whyd ford leave empty room??
 

i cant help but keep wondering everytime i look under the hood of my GT, why i have so much empty room at the front...did they just want a long car? were they making it easy for enthusiasts to add aftermarket parts like superchargers with ease? does it serve as some factor in making it easier to work on the engine? or was ford just on crack and didnt use up all my space! lol...granted the 5.7L in the camaros makes spark plug changing a 2 hour + problem (dayum theyre buried)....so is this the case? it just seems so damn empty!

well i dont know about that, but when i attempted to put my x pipe on , there aint no room in the rear, one of the sensors near the exh manifold's, had the wire's twisted where they screwed it in , while it was hooked up, i dread trying to get the front 2 out. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes:

IMO, there isn't enough room in the newer stangs. I look at my motor and it's just enough room to work with. Then I look at the new ones and it makes my motor look like a 4 cyl, even though my motor is bigger :D

Next time you get to thinking there's a lot of extra room under the hood. look for a spot to mount an MSD box.

I had to mount mine in the passenger side floorboard on the transmission tunnel.

Crumple zone. I think that is why they left the front end out there. Was there as much room in the front of the '95? Could be they didn't want to shorten the cars with the mod motor.

The closer the engine is to the rear end, the better. There is less front to rear sway, and quicker throttle response.

does that apply to rear-engine vehicles too?

and crumple room was my best guess..

You bet! Why do you think the fastest cars are rear engine? It adds stability, too. Try racing a bone stock VW bug (old style) on the beach, and I don't mean Daytona.

Take care,
~Chris

daytona beach? are you making fun of me? rofl....:eek::p:p...so why dont they build more rear engine cars? i it so when you smack headon into another car, etc. that theres at least this bunch of metal and such between you and what you hit?...wonder if there was ever a concept rearengine stang...thatd be cool...:)

wasn't the gt-40 a rear engine car?? i know i could be way the hell off on this one.

Yes, it was. So was the Pantera.

Take care,
~Chris

I though rear engine was on or behind the rear axle, and mid engine was just in front of the rear axle. I thought that the Panteras and GT40's were more of a mid-engine type whereas Porsches and VW's were rear engine.

I've heard handling wise a rear engine vehicle is very prone to understeer and are easy to swing around in drift situations because of the inertia of the engine, whereas mid engine provides more balance for cornering, with the weight over rear axle advantages of a rear engine car. Although both have traction advantages over front engine, rear drive cars.

Maybe i'm just bringing up a pointless argument

Yes, you are correct. I was just speaking in general, versus a front engine vehicle.

Take care,
~Chris

.......ok, don't mind me chris :p