Sold the IROC-Z, now what??? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Sold the IROC-Z, now what???


hotrodtba
10-07-2005, 23:18
Well I got bored with my IROC-Z, so I sold it. Now I am looking for something different. Thinking about going Mustang this time. 94-98 GT 5-speed. Or a 94-97 LT1 car, Camaro or Firebird. Would like a 6-speed, but they go for a lot more than an automatic car. Looking to spend about $5000. Any input or ideas would be cool.

bac1023
10-08-2005, 07:25
Wow, that was quick! Did you have it a month?

I vote for the Mustang.;f

hotrodtba
10-08-2005, 11:41
Originally posted by bac1023
Wow, that was quick! Did you have it a month?

I vote for the Mustang.;f

Had it about two months. It was my 3rd IROC, so I got bored with it really fast.

I am leaning towards the Mustang GT too. I know the 94-98 were not that fast, but I love how they sound, and the aftermarket is huge for them. I think I am going to look for a 94 or 95, so I can get the 5.0 pushrod motor.

bac1023
10-08-2005, 13:03
Good luck in your search. There should be plenty of cars to choose from.

Asha'man
10-08-2005, 13:10
'94-'98 are sloooow when stock, especially the 4.6 cars. Do the basic 5.0 aftermarket on the '94-'95 and it should be fun, or a PI headswap and a blower on the '96-'98 and you oughta be set.

Brian

hotrodtba
10-08-2005, 13:24
Originally posted by Asha'man
'94-'98 are sloooow when stock, especially the 4.6 cars. Do the basic 5.0 aftermarket on the '94-'95 and it should be fun, or a PI headswap and a blower on the '96-'98 and you oughta be set.

Brian

Thats what I have heard. I have even heard the late 80's GT's were faster than the 94-95's, but I don't care for that body style.

Asha'man
10-08-2005, 18:48
Foxes are indeed faster than SN95s. They weigh less and were rated at 225fwhp rather than 215fwhp in the later cars. And how can you not like the Fox?!

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/9/web/513000-513999/513839_123_full.jpg

(Yeah, I'm pic whoring ;) )

Brian

hotrodtba
10-08-2005, 18:52
Originally posted by Asha'man
Foxes are indeed faster than SN95s. They weigh less and were rated at 225fwhp rather than 215fwhp in the later cars. And how can you not like the Fox?!

(Yeah, I'm pic whoring ;) )

Brian

I don't mind the look of the older ones, I just prefer the 94+ ones better. As far as the older ones go, I like the GT's better than the LX's, although yours does look pretty sharp.

PistolWhip
10-08-2005, 20:35
Add $10k to the amount you want to spend and you can have the monster in the link in my sig. 36k miles, 500+ RWHP, $18k in receipts and Ice cold A/C. What more could you ask for.;)

hotrodtba
10-08-2005, 20:39
Originally posted by PistolWhip
Add $10k to the amount you want to spend and you can have the monster in the link in my sig. 36k miles, 500+ RWHP, $18k in receipts and Ice cold A/C. What more could you ask for.;)

Nice car, but only in my dreams. ;Q

DaisyCutter
10-09-2005, 10:02
I bought a 95 Mustang GTS a couple months back. It's clean and looks nice, has 126,000 miles, and cost me $4150. It's a toy that I get to drive daily (instead of my less efficient 3/4 Ram Hemi). The Mustang has been getting 19.8 mpg so far.

It's no blazingly fast, but it sounds good and it's quicker than the average car.

The reason I chose this one it because the owner was original, 47 years old, and hadn't "modded" it.

All the Fox Mustangs that were for sale were pretty ratted out, had been modded by 3-4 clueless teenagers, minimum, and had A/C that wasn't originally designed to work with R-134a freon. I've heard of few long term success stories with converted A/C units, and I've always had bad luck with them myself.

Plus I really wanted the last 5.0 Mustang, Kinda like my bike is the last CR500 (2001).

