belteshazzar wrote: i had to assemble my own because of price point. used an '86 turbo thunderbird and an '89 mustang LX. had $900 in it total, running and driving, before i started putting non-original parts on it.
Sounds like fun.. You did see my good friends 59 Edsel Ranger SVO didn't you?
Heck I would drive either one of them. Granted I don't know the last time I saw a GLHS in person and it has been even longer since I saw a SVO.
I still remember riding around in my dad's GLH when I was a kid and thinking the thing was an absolute blast. I was upset when he traded it off for a 924S
All this talk about SVOs being slow(-ish) and referencing 1/4 mile numbers is just asinine. The SVO was never intended (and with the IRS, never likely) to be much of a straight line performer. The same reasoning that is killing the SVO in this discussion is the same reason the SVO (was sabotaged and) didn't do well generally in the marketplace in their own time: the SVO isn't just another Mustang. There is not point comparing straight line numbers between the SVO and a 5.0 (though they are comparable)... try comparing handling data and track times instead.
Same goes for comparing the SVO and the GLHS. Both can be made to make more power, but once they've got that power, how does it play out on the track (or auto-x)? I'd much rather have 350hp in an SVO going around a track than 450hp in a GLHS hauling around that same track. JMHO based on driving a couple high hp FWD cars on twisty roads... it can get kinda sketchy/scary.
BTW, I'd still love to own an SVO, but I'd take the GLHS in this versus thread (for the same reasons I posted before).
The SVO didn't have IRS. 
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Ok looks like the mopar wins then. Consider my input in this thread null and void.
Why do you make things so personal? Your opinion is just as valid as mine or anybody else's. You said yourself that you only have one of those data points to go by, and I happened to have quite a bit of experience with a lot of the cars you mentioned, so I thought to add more info. Nobody is right or wrong here, it's just bench racing to get through the work day.
And if you really look hard, you'll see I haven't voted either way. I like them both pretty equally, and would easily by either one if I came across a good one in my price range.
In reply to JFX001: I sit corrected. Yet another way that the SVO was sabotaged by Ford.
BTW, did you guys know that a 16v higher hp version was being developed for '87? It would never happen of course... can't have some turbo 4 banger laying the GT to waste... oh no, couldn't have that. Imagine the same thing in the XR4TI... a funny lookin' "furrin" "murker" beating up your 'murican icon? No way!
darkbuddha wrote: In reply to JFX001: I sit corrected. Yet another way that the SVO was sabotaged by Ford. BTW, did you guys know that a 16v higher hp version was being developed for '87? It would never happen of course... can't have some turbo 4 banger laying the GT to waste... oh no, couldn't have that. Imagine the same thing in the XR4TI... a funny lookin' "furrin" "murker" beating up your 'murican icon? No way!
Okay.
Okay, I'll say it.
I used to beat 5.0 Mustangs in my Merkur all the time! lol No, but I did!
Merkur had IRS, so in a way it was the SVO, only more mondern...er. It really was a neat car. If someone would go through one and make it bulletproof for me, I'd love to have another.
If they added the IRS, and slashed the price by about 3 grand...but...they chose to upgrade the T-Bird (which I like as well).
Nah, the SVO is what it is. The money maker's were the 5.0's. Damn Bean Counter's.
Dodge did the same thing with Shelby that Ford did...let him make some very cool cars...then take over.
Javelin wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Ok looks like the mopar wins then. Consider my input in this thread null and void.Why do you make things so personal? Your opinion is just as valid as mine or anybody else's. You said yourself that you only have one of those data points to go by, and I happened to have quite a bit of experience with a lot of the cars you mentioned, so I thought to add more info. Nobody is right or wrong here, it's just bench racing to get through the work day. And if you really look hard, you'll see I haven't voted either way.
Don't just quote one part of it buddy. 
What modifications did you perform to said cars? They're all pretty equal stock for the most part, i'm wondering what personal experience (modifications performed and their results, mostly) you had with the cars to arrive to your statements. 
Really, i'm mostly interested in the 1st gen Probe GT, because i'm wondering if you know some secrets i don't that made you throw that car out right off the bat. 
I'm saying mod for mod, the GD will hang with turbo Mopar/SVO quite handily. I'm also saying mod for mod, said DSM will destroy any of that trio as well.
