Wow, still on the debate here. Hehe, well The Law is correct about the 2.3L being the most modified engine out there. If you look really hard, can find places that have pushed them to 1,000hp so it may look like some kind of weak little 4-cylinder but its one that will stomp all over a lot of V8 (actually proven many times). And yes the Zetec 2.0L engine is a heck of an engine too, but I'd bet a million dollars that you could build that engine up all you want and its still going to lose to a 2.3L DOHC tall block when a built properly. Granter I don't think they've made a tall block for it yet but I'm sure its bound to come out and when it does...look out race world. Oh yeah, almost forgot, I know its not a Ford or even 4 banger, but got a buddy here that taking a Toyota 3.4L supercharged, he's ripping it apart totally and completely redoing it with all the best parts he can find to see how much hp he can build and how fast can go. Will let ya guys know more about it when I find out more...until then, have a great day and remember, if ya aint redlinin...you haven't begun.

 

I think Syzle pretty much summed it up with this (though someone misquoted him and thought he said 100hp stock)

>>>no domestic 4 cylinder can achieve 100 hp/liter stock

That is 100hp PER LITER meaning a 2.0 would be 200hp and a 2.3 would be 230hp etc...

The Quad four was a very efficient non-turbo motor. 2.5L and 150+ hp and no true trickery, just good head work etc...

They could be easily made to make 250hp with some aftermarket mods etc... still one thing is true.

If you had a car with 200,000 miles on it and had to make a 5 day trip across the US - would you want it to be a Honda Civic or a Ford Ranger? LOL Just kidding here, but Honda's are known to be high mile vehicles.

On the other hand, if could afford to, I'd burn my 2.9 Ford Bronco on the front lawn of the Blue Oval offices.

I like the truck, the handling and everything else - but whats up with popcorn heads? That gets expensive!

MP

 

I agree with Mikeeep, I'd rather sit in a Ranger for a 5-day trip. Everything else equal, the Ranger's seat is more comfortable.:P

"Honda's are high mileage vehicles, Hondas are sooo reliable." I know many people will agree with this statement; I hear it often enough. This may be very well true, but I work on empiracle evidence. What I have seen is numerous Ford and yes, even GM vehicles from the 70's and 80's still happily driving around in excellent condition. My last car was a 1982 Cadillac Fleetwood. It survived until 2001, and it was from that "terrible" era for American cars, the 80's. When's the last time you saw a 19 year old Honda that still ran, let alone one from the 70's. People still race Pintos, not one of Fords most popular, but still with its flair. Who would actually dream of racing a Civic? Well many yes, but one as old as a Pinto? I think not.

Okay, I admit I might be a little biased. But that's what this topic is about really. In fact both makes have their value. I just thought I'd bring up this argument because it is not often considered. And, I have seen numerous times people choose Hondas for no other reason than, its reliable. (Usually these people are of the type that only buy new cars and keep them for only a few years. Any make that survives in the current market is going to be reliable for that long at least.)

 

>I agree with Mikeeep, I'd rather sit in a Ranger for a 5-day
>trip. Everything else equal, the Ranger's seat is more
>comfortable.:P
>
>"Honda's are high mileage vehicles, Hondas are sooo
>reliable." I know many people will agree with this
>statement; I hear it often enough. This may be very well
>true, but I work on empiracle evidence. What I have seen is
>numerous Ford and yes, even GM vehicles from the 70's and
>80's still happily driving around in excellent condition.
>My last car was a 1982 Cadillac Fleetwood. It survived
>until 2001, and it was from that "terrible" era for American
>cars, the 80's. When's the last time you saw a 19 year old
>Honda that still ran, let alone one from the 70's. People
>still race Pintos, not one of Fords most popular, but still
>with its flair. Who would actually dream of racing a Civic?
> Well many yes, but one as old as a Pinto? I think not.
>
>Okay, I admit I might be a little biased. But that's what
>this topic is about really. In fact both makes have their
>value. I just thought I'd bring up this argument because it
>is not often considered. And, I have seen numerous times
>people choose Hondas for no other reason than, its reliable.
> (Usually these people are of the type that only buy new
>cars and keep them for only a few years. Any make that
>survives in the current market is going to be reliable for
>that long at least.)


The old civics (pre 1988) have solid axle's and IF your REALLY good these cars go very fast as they are very unsafe. They weigh in at 1500lbs or so and if you drop in a turbo'd crvtec (b20 bottom end, b18c heads) built properly...well you understand.

And I contest the comfort issue. My integra seats are much more comfy then ranger seats. Black Leather...ahh the smell and my head rested nicely on the head rest and I am 6'3. Ahh How I love that car.


Now on the other hand if you asked me If I'd prefer to sit in a F150 Lariat ;-) Well. I can tell you right now then F150 Lariat (or f250 ) then I'd say I enjoy the extra room.


I still dont believe its a matter of one being better then the other. I think tis just a matter of preference. And whats available at the time of the purchase.


Now even if you have XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX$ it's still just a matter of what suits your taste.

With good care and good mainetance either will last a long time.

Good day

 

"Anyway,

Is everyone in this club old or are their people my age in here as well?"



well chado if it means anything im 17 and i know how ya feel when it comes to cash flow probs.
as far my pref. well cars i prefer a honda. partly for the looks and partly because the past two we had in the family had ove 200k miles and ran like new where as my b2 has 80k and dont rund my tempo has 130k and no trans. i think the engines from ford are better for work and offroad play because of the torque issue but i think hondas are better for the long trips or just to drive around in. short and simply ford is a multi purpose company and honda is a mild performance road only (for the most part) company. so it really depends on what its used for. my 2.3 tempo had 185 horses when she quit and all i did was a few free mods. like open up the exhaust and air intake. clean some sensors and hop up the ignition coil. well swapped it out from a nissan. involved a lot of wire work but it gave an impressive boost. btw does anyone have a link for 2.3 aftermarket parts? id love to do some modding to that thing if i can ever get the tranny done right or swapped for a 5spd.