Fast is relative, there is always somebody faster and always somebody slower. If it's fast enough to make your balls tingle, than that should be enough.

hotrodtba
10-16-2005, 14:31
Originally posted by DaisyCutter
I bought a 95 Mustang GTS a couple months back. It's clean and looks nice, has 126,000 miles, and cost me $4150. It's a toy that I get to drive daily (instead of my less efficient 3/4 Ram Hemi). The Mustang has been getting 19.8 mpg so far.

It's no blazingly fast, but it sounds good and it's quicker than the average car.

The reason I chose this one it because the owner was original, 47 years old, and hadn't "modded" it.

All the Fox Mustangs that were for sale were pretty ratted out, had been modded by 3-4 clueless teenagers, minimum, and had A/C that wasn't originally designed to work with R-134a freon. I've heard of few long term success stories with converted A/C units, and I've always had bad luck with them myself.

Plus I really wanted the last 5.0 Mustang, Kinda like my bike is the last CR500 (2001).

Fast is relative, there is always somebody faster and always somebody slower. If it's fast enough to make your balls tingle, than that should be enough.

I am looking for basically the same thing you bought. I found a 95 with 98,000 miles for $3400, but it needs repainted, and some other small stuff fixed. Have not made up my mind if I want it or not.

I also agree that most of the foxes I have seen are trashed.

epsylum
10-16-2005, 15:22
You sound like a muscle car guy, if that is tue, then I also vote for a mustang.

Personally I would get a second generation Supra turbo. I have wanted on of those since they were new.

BigC3031
10-16-2005, 15:46
camaros prices have jumped since the general dropped them. It pains me to say it but go with a fox body, just keep looking till you find a good one.

patience is a virtue.

Clem Eastwood
10-16-2005, 17:58
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/6/web/210000-210999/210649_7_full.jpg

my 94 6 speed hardtop.

stock it ran 13.80s@101 w/ a 2.2 60'

after pcm tuning, cold air kit, headers and catback it runs 13.30s@105 w/ a 2.1 60'. a 12 bolt rear end with 4.10s might put it in the 12s.

hotrodtba
10-16-2005, 18:08
Nice Car!!

I am torn because I want to try the Mustang, something different, but the mid 90's F-Body's look so good, especially the Trans Am's. And they are soo much faster than the Mustangs. I am really looking for a Trans Am, 6-speed, and t-tops. I may just save my money and keep looking for one.

Clem Eastwood
10-16-2005, 18:17
this is my first f body, but ive had 2 fox bodies. the mustangs are better 'hot rods' but the camaros are better 'road cars'. mine has subframe connectors and is so much more stiff then my mustangs with the same subframe connectors, its sick. if i were you id just go put the 5K down on a LS1 car and make payments. i love my lt1, i bought it for a daily driver. but my Z is a fast one, stock it went 101mph in the 1/4. most lt1s run 96-98mph. so....this LT1 has been a really good car. but it was a one woman owner car, so it hasnt been abused or wrecked. the optispark went out at 70K like they all do, and i put a DS window motor in it and a fuel pump. but its an 11 year old car, **** happens.

hotrodtba
10-16-2005, 20:10
Originally posted by Clem Eastwood
this is my first f body, but ive had 2 fox bodies. the mustangs are better 'hot rods' but the camaros are better 'road cars'. mine has subframe connectors and is so much more stiff then my mustangs with the same subframe connectors, its sick. if i were you id just go put the 5K down on a LS1 car and make payments. i love my lt1, i bought it for a daily driver when i still had my 93 mustang. i ended up selling my mustang. i got sick of them. but my Z is a fast one, stock it went 101mph in the 1/4. most lt1s run 96-98mph. so....this LT1 has been a really good car. but it was a one woman owner car, so it hasnt been abused or wrecked. the optispark went out at 70K like they all do, and i put a DS window motor in it and a fuel pump. but its an 11 year old car, **** happens.

Yea, that sounds like all common LT1 problems.

I have thought about saving my money over the winter and buying an LS1 car next year. They have been going relativly cheap lately.