Where's Garaithon when we need him? He's local to me and has a turbo mopar a bit more modded than my car, we could do some testing. 
And as GRM goes as usual, we're getting off topic, and i'm still picking SVO.
Neither, both have cheap plastic interiors...
fast_eddie_72 wrote: I used to beat 5.0 Mustangs in my Merkur all the time! lol No, but I did!
Yeah, me too... up to a point. Stock, my XR was a 15.8-.9 car. An intercooler, a bit more boost (17-18 psi), SVO ecu/vam and it's a mid 14s car. A lot more boost (21-22 psi) and it's a high 13s car. Push it further and you start fighting inevitability (VAM maxed out, clutch problems, driveline problems, etc.). Right now, I'm slower on a cold day because the car makes more power and causes the clutch to slip. And I've killed the tranny mount and broken 2 guibos in the last year. But I can't lie... I'm tempted by the idea of going speed density with a tuner, putting a big ass holset on it, and seeing if I can make 12s.
In reply to darkbuddha:
12's in an XR4Ti seems like a great way to shatter Type 9's. I imagine you have a plan for this.
The SVO is not about straight-line, and I am sure the GLHS would have it in both bang for buck and flat out performance looking at the drag strip. The '80s were a dark time for reliability in american cars and my SVO clearly shows that lineage. Heck, these are the cars that drove a generation (myself included) into Toyotas. Having said that, an on ramp taken with zest is super fun in the SVO, and the only chance I get to tap the potential during a normal drive. Great handling, plenty of power to hold the rear tires at the edge of traction while slicing the corner under boost, and lots of thumbs up and second looks...from people like us. I would take either car really, but I enjoyed putting 100 miles of fun on my SVO today while this debate raged. J
My GLHS had zero problems in 75,000 miles and I was an idiot for selling it. So, I'm biased.
was never intended (and with the IRS, never likely) to be much of a straight line performer.
Considering the other contender is wrong wheel drive, open diff, smaller tires, and STILL faster in a straight line (and conceivably on a road course) i dont think it's a good idea to go making excuses for the mustang, especially if they
re inaccurate. The bottom line there is that they have about the same amount of power from the factory but the dodge is lighter and has a less lossy drivetrain, so it's faster. If Ford wanted to make something that was faster than the 5.0, let alone the GLHS, they probably would have had to put a lot more work into the engine bay to keep from losing money on warranty claims. That's not a biased statement one way or another, just saying it would have been expensive and they didnt care that much, and them not caring is one reason why the SVO gets mixed reviews these days instead of being universally regarded as super cool. The SVO didnt get THAT far out of the fox mustang 'box' while the GLHS took the L-body to the effing moon.
Back in the 80s, I drove my dad's old 2.0 Capri. It was awesome, even though it was a '74, so heavy bumpers and lower power engine.
But that was a sweet engine. What Ford did was take a nice engine and do what a lot of backyard mechanics wish they could do- add EFI and a good turbo set up that actually worked. Remember, at the time (and Ford started here) a lot of cars with carbs were getting tubos. I never drove one but from what I hear, they worked, but not great. Turbos really wanted a good EFI system to keep up with fuel. So a lot of Ford guys look at that engine and say "cool". And it is cool.
Then they took the Mustang and made something, well, different. Less American Muscle and a little more euro-something. Well, sorta at least. And they put a cool wing on the back. It was neat.
My understanding is the Fox Mustang (and the badge engineered Capri) were trying to be more like the euro Capri in the first place. I've heard that Ford insider folk say they decided to stop importing the Capri because they had a lot riding on the Fox chassis and didn't want the Mustang getting shown up (again) by a V6 from Germany. And it was a massive improvement over Mustang II. But in my opinion, it's just a little too big and a little too heavy.
Lots have guys have done the swap, but the cool aproximation of an SVO is the 2.3 turbo in a euro Capri. It's a bummer we didn't get that. Or at least the EFI Cologne V6. The Capri right after they stopped importing them got a really nice facelift. I would love to import one now that they're old enough.
That with a 2.3 turbo would be really neat.
Ford made lots of mistakes with the SVO... they didn't fully commit to what it could've been and it shows all these years later. The GLHS certainly had more commitment in it IMHO, in typical Shelby fashion, and that seems to show all these years later as well.
