THANK YOU

I love Skylines.  I really, really, really freakin' love Skylines.  There is no car I would buy with any amount of money under $350,000 other than an R32 Skyline GT-R.  So when I first heard about and saw pictures of the RB-powered Mustang to be featured in the next F&F movie, I was mortified that I had to be the one to swoop in on so many arguments, online and offline, to lambast it.  The very thought of using a small-displacement inline-6 with a big honkin' iron-block rather than a larger-displacement V8 that could be smaller, lighter, and just as powerful without even needing turbos: it truly borders on hilarity.  Well, sure enough, I eventually got so heated in these discussions that I started thinking, "chill out, man... it can't possibly be as bad as that, can it?"

Then I pick up this month's issue and flip to page 85 for the dyno chart of this clown car:  340 hp, and torque that can't even stand up to my lightly modified 1995 Nissan Maxima until about halfway through the rev range.

I *love* being right.  

well, just remember this. Movie cars rarely make all their power because they have been beaten to death. When SCC did the cars from the first (or was it the second?) both the skyline and the RX7 they tested were badly wounded.

I will have to pick up the mag tomorrow  

They do that to make the car look bad. There is nothing wrong with the mustang. I [censored] hate fast and furious. they could lick my balls. i love cars with a passion no [censored] stupid ass fast and the furious gonna change that.  

Well, my point is that they could EASILY have made far more power than that with a real muscle car engine, and the swap would have been easier.  Even an LS1 swap would have been easier than that RB transplant.  Plus, they would have had much more torque and a flat, broad torque curve instead of that peaky BS that they're getting with the RB, which would have been FAR better for drifting.  They would have had to put a lot more effort into that RB to make it as good as a muscle car engine for drifting, and the fact that they didn't means that the ONLY REASON for using the RB was for show.  

"Then I pick up this month's issue and flip to page 85 for the dyno chart of this clown car: 340 hp, and torque that can't even stand up to my lightly modified 1995 Nissan Maxima until about halfway through the rev range."

Only a novice would say this.  Sometimes its not all about horse power.  Sometimes more is less.  Do not be obsessed about numbers or size.  

True but he does have a point.  Putting that RB into the Mustang had to be for show.  Its just way to stupid to sit there and custom fabricate almost everything just to make the RB fit let alone work right.  A V8 would have been easier AND better for performance.  As for the power, your right but the Mustang needs some good power.  Its just way to heavy to NOT have that V8 in there.  

Quote:

---

True but he does have a point.  Putting that RB into the Mustang had to be for show.  Its just way to stupid to sit there and custom fabricate almost everything just to make the RB fit let alone work right.  A V8 would have been easier AND better for performance.  As for the power, your right but the Mustang needs some good power.  Its just way to heavy to NOT have that V8 in there.

---

You dont need much more than that to drift a mustang, so why bother with the espense and upkeep?