Clem Eastwood
10-16-2005, 22:15
the fuel pump and window motors will go out in LS1s as well. the LS1 shortblocks (namely main and rod bearings, rod bolts) and valvetrain arent as durable as the lt1 in stock form. they both have their pros and cons.

bac1023
10-18-2005, 06:01
Originally posted by Clem Eastwood
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/6/web/210000-210999/210649_7_full.jpg

my 94 6 speed hardtop.

stock it ran 13.80s@101 w/ a 2.2 60'

after pcm tuning, cold air kit, headers and catback it runs 13.30s@105 w/ a 2.1 60'. a 12 bolt rear end with 4.10s might put it in the 12s.
Looks great.

hotrodtba
10-18-2005, 08:32
Well, I found this:

1996 Ford Mustang GT
Pacific Green
Tan cloth interior
124K miles
5-speed manual transmission
Mach 460 stereo (factory CD player does not work, but they are cheap on Ebay)
AC works great!

Modifications:
'95 Cobra R rims (17x9)
Lowering springs front and rear
Flowmaster catback exhaust
Underdrive pulleys
K&N air filter
Trailer hitch mount (good for a bike rack)

Recent maintenance:
New front brake rotors and rear rotors turned July 2004
New battery October 2004
New O2 sensors (fronts) October 2004
Alignment May 2005

http://home.insightbb.com/~dwarmuth/wsb/media/451501/site1021.jpg

I can get it for $4000. Only problem is, its about 4.5 hours away from me. It would have the 4.6L SOHC motor in it. Sound like a decent deal?

Asha'man
10-18-2005, 08:52
Sounds pretty decent, and looks clean. As soon as you get it, you MUST have good subframe connectors welded in. The Fox chassis is spaghetti without them.

:)

Brian

Clem Eastwood
10-18-2005, 13:48
those 96-98 SOHC cars are dogs. good cars, but dogs.

johnstrr
10-18-2005, 13:53
"Sold the IROC-Z, now what???"

Cut of the mullet ;-) j/k

hotrodtba
10-18-2005, 20:05
I found this locally:

1995 Mustang GT
5.0L V8
5-speed
67,000 miles
leather
3.55 gears(speedo corrected for them)
keyless entry
K&N Filter
cats removed
aftermarket exhaust of somesort, not sure what brand exactly. True dual exhaust.

The car is in mint cond. No rust at all, and the inside and outside look showroom new.

The only problems I found is it needs an alignment, and the SES comes on intermintently because the cats are removed and the 02 sensors get screwed up readings. Only comes on for a second or two, and then goes out. I have heard of this problem before.


Price=$5750

Let me know if you guys think that is a good deal or not.

Clem Eastwood
10-18-2005, 20:15
a 95 wont have the 'after cat' 02s. thats 96-up. something else is causing the check engine light. usually even bad 02s wont trip the check engine light on those cars.

hotrodtba
10-18-2005, 20:18
Originally posted by Clem Eastwood
a 95 wont have the 'after cat' 02s. thats 96-up. something else is causing the check engine light. usually even bad 02s wont trip the check engine light on those cars.

Thats what the guy told me. I don't much about Ford's, and since it still ran good, I assumed it could be true.

Any other ideas then.

coreseller
10-19-2005, 19:13
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/11/web/707000-707999/707478_2.jpg

For more specific questions regarding Mustangs your best bet is to go to corral.net or stangnet.net for answers. Hopefully the picture of my '01 Cobra went through. I also have an '04 GTO, the GM LS and LT series of v-8's have always been faster but the Mustangs are probably plenty fast enough for most of us who probably only get on them occassionally. Nothing like the sound of both the 5.0's and 4.6's:)

hotrodtba
10-19-2005, 19:26
Well, I bought the above mentioned '95 GT. I will try to get some pics taken tomorrow.

Clem Eastwood
10-19-2005, 23:19
Originally posted by hotrodtba
Well, I bought the above mentioned '95 GT. I will try to get some pics taken tomorrow.

i bet youll like that. those are good cars. i doubt it will cost much to fix the check engine light.

hotrodtba
10-20-2005, 18:15
See this thread for details and pics of the car.

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=448975

bac1023
10-21-2005, 13:51
Looks nice!