But given that much of the discussion here has been about the potential of each car (not just their out-of-the-box performance), I'm a bit surprised about the relative lack of appreciation for Ford's Lima 2.3 turbo motor and it's potential. Spend any time among the hardcore and you'll realize that the motors are incredibly durable and easy to lean on. It benefits greatly from easy and (relatively) cheap mods, and has real potential for huge power while remaining reliable. Want proof? Just look up John Huber's Drag Week winning 2.3T fox body Mustang.
To be clear, I'm not asserting that the SVO motor is better than the Dodge 2.2, but I'm also not stipulating that the 2.2 is necessarily more buildable or capable than the SVO motor.
BTW...
pres589 wrote: In reply to darkbuddha: 12's in an XR4Ti seems like a great way to shatter Type 9's. I imagine you have a plan for this.
Yeah, I've got a T5 and Spec 3+ clutch sitting in wait... collecting stuff to rebuild it and upgrade to 2.95 gearset before I do the swap. Still, as tempted as I might be by the idea of a 12 sec. XR, I don't need that kinda power for my planned ways of using the car, so I probably won't do it... probably...
In reply to darkbuddha:
Huber has an estimated $85,000 in that Lima Mustang though man. 2.3T's used to be all sorts of junkyard awesome, but they've all dried up. All the heads are cracked and the good stuff is gone, so you have to resort to aftermarket or higher prices through forums to get stuff for them. The only thing left for them out there are Ranger 2.5's or Volvo head swaps, and those aren't really getting anywhere either.
Personally though, I don't think any of that caused the Lima slowdown. What really caused it was the absolute proliferation of stupid cheap turbo components for V8's. For the same cost that it used to take to tune up a Lima to 300HP you can make a 500HP TT 5.0 (or swap in an LS1). I really think that's why the 2.3 market shrunk back so much. It's leveled off now, but nobody can deny that it's a lot smaller than it used to be. (Which is a little sad, because variety is fun)
not the case in my area. plenty of rangers/merkurs/tc's etc around here.
i can think of four guys off the top of my head that are into the turboFWD dodges too.
maybe my opinion is tainted because three of them are slower than my 5.4 swapped P71 in a straight line, nevermind my fake SVO. Though the fourth could leave me for dead, if he could ever get a transmission to hold together long enough.
Javelin wrote: In reply to darkbuddha: Huber has an estimated $85,000 in that Lima Mustang though man. 2.3T's used to be all sorts of junkyard awesome, but they've all dried up. All the heads are cracked and the good stuff is gone, so you have to resort to aftermarket or higher prices through forums to get stuff for them. The only thing left for them out there are Ranger 2.5's or Volvo head swaps, and those aren't really getting anywhere either. Personally though, I don't think any of that caused the Lima slowdown. What really caused it was the absolute proliferation of stupid cheap turbo components for V8's. For the same cost that it used to take to tune up a Lima to 300HP you can make a 500HP TT 5.0 (or swap in an LS1). I really think that's why the 2.3 market shrunk back so much. It's leveled off now, but nobody can deny that it's a lot smaller than it used to be. (Which is a little sad, because variety is fun)
Does it really take that much to get a 2.3T to 300hp? 
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
no, it's simple and cheap, but this thread is getting waaaaaaay off topic...
No, it doesn't. It really takes that little to build a turbo 5.0 these days. 
(Or is it 
?)
Downward forces on the market, not upwards
maybe my opinion is tainted because three of them are slower than my 5.4 swapped P71
As a near-10-yr veteran of the turbo dodge forums (and a mod of one, currently) let me assure that PLENTY of them are doing it wrong.
Javelin wrote: No, it doesn't. It really takes that *little* to build a turbo 5.0 these days.
From what i'm seeing... If you have a T3 equipped 2.3T, you're pretty much breathing mods, fmic, and a boost controller away from 300whp. Less than $1000 easy.
I haven't seen a whole lot of TT 5.0s for $1000 or less. Unless you're using the cheapest crappiest Ebay components and taking a high chance of going up in a ball of flames.
Hell, i can get an F2T to 300whp for well under $1000, and they aren't in the same league as the 2.3T or the Dodge 2.2, right?
You'll need to log in to post.
