![tp6[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VGHoQqZ.jpg "tp6[1].jpg")
Hey /o/. I'm in uni right now and am looking for a winter beater in the $2500-3000 price range. I was originally looking at things like manual civics and old Mazda econoboxes of a similar variety that are the traditional route, but it recently occurred to me that because of the low desire for automatics, the low value of sn95s as a whole, and the price dip for Mustangs as the winter approaches I could get an automatic Mustang GT as a cheap winter beater.
Does /o/ have any opinion on this? Before it gets brought up - to me, a limited slip rwd v8 with 270ft & 220hp is more fun even with an auto than a fwd Honda or similar with a manual & 120hp.
With that said, that is my opinion and not the point of the thread, not everyone prioritizes a desire to hear a v8 rumble and to be able to go sideways in the snow. My questions are more along the lines of: are their any automatic transmission problems for this generation? Any general problems with Mustang GTs of this generation? I have heard that even the v8s are tuned from the factory for 87 octane, this should make it more affordable with gas to help offset the sheer volume it drinks. Does a tune for 91-93 octane alone really get enough benefits to be worth it? Or should I just keep it fairly stock and not forget it's a beater?
Here are a couple examples I found:
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-cars-trucks/norfolk-county/1996-ford-mustang-gt/1117336901?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true
This one even has the 5.0 instead of the gutless 4.6
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-cars-trucks/oakville-halton-region/1994-ford-mustang-gt-coupe-2-door/1116186431?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true
>>13843331
That gen of mustangs are pretty robust. You should consider a total price of the car + buying winter, since summer tires + rwd will make you forcefully miss all your lectures.
If you're OK with the auto V8 combo and that's you're price range, have you considered a Thunderbird of the same year? Better interior, a little heavier, but they can also be had with the same Mustang 4.6 SOHC and they came with IRS. Price is a little cheaper because it lacks the boyracer image.
>>13843416
>miss all your lectures
Don't you mean
>get to your lectures sideways
>>13843331
>mustang
>winter
>People are this retarded
Get a fwd shit box, they're better in snow
>>13843433
>I bet OP doesn't even get extra credit for a well executed Scandinavian flick before class.
Full pleb school.
>>13843416
Winter tires are definitely being factored into the budget, in addition to some spare cash for repairs if needed.
>>13843429
I had heard that a lot of stuff on them was special snowflake. Is this not the case? If the reliability/part cost is similar I would definitely consider it.
>>13843438
>thinks drivetrain matters more than tires
>exact same powertrain
>more doors for whores
>>13843482
but at the end of the day you still have autism
>>13843487
>complaining about autism on a vietnamese autism self help group bulletin board
>>13843475
Yes, yes it does. Tires certainly help but the inherent characteristics of the drive train make a huge difference. I mean using your logic, AWD, RWD, and FWD are all negated by tires.
>>13843482
Car spent first half of its life having young men and women forcibly shoved in the back of it.
Car spends second half of its life in a similar fashion.
>>13845235
I drove a SN95 during winters in Eastern Washington just fine and my dad did the same in a Fox Body. Just don't be a retard, have the right tires and you'll be fine.
>>13845266
>my one experience applies to everything and contradicts all automotive experience so every should do it
>>13845362
You know almost all cars were rwd before the 80's right? Oh how did we survive without fwd!
>>13845362
I drive a miata on winter tires in the winter
it's just really fucking easy on the right tires
>>13845362
I think for you you'll probably need a FWD platform in the snow if you drive like you post
>>13845376
>le wrong generation man
Do you write your 11th grade essays on your typewriter too?
>>13843482
>4200lbs so its slower than a base model Honda Civic without any of the fuel savings or agility
>>13845376
>>13845382
>>13845392
Samefagging this hard
>>13847056
>gets BTFO'd
>claims same fagging
Anon please
>>13845966
What the fuck are you talking about? He's just saying that for 80 years we survived just fine without FWD.
>winter beater
>RWD
>>13847111
And we used smoothbore muskets for centuries, but that doesn't mean they are still good.
>>13847139
Watch out the RWD jews are out in force and will respond to every post to defend it
>>13843331
That 5.0 is more gutless than the 4.6, but not by much.
Perhaps if you live in a state where it doesn't snow RWD is fine, but here in Michigan you would get BTFO for maybe 4 months. You could try snow tires and sand bags in the trunk and maybe it would work in sometimes, but not consistently or well.
Get a manual fwd unless you live in a southern state
>>13847177
>dubs don't lie
>>13847139
Maybe he just wants something simple that he'll be able to slide around with and don't plan on going all out with a tall-riding 4x4? Hell, he most likely lives in a place where winters might be mild enough that FWD/4WD don't actually offer much benefit for getting around as RWD works perfectly
And I'd like to add; ride height has a lot more to say for driving in snow than which wheels are powered
>>13847197
the fact he's specifically talking about a "winter beater" suggest he lives somewhere with harsh enough winters that you don't want to drive your good car.
>>13847177
>tfw not on my home computer and can't post a pic of my miata in snow with its pure Michigan plates blurred out
I just mount general altimax arctic tires without shit in my trunk, only time I've been stuck was when there was a foot and half snow on the ground... but no fwd shitboxes were getting through that either
Rwd
Winter
What are you thinking here m8
Granted my driveway is up a hill so I have no choice but to have 4wd/awd
>>13847177
Fucking this. I live in Michigan and have a fwd fusion. Last winter I was fuckin sliding around everywhere, but when I drove someone else's awd or xdrive I could actually drive closer to the speed limit. Honestly fuck rwd and fwd in the winter. Four wheels is the way to go.
>>13847206
>not everyone prioritizes a desire to hear a v8 rumble and to be able to go sideways in the snow
Although the point of the thread is more about asking wether or not the automatic transmission of that particular generation has any particular known issues/lacks.
There could be tons of reasons why he'd want a winter beater, and I can completely understand it if he has a goddamned nice car that he doesn't want to subject to road salt, sits too low for the conditions and so on
The conditions have to be quite terrible for you to actually need a taller-than-average ride height and 4WD. The best feature is to put on proper good winter tires, and if your car is a bit light in the rear and you'll be a bit on ice and similar slippery terrains you could add something heavy to put some weight on it
Yes, 4WD helps quite a lot, but you can still drive just as safely and have really no issues under any normal circumstance just fine in a RWD as long as you drive according to your skill and you have the proper gear
>>13847111
Reddit the auto post
>>13843474
A lot of T-bird stuff is special snowflake / shared with Mark VIII, but there were plenty of thunderbirds of that generation built. They're common enough that you're not going to break something you can't find a replacement for.
But the whole premise of your plan is based upon there being a ton of unwanted Mustang GT Automatics out there. I don't think the Thunderbird has fallen quite to that level of disposablity yet; people who have them love them and don't sell them cheaply unless something is seriously wrong with it.
>>13847155
But fwd wasn't a technological advancement. It was a way to cheap out on a proper drivetrain.
>>13847237
This.
>flatlanders from flyover states thinking RWD is good in the snow
>"n-no really guys, I drive my P71 around some plowed and sanded streets for a week every winter and it's just f-fine"
>>13845235
It really only makes a difference when you're on the throttle. It's going to make zero difference stopping and zero difference cornering.
The weight bias might make it harder to get un-stuck if you're in a situation where you absolutely cannot get moving at all. But if there's enough grip to get rolling even a little bit, the weight transfer negates this advantage. We're not talking about a pickup truck with an empty bed here, we're talking about a coupe with a long hood. An SN95 GT has a 57/43% weight distribution. You only need to get enough traction to shift about 125 lbs of weight to outdo a FWD configuration in terms of weight-on-the-driven-axle.
But that doesn't mean you can just mash the gas pedal and point the wheel whichever way you want to go like you can with a FWD car in snow, of course.
>>13845266
>My Grandfather smoked a pack a day his entire life and died after getting hit by a bus.
I spent two years working at a ski resort driving pic related, and let me tell you that RWD is sketchy as fuck on anything but flat ground.
>>13847343
>My sister sucked my dick once and got aids from a monkey later
>>13847366
On what tires?
>>13847318
You know anon, pretty much everyone in the whole country managed just fine with RWD and no ABS until the Lumina and Taurus came around in the mid 80's.
Other than those couple of weirdos that bought Eagles and Subarus, that is.
>>13847383
The Lemans A/Ts in the picture. They're getting pretty old by now, but I'm getting a new car soon.
>>13847385
they also crashed and got stuck a lot more
>>13845247
Underrated
>>13847391
There's your problem. Is there a snowflake logo? No. Those are all-season tires.
ANYTHING on snow tires (which means something with this standardized logo right here, anything else is not a snow tire) is better than ANYTHING with M+S all-season tires.
All seasons are sketchy as fuck in ice & snow, on any car, in any powertrain configuration.
>>13847422
>confusing on-road/off-road tires for all-seasons
>>13847391
There we have it - you drove on tires that are not meant for those types of conditions
A/T-tires are generally decent for digging through deeper and harder amounts of snow. But for actually having grip they will not do in those conditions. Their compound is not made for close-to-freezing temperatures and colder and as such they turn into basically lumps of stone. They also have a relatively small contact patch due to the very deep groves/vents (don't know what they are called in english) which gives you less grip, minimal siping compared to a dedicated winter tire, and no actual directional pattern
See the difference?
>>13847437
(and I realise those aren't the same tire - can't find a proper picture of the Lemans AT's that are showing pattern, siping and design)
>>13847435
Being meant to handle mud & rock =/= being meant to handle snow & ice.
Those have an M+S rating and nothing else. Those are all seasons.
>>13847437
>>13847447
Who said I don't have them siped?
>>13847456
I was originally referring to factory-siping that AT's usually come with
Aftermarktet-siping helps a bit, but when your tires are already rock hard their effectiviness for those conditions is severely reduced.
Could you show a good picture of them? I'm interested in seeing how you've done it
>>13847456
Siping does not make a snow tire.
Tread pattern does not make a snow tire (but it helps).
A rubber compound designed to stay sticky and pliable at freezing to sub-zero temperatures, that's what makes a snow tire. That's what it takes to grip on packed snow, and pass the industry test required to get the logo.
I'm curious to see how my '15 Focus ST does in the snow. I'm in northern Michigan. I bought snow wheels and tires. Pirelli Snow Sport 240. I think it will be pretty fun.
>>13847695
>Pirelli Snow Sport 240
Wow... I haven't seen straight sipes on a winter tire for years
>>13847722
Yeah I wasn't particularly pleased either, the four tires came on decent wheels with lug nuts for $180. If they turn out to not perform, I'll just replace them next season.
>>13847378
>I don't understand the difference between causation/correlation and anecdotal evidence.
>>13847833
You missed >>13847343
