Automobile #2
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
Hey /o/, was doing the daily CL browse when I found this beauty a few days ago.
http://bellingham.craigslist.org/cto/5495269834.html
Thoughts? I was somewhat shopping for a 2nd car and now this is what I crave.
Have always had a liking for Mustangs but not the "muh V8s" meme that come along with muscle cars of that variety.
Anyone have any experience with them? Also what was your second car? Stories?
That one doesn't have a v8
>>14714876
Well exactly.. That's why I singled out the SVO as opposed to other models, er, trim, same thing in this case I suppose.
>>14715316
Why would you go for anything less than a v8?
>>14715345
Because he's a faggot who wants a car but doesn't want to be associated with his perceived stereotype of car owners.
Typical of JDM stancefags when trying to find a new special snowflake mobile.
>>14715369
Or maybe he wants the fastest, most expensive mustang available in that year...
>>14714826
It's only $3k, why not?
They're fun cars. Just don't expect it to be reliable. I've had an 86 SVO in the past, as well as an XR4Ti..
80s Ford, for what it's worth. But damn they are fun when they run right. Make sure you have a DD before you get it.
>>14714876
So? Puts out about the same amount of power as a v8 from the same year.
>>14715369
Are you autistic?
>>14717194
Lmao no it doesn't! If you don't have a V8 you are a slow girl and it will sound like shit lmao
>>14714826
Holy shit, that's a running SVO for 3 grand? Good condition? Documentation? BUY THAT SHIT OP
>>14717338
Wiki says the 1986 SVO and GT were both rated for 200bhp. The SVO was lighter and had better handling, too. It's definitely the coolest Foxbody 'stang, and the reason why the modern Ecoboost Mustang is actually a respectable purchase. 4 banger Mustangs have a history of being badass.
>>14717494
This, OP. Clean it up a bit and do some reliability and suspension mods and you have yourself a fun little classic car.
>>14717542
Suspension mods
The SVO came with KONI adjustables.
Op, if you want this SVO, find an Svo forum with a buyers guide they will tell you want to look for. Also do a VIN check, a 3k SVO is Kinda throwing up warning flags for me.
What if you swap a V8 into an SVO?
>>14717608
I'll find you, and murder you.
Buy a fucking V8 car if you want it. Don't fuck up an SVO.
>>14717622
>>14715345
The power difference between the GT and SVO of this year is negligible in my book, considering I'm not looking to make this a 10s car.
>>14715369
Yeah man I drive a Ford fucking Probe right now, pretty far from a JDMfag, your projection is cute though. I just want to hoon/DD an 80's turbo Ford, is that too much to ask for?
>>14717049
Funny I was looking at the Sierra family and was *this* lose to importing a KF Tx3. Is the SVO not a step above other Mustangs when it comes to reliability? From what I've researched it would appear that way.
>>14718000
>fuck JDM I drive a Mazda with a Ford badge
Also
>80s American turbo 4 cylinder
>more reliable than a slightly updated, fuel injected 60s V8
>>14717608
6 in one, half dozen in the other - it's a whole lot of work for nothing. 2.3's are excellent for hurting egos and causing all sorts of hate and discontent. If you do it with a v8, nobody gets that mad.
itt: Muh turbo 4
1985 2.3l SVO
> 175 hp (130 kW) @ 4400 rpm 210 lb·ft (280 N·m) @ 3000 rpm
all the power of an N/A 4 cylinder, with an unreliable turbo car
1986 5.0l V8 car
>225 hp (168 kW) and 300 ft·lbf (410 N·m) of torque
also inb4
>MUH POWER POTENTIAL
>MANUAL BOOST CONTROLLER
>BLOW OFF VALVES BRO
you can get gt40 heads (junkyard) and an cam (e303 or something) and make power with the v8 easier
>>14718068
>hurting egos
the only person with an ego is the cock sucker in his 4 banger mustang
>yeah bro just a 4 cylinder
>lets race your stock V8 vs my modified turbo car
>LOL MUH BOOST
don't be that guy
>>14718099
I had one made out of junkyard parts, ALL of them stock parts off of other cars. No idea what kind of power, but it went like hell. Some of the parts came from a Volvo, like my gigantic intercooler. Yeah, I may have been that guy, but I only picked on guys with at least "full bolt-ons" and such. These cars are capable of being bullies on the street without any blingy expensive parts, so calling it a "modified turbo car" isn't quite fair when that generally implies money was at least spent somewhere.
Now I'm "that guy" in my n/a 4 cylinder civic, and yet again, my setup is a majority of stock parts from other cars, and when asked, can honestly say "It's mostly all stock Honda." It's definitely faster than the Ford was though, wouldn't even be an interesting race. I spent most of my money on programmable fuel management and exhaust, honestly.
>>14718159
>n/a honda
LS/VTEC ?
>that feel when your "pigfat" LS1 trans am only weighs 100-200lbs more than your average foxbody
>>14718182
um, Which trans am?
V8 Fox was about 2850lbs
>>14718036
Would you honestly consider the anal Probe as a JDMfag-esque car?
I actually like it, I would ZE swap it but its an SE right now so it's not worth at all.
>>14718089
Like I said, I'm not looking to get the most power out of it, I'm aware a v8 is a better candidate for just plain power/torque.
I like everything the SVO brings without just slapping another v8 into it, not that I have anything against v8 cars, it's just not what I want right now.
>>14718099
Well I'm not looking to be any "guy"... I like the car, I like whats unique about and it just so happens to play into what is practical for myself.
>>14718247
>2850
try 3200+
>>14718266
Mine was 2952 without the spare tyre and jack over the weighbridge.
>>14718295
apparently the different models/years are showing fairly different numbers in weigh ins.
'vert and GT models being the heaviest, LX being lighter
>>14718266
My Capri RS was 2940
>>14718089
>1986 5.0l V8 car
>225 hp (168 kW) and 300 ft·lbf (410 N·m) of torque
Those are actually the numbers for the '87+ with the aero nose, pre MAF cars . The '86s were rated at 210hp because they had shitty heads and were rated less than the '85s 210hp with a carb.
>>14718726
>The '86s were rated at 210hp
200hp*
>>14718089
It's not about the performance, you're not buying a 30 year old car for that. It's about the uniqueness of the SVO.
>>14719400
Well put, what it lacks for in aych-pee, it makes up for in just about everything else. Also for $3k with clear documentation I think this might be the next one.
>>14714826
>$3k
>30 year old turbo
>Literally the worst mustang style ever.
>Seriously fuck that mid window plastic spoiler.
> "1 of 223 cars in metallic silver built in 86"
>Paint is fucked and seller is trying to use it as a selling point.
>Car has clearly been kept outdoors in WA most of it's life
>>14714826
OP is this your car?
https://bellingham.craigslist.org/cto/5507913272.html
>>14721700
If you really think I'm even mildly concerned about the paint then I'm not sure what to tell you friendo. If anything I could knock the price down a peg or two because of it.
The bi-plane is iconic and is shared by the Ford Cosworth cars, pretty cool if you ask me but to each his own I suppose.
>>14721741
Hahah no. I saw that the other week, I actually look for decent Probes day by day just in case there's a fuckin' sweet '89 PGT.
Pic related, my automobile.
