Recent content by Aetos

(b'.)=O(x.x)

Guess you couldn't handle the power. :evil:

(b'.)=O(x.x)

（╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

is mad that ascii doesn't work on status updates.

I really don't think that's the problem though. At 60 he's 2-3mph off, I highly doubt that would account for that large of a drop(70miles down from 140) And at lower speeds, the difference isn't as large.

Stick with 87, it's recommended by Ford for a reason.(you're not tuned for higher octane, so you're just wasting your money)

huh? :confused: Anyway: From the article that is linked to: "It’s the natural flow of these things, so we’ll go along with it. UK auto news outlet Auto Express has drafted up renderings of what they think the 2014-2015 Mustang will look like. Like most of the renderings and photo-shops...

Re: Bear Mountain Car Show - *Ongoing Thread* Might head up there with Nick.

I still think you should supercharge it then worry about building the motor down the line.

Really hope he has built internals with that...

Do you really have a Shelby emblem on your GT? :nono: What does that GTO have? :D

This seems like the best way to go, but before you build the engine for more boost, make sure you build up the rest of the car to not break/actually be usable. Don't ignore the transmission, suspension, rear end(not really sure if this applies to the 8.8" rears), etc. It's not all about power...

I don't even know if getting that much power out of an NA 2v is possible, if it is, I doubt it will be in anyway streetable. Hell, the LS1 motors need a whole head/cam setup to hit 450rwhp and they're a lot better for NA setups than the 2v are Just look a couple of threads down at this...

How is getting a 302 or a windsor going to "shut all those 2v haters up"? Aren't you sort of supporting their view point if you remove the 2v from your car? :confused: