang II copied the Pinto/De Tomaso set up; the Fox copied the Mustang II revised steering of 1977. The steering geometry is another issue.

    Weíre talking about a backyard/garage project, not creating a fully funded production assembly line car. The K.I.S.S. method went right out the window with a seventeen thousand dollar transaxle from an American made super car thatís almost as rare as henís teeth. No one is questioning your research or intelligence. Iím merely suggesting that you keep your approach to this particular discussion on a somewhat reality based level. Even after spending countless hours researching my own project and sinking $70k into it, I have a hard time swallowing $17k for a transaxle, when a perfectly acceptable solution presents itself. This thread would be akin to a prototype in the 0.0001 designation, A.K.A. brainstorming. This is also for daily driving, some fun spirited street runs, and weíre not racing on F1 courses with Michael Schumacher. Iíd beat this dead horse longer but basically you brought a ringer to a peewee football game and he punted the only ball into the next time zone.. Hell the ball might not even be on the same planet. All the advice and information is appreciated, just didn't have to piss on the party fire to do it.
    P.S. I think I fixed all of your grammar and spelling.
    Last edited by Mr Joshua; 03-05-2013 at 05:21 PM.
    83 GT w/ T-Tops(JeffCleaned)
    2016 Nitrous Blue Focus RS

  11. #61
    FEP Senior Member tcruise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    Lotus, the lowest cost sports mid engined car, they never saved on gearboxes or cylinder blocks, they used the best production parts, and upgraded to win. Imagine a Lotus Esprit with a Land Rover gearbox or a Europa with a Mini gearbox, or a Vector with a leaf spring axle.
    Hey, Lotus are great cars, but remember there is also the Pontiac Fiero and Toyota MR2, both of which cost less when new than a Lotus Esprit. The Fiero suffered with a compromise front suspension for the first 4 years of its 5 year production run. The MR2 was available in a turbocharged version. Both are quite good, VERY affordable, mid-engineed production cars. GM even tested a number of larger, more powerful engines in the Fiero than were available from the factory (2.8 V-6 was the "big" engine). The MR2s were all 4 bangers.
    1983 Mexican Mustang 5.0/4-spd
    1982 Capri RS 5.0 H.O.

  12. #62
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Joshua View Post
    P.S. I think I fixed all of your grammar and spelling.
    Thanks for being gracious, Mr Joshua.

    I can fix my grammar and spelling, but it takes another 50% of the total post time. My responses will be slower in the future.

    I think everything has been covered. I've looked at cost benefit/quality~price tradoffs and trim backs, and I still think that a 17 grand trans is the only option. There are about six other Street Machines which have been made with a KISS/Cost focus, and they just look terrible.


    They are

    1.Blow Bak

    253 Holden 4.2 V8 in the front, and Supercharged 355 with THM 425 Caddilac/Tornado front drive pack in the back



    2. Mirella

    BMC Tasmin/Kimberly E6 transverse turbo-charged seven bearing 2.3 liter OHC I6



    3. Triad



    PRV V6 and De Lorean/Renault/AMC Premier trans


    4. Bowel Ikara http://www.theikaraproject.com/page19.htm

    VW Rabbit 1471/1587 trans and engine




    5. Purvis Eureka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purvis_Eureka

    VW engine and trans, or Kent OHV or Pinto OHC Ford




    6. Heron http://www.heroncars.co.nz/template.php?p=content_cars

    Skoda 110 trans and Fiat 1600 twin cam




    For a few thousand dollars, a 'Bulldozer' VW Kombi trans can yield a fairly strong 4 speed gearbox, and by swapping the crown wheel and pinion side, it can be mid mounted. There are some other 5 speed VW Audi trans-axles from the 4000/5000 and A# Audi's that might make the strength per dollar aims.

    Those are the only solutions I can see.

  13. #63
    FEP Super Member Mr Joshua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Spencer, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    Thanks for being gracious, Mr Joshua.

    I can fix my grammar and spelling, but it takes another 50% of the total post time. My responses will be slower in the future.

    I think everything has been covered. I've looked at cost benefit/quality~price tradoffs and trim backs, and I still think that a 17 grand trans is the only option. There are about six other Street Machines which have been made with a KISS/Cost focus, and they just look terrible.


    They are

    1.Blow Bak

    253 Holden 4.2 V8 in the front, and Supercharged 355 with THM 425 Caddilac/Tornado front drive pack in the back



    2. Mirella

    BMC Tasmin/Kimberly E6 transverse turbo-charged seven bearing 2.3 liter OHC I6



    3. Triad



    PRV V6 and De Lorean/Renault/AMC Premier trans


    4. Bowel Ikara http://www.theikaraproject.com/page19.htm

    VW Rabbit 1471/1587 trans and engine




    5. Purvis Eureka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purvis_Eureka

    VW engine and trans, or Kent OHV or Pinto OHC Ford




    6. Heron http://www.heroncars.co.nz/template.php?p=content_cars

    Skoda 110 trans and Fiat 1600 twin cam




    For a few thousand dollars, a 'Bulldozer' VW Kombi trans can yield a fairly strong 4 speed gearbox, and by swapping the crown wheel and pinion side, it can be mid mounted. There are some other 5 speed VW Audi trans-axles from the 4000/5000 and A# Audi's that might make the strength per dollar aims.

    Those are the only solutions I can see.
    No problem always glad to help.
    I certainly agree with using the best parts available to facilitate the creation of a worthy project.
    The examples you posted, I think certainly come under questionable aesthetics, and certainly raised an eyebrow or two when I looked them over.
    Sorry if I came off hostile, I tend to get animated when discussing a topic Iím interested in.
    Hopefully youíll chime in with some more good info on this or any other subject.
    83 GT w/ T-Tops(JeffCleaned)
    2016 Nitrous Blue Focus RS

  14. #64

    Default

    You guys will like this. I know I sure did.

    http://www.syty.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31914

    All wheel drive, turbocharged sbf (331 stroker), T56 trans. In a '86 XR4Ti.

    Build pictures here;

    http://home.comcast.net/~xr4x4ti/V8_AWD_Pictures.htm

    He used a transfer case from a GMC Syclone.

    Jess
    Currently own;
    1979 Mustang, v6 swapped to EFI 393, custom installed m122 blower, 4r70w trans, Megasquirt II, T-top swaped in.
    Previously owned;
    1990 Mustang, 545 BBF, C-4 with brake, ladder bars.
    1983 Mustang, 1984 SVO Mustang
    1984 Mustang convertible, v6 swapped to 351
    1986 Mustang GT, 1989 Mustang GT convertible
    1992 Mustang coupe, 4 swapped to 302

  15. #65

    Default

    That's pretty intuitive. Not a bad job. I wonder what kind of speed he can get.
    A true Mustang enthusiast not only takes care of his own, but looks after the wellness of all other's.
    My ride:
    86' Mustang GT hatch w/t-tops
    previous rides:
    91' Mustang LX vert
    89' Mustang GT 25th Anniversary edition
    84' Mustang LX hatchback
    85' Mustang LX coupe
    88' Thunderbird turbo coupe

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •