Search results

Welcome! ?

One of the first mods I did on my Mustang was adding some underbody rails that bolted over the jacking hardpoints. These have been super helpful because I can jack one whole side of the car up at once to swap wheels, instead of having to do it four times on four different hardpoints. I'm...

My Ranger has this "feature" and I don't really see the problem. There is already storage under the seats - they really just hide the emergency jack and fuel filler back there.

Probably, the weight difference is minimal. I probably would not go above 33s on the 2.3 though, without at least reading up some more. Four door Ranger handles 32" well but I don't know for sure how it would do with bigger wheels. Ground clearance on the non-squatched Black Diamond is fine for...

2 door, probably Black Diamond. We will still have the Ranger so this is just going to be a fun daily driver for me.

MT is much easier to service. You'll have tons of aftermarket clutch / flywheel options. Ford / GM's 10 speed auto transmission is pretty ubiquitous for the time being but much more complicated and more of a black box. Long term the manual will be easier and cheaper to service, and likely able...

I just installed a catch can on my 2.3L Ranger this weekend. You do not want to ever touch this again. Yes, it was a 5 minute hose swap on the Mustang, but for the 2.3L you have to take off the driver's side wheel, unbolt an engine access panel, disconnect an electrical harness and unclip a...

2.3L manual, no question. The difference stock-for-stock against the 2.7L can be mostly covered with a tune, and having previously owned a tuned VW GTI with a manual transmission, it was a riot to drive. Ford underrates these engines to allow for 87 octane fuel and there's a ton of headroom to...

It’s an extra .4L of displacement. Not insignificant but not game-changing either. I’m sure if you rode in a 2.3L you would perceive similar but slightly less exciting results. Frankly I miss having a turbocharger in my daily driver. The Mustang is super powerful but you have to wring it out to...

They don’t get hot enough to start a fire, there are shops that do this. It’s a common mod along with stuff like remote starts or dashcams. I couldn’t imagine they’d care whether it was a front or rear seat.

That's like an Audi level luxury feature, but something you could add aftermarket. You could control it from the front with your hero switch panel, and for extra lulz turn it on in the summer.

I have the 2.3L in my Ranger, there are a few issues here: 1. HP / Torque curves always have peaks in any gas engine (naturally aspirated or turbocharged/supercharged). The peaks are not ever near the bottom of the RPM curve. 2. This is especially true for a turbocharged 4 cylinder (and even 6...

Don’t worry, the Bronco will still give you plenty of creative ways to get that Darwin Award :p

I watched Ben Shapiro videos. Nothing I wrote even has anything to do with the name. Chevrolet could have called it the 2020 Lost Hope and it would still be an abomination.

There is much more wrong with the Blazer than the name. Look at how they ape the frontend design of the Camaro for the higher Blazer trims. This is a crime against nature. First of all, everyone knows the Camaro has an ugly face. Making it bigger and taller does not make it less ugly; quite the...

Womp womp

I feel like a lot of the anecdotes in this thread are from people who have never driven turbo’ed vehicles. I got stupid horsepower and torque in a 2.0L VW GTI with simple bolt-ons and a tune. That car would give my current Mustang GT a run for its money to 60mph, and the extra displacement in...

Yet. But that Lux package is looking pretty spendy...

That gif ends too early

You’re going to want premium fuel either way. Any turbo-ed engine will appreciate the higher grade fuel (especially with Ford’s OEM tunes that adjust timings and increase horsepower based on knock). But _especially_ the 2.3L you’ll want 91 or ideally 93 octane to mitigate carbon buildup. I have...