Caddywumpus
4N631
Rx7 ls swap.
Sigh the c5 does look good
Sigh the c5 does look good
Last edited:
I remember reading that article when I was a teenager! Thought that was the coolest car ever!IIRC, windshields with tempered glass can be custom made.
In the late '70s someone built a custom VW Golf chassis which used Porsche 928 running gear. That car had to made 9" wider that a standard VW Golf. Check out the HP and 0-60 numbers in the R&T article for some back-in-the-day perspective.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/news/a24826/super-rabbit/
http://www.speedhunters.com/2011/10/car_spotlight_gt_gt_a_wolf_in_rabbit_s_clothing/
LS swap it!
LS in the front. Transaxle in the back. Pop up headlights.
So why not just get a C5 then?
i'd do it in a heartbeat if the porsche engine shit the bed. unusual as they are to see these days the 928 isn't a rare car and porsche fanbois crying is funny (and they all hate the 928 anyway since the engine is in the wrong end)
http://www.renegadehybrids.com/928/928.html
ain't no corvette never gonna have that 70s german ass which is the worst, but also best, angle of the 928
also you don't have to buy any jorts to own a 928, just some white sneakers
i'll get one eventually but it'll be a 3 pedal variant.
Do they use a different method these days to measure HP?230 HP from a stock 928. Kinda underwhelming these old school super cars. I suspect modern minivans come with more output.
Thoughts and prayers.
Do they use a different method these days to measure HP?
I had a 5.0 Mustang I bought new in 1988. That sucker was FAST.
I have driven many newer cars that were rated with much more HP but would not hold a candle to that 5.0 (rated at 225 HP I believe).
Infact, the wife's Ford Escape is rated at 250 HP and it has nowhere near the acceleration .
The 5.0 would pin you in your seat. Loved giving friends a ride in that car.
DT
I’ve wondered about that also and because of the 5.0 Mustang. Knew a guy in HS with one and that thing hauled ass like nothing else I’ve driven. It was rated at something like 220 HP.
Do they use a different method these days to measure HP?
I had a 5.0 Mustang I bought new in 1988. That sucker was FAST.
I have driven many newer cars that were rated with much more HP but would not hold a candle to that 5.0 (rated at 225 HP I believe).
Infact, the wife's Ford Escape is rated at 250 HP and it has nowhere near the acceleration .
The 5.0 would pin you in your seat. Loved giving friends a ride in that car.
DT
I’ve wondered about that also and because of the 5.0 Mustang. Knew a guy in HS with one and that thing hauled ass like nothing else I’ve driven. It was rated at something like 220 HP.
Modern cars are heavier, no?
I had a 5.0 Mustang I bought new in 1988. That sucker was FAST.
... the 5.0 Mustang. Knew a guy in HS with one and that thing hauled ass like nothing else I’ve driven.
... this may be a case of 'the older I get, the faster I was.
Do they use a different method these days to measure HP?
I had a 5.0 Mustang I bought new in 1988. That sucker was FAST.
I have driven many newer cars that were rated with much more HP but would not hold a candle to that 5.0 (rated at 225 HP I believe).
Infact, the wife's Ford Escape is rated at 250 HP and it has nowhere near the acceleration .
The 5.0 would pin you in your seat. Loved giving friends a ride in that car.
DT
I’ve wondered about that also and because of the 5.0 Mustang. Knew a guy in HS with one and that thing hauled ass like nothing else I’ve driven. It was rated at something like 220 HP.