Casper Posted June 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 Thunderbird: http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2041/ Mustang: http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2036/act/usedcarreviewroadtest/ And the critics agree... the Thunderturd sucks... 1996 Ford Thunderbird SC V8 15.2 1990 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 14.9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martindc1 Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 Originally posted by stillman: http://www.myspace.com/darbyrefuge I just ran across this local band. As most of you know, I greatly enjoy local bands. I'll go to shows just to support the local music scene, even if it isn't a style of music I particularly like. However, what the fuck are these guys thinking? Yeah but there is a way hot chick that is one of their "buddies". Edit: Link added http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=24430&Mytoken=20050620141506 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted June 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 eh... she's alright... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by Ich bin der Teufel: Thunderbird: http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2041/ Mustang: http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2036/act/usedcarreviewroadtest/ And the critics agree... the Thunderturd sucks... 1996 Ford Thunderbird SC V8 15.2 1990 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 14.9Dude, never post magazine test results here, you should be fired. graemlins/nonono.gif 1996 Ford Thunderbird SC V8 What is an SC v8? THere were SC's, made from 89 to 95, and sports from 96 to 97, but no SC v8's. Your source is stupid, never post crap again. graemlins/nonono.gif Stock, 15.2 was a bad day, and I'd still beat fox body stangs, even those with mild mods (ask hoblic tongue.gif ). With gears, cat back, and ghetto-intake, I was trapping 96 deep in the 14s. And the car is more comfortable, handles bettrer, brakes better, and looks better. http://www.tccoa.com/rides/pics/groeri.jpg The facts align, the 90 GT sucked, H.O.=Highly overated. Fuck you and your aftermarket support, I don't wanna hear about it. tongue.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted June 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 I put SC. I thought that was the sports coupe. You had said something about the v8s being sports coupes a while back. Suck my balls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by Ich bin der Teufel: I put SC. I thought that was the sports coupe. You had said something about the v8s being sports coupes a while back. Suck my balls.Falsifying evidence! I move for a mistrial, the court finds in favor of the Tbird, the Mustang was indeed falsy advertised as fast, since 14.9 isn't fast reguardless. Ford will be fined its reputation, and the Fox body, SN95, and 99-04 Mustangs shall here-to-for be refered to as Rebadged 78 Fairmonts. Any mustangs not built on the fairmont platform must look dumpy and handle poorly from the factory. Ford will be permitted to build race verions that have next to nothing in common with showroom cars for GT cup racing. The Thunderbird. Unfortunately it is beond the power of the courts to do anything to help, and shall be damned to obscurity and underapriciation by the automotive community. This court advises modification and enjoying the status of sleeper. We also recomend that the MN12 stay away from drag strips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted June 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2005 I really wish you had some proof... any at all... 96 Crown Vic - 190hp 96 Mustang - 225hp 96 Thunderbird - 205 But you say all the 4.6L motors in cars were the same? How do you explain this almighty, all knowing Ford God. Show me a sign so I know you're true. Or, just show me anything at all that supports what you're saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathSandwich Posted June 22, 2005 Report Share Posted June 22, 2005 .... I thought this thread was about some sucky band... DUDE, you highjacked your own thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted June 22, 2005 Report Share Posted June 22, 2005 Originally posted by Ich bin der Teufel: But you say all the 4.6L motors in cars were the same? How do you explain this almighty, all knowing Ford God. Show me a sign so I know you're true.Read something. 96-98 mustang SOHC parts are direct bolt ons for 96-97 tbirds/cougars, yet provide no improvement. The part numbers are even the same. 96 mustang vs 96 tbird, you dont find a functional difference untill you get to the exhaust manifolds. I know because I've been neck deep in MN12 performancefor a long time, I know what will work and what wont, what will improve performance and what wont. But hey, dont ask me, ask Jerry. graemlins/thumb.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted June 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 Jerry who? 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.