its in the n.a.d.a. for classic, collectible, and special interest
cars.
someone please shed some light on this...
jdawg
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "Sandy Block" <cigarsandy@c...>
wrote:
> W-O-W - THAT IS interesting!!! Where'd you ever find THAT info????
> I have no clue as to the answer!!!
> I don't think it had anything to do with the ascMcLaren end of
> things, my hunch is the Ford end of things! But.....WHAT ??
>
> S A N D Y
>
>
>
>
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "ecstacycustomz"
> <ecstacycustomz@y...> wrote:
> > weights of all years
> >
> > 1984 coupe--3063, 84 rag--3124, 85 coupe--3113, 85 rag--3165, 86
> > coupe--3189, 86 rag--3269, 87-3214, 88--3341, 89--3333, 90--3327
> > thats 127lbs difference from 87 to 88. seems very odd to me..
> these
> > weights are non option weight. but less thatn 20lbs difference
for
> > all other year mustang asc's.. so i guess my original question
> > should have been why did the 87 weight so much less? there was
104
> > lbs difference from 85 to 86, this was probably due to the
addition
> > of the fuel injection and other engine changes in the capri.
but
> im
> > still baffled by the stang numbers.... anyone anyone
> > jdawg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "Sandy Block"
<cigarsandy@c...>
> > wrote:
> > > I don't know that it is. I have never seen any weight figures
> > > released from ASCMcLaren on the weights between the years, but
it
> > > would seem that they'd all be within say 20 pounds of each
> other.
> > > I'd say that the Recaro Seat Option in 1987/1988 might be good
> for
> > an
> > > additional 10 pounds (5 per side); but other than that, I
> > personally
> > > don't know of any reason. What did you find out???
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
--- In ascmclaren@yahoogroups.com, "ecstacycustomz"
> > > <ecstacycustomz@y...> wrote:
> > > > ok who can answer this....
> > > > why is the 88 asc heavier than any other year asc? coming
in
> at
> > > > 3341 lbs?????
> > > > jdawg
|