SoCalTerminators gone

[Brakelate]

Survey says; No

[Tetge]

Damn I miss that stupid site.

What about me?????

We missed you at the Willow Drags. You could have lost to me and Sonic and Mystic's vert. But, then again, you are not really a drag racer, so that would be expected. So, we miss you since everyone likes an easy kill.

Perhaps we can arrange another cruise to El Pescador in Fillmore one of these days? It would be nice to line up a bunch of Mustangs out in the parking lot, and the place does have a bar. As I recall, your racing specialty, after frequenting the bar sevices at the restaurant, is roll racing right toward oncoming CHP cruisers, and not lifting................

[SVTRonDogg]

Damn I miss that stupid site.

What about me?????

We missed you at the Willow Drags. You could have lost to me and Sonic and Mystic's vert. But, then again, you are not really a drag racer, so that would be expected. So, we miss you since everyone likes an easy kill.

Perhaps we can arrange another cruise to El Pescador in Fillmore one of these days? It would be nice to line up a bunch of Mustangs out in the parking lot, and the place does have a bar. As I recall, your racing specialty, after frequenting the bar sevices at the restaurant, is roll racing right toward oncoming CHP cruisers, and not lifting................

Sounds like a plan. Can we FedEx Jay down for the day?

[Tetge]

Jay could drive down, but, it is a 1400 mile round trip, minimum, which would mean 50% of a set of tires, or more, the way he drives, and at least 70 gallons of premium. Add up the need to stay in shady motels along the way and, it would be very costly for him. And then, he'd get bested in the inevitable street contests since Cali drivers are well known to be the best drivers. He'd be better off watching the weather and, if it cooperates, rolling down to Famoso, in February, to see if his car could crack into the 11's and trap more than 117 MPH. Famoso might be a shorter round trip, as well, but I could not verify this since where he now lives is not on any maps.

[jhwalker]

Jay could drive down, but, it is a 1400 mile round trip, minimum, which would mean 50% of a set of tires, or more, the way he drives, and at least 70 gallons of premium. Add up the need to stay in shady motels along the way and, it would be very costly for him. And then, he'd get bested in the inevitable street contests since Cali drivers are well known to be the best drivers. He'd be better off watching the weather and, if it cooperates, rolling down to Famoso, in February, to see if his car could crack into the 11's and trap more than 117 MPH. Famoso might be a shorter round trip, as well, but I could not verify this since where he now lives is not on any maps.

I will not contest any of the other stuff but Terri and I found his new house very easily... But I AM known as the pathfinder

[Brakelate]

Funny, I was just telling the wifey the other day, how I miss those wonderful Shrimp in that "Surf and Turf" platter with the free shots of home made hooch found only at ElPescador. It would be worth a run down there and back.

With the new skinnies on front, near new Nitto DR's out back and the clutch still somehow holding up, I bet I could get some decent MPG in this crisp, cool air if I could keep my foot at a constant cruise speed.

[03_SONIC_BLUR]

I bet I could get some decent MPG in this crisp, cool air if I could keep my foot at a constant cruise speed.

Did the Cruise Control stop working?

[Brakelate]

I wouldn't know if it ever did work in the first place. I never use it on any of my vehicles. Control freak thing, I suppose. I would prefer a "throttle lock" set up that kept a constant fuel rate of consumption, regardless of speed, rather than a "speed lock" design, which try and holds the same mph, come hell or high water.

A constant fuel burn rate would more simulate a natural state of things, as it would naturally slow on uphill pulls, and then run up to a higher speed on down hills or with tail winds.

But, I guess we don't get tickets for excessive fuel consumption, and do for excessive ( or inadequate) speeds.

I hate running along not knowing what load is being put on the motor. In the newer cars, I can use the "current mpg" dial, gauge or graph as sort of an indicator of how hard the motor is working at any time, but I hate it when on cruise control, vehicles go WOT, start banging crude downshifts, or both, just because they struggle between a program that has them attempting to get max mpg, while maintaining a given speed, at all costs.

Not sure if that makes sense. Long story short, I would rather just manually "lock" the throttle position with my foot and roll along.

[jhwalker]

I wouldn't know if it ever did work in the first place. I never use it on any of my vehicles. Control freak thing, I suppose. I would prefer a "throttle lock" set up that kept a constant fuel rate of consumption, regardless of speed, rather than a "speed lock" design, which try and holds the same mph, come hell or high water.

A constant fuel burn rate would more simulate a natural state of things, as it would naturally slow on uphill pulls, and then run up to a higher speed on down hills or with tail winds.

But, I guess we don't get tickets for excessive fuel consumption, and do for excessive ( or inadequate) speeds.

I hate running along not knowing what load is being put on the motor. In the newer cars, I can use the "current mpg" dial, gauge or graph as sort of an indicator of how hard the motor is working at any time, but I hate it when on cruise control, vehicles go WOT, start banging crude downshifts, or both, just because they struggle between a program that has them attempting to get max mpg, while maintaining a given speed, at all costs.

Not sure if that makes sense. Long story short, I would rather just manually "lock" the throttle position with my foot and roll along.

I made tons of runs from Bell Canyon to Needles in our 2004 Expedition towing the Correct Craft Ski Nautique packed with all of the "stuff" (skis, wakeboards, anchors, anchor poles, tents, blah blah). To entertain myself I would sometimes try for the highest possible mileage without dropping below 65 mph. I could always beat the cruise control (which I tried from time to time) by a minimum of 2 mpg and, as you mentioned, avoided the crazy downshifts on the steepest hills.

With the Porsche turbo, I started using cruise control to avoid the tickets that I picked up on the freeways around LA.

[Tetge]

The cruise control works faultlessly on the 5.0 which I attribute to the drive by wire and enhanced computer on the car. The old Termi was not as good by a long shot, especially with the Acufab TB and the 4.10's, as it would re-engage with a very loud thunk and jolt after coasting down any hill. Things banged so hard in the drive train, that I stopped using the cruise control. However, it works so well with the 5.0 that I use it all the time as it helps preclude speeding tickets. And, the car gets great mileage when using the cruise control as well. This is all part of the overall refined feel of the newer Mustang, which, actually, makes it boring to drive even if most of the performance of a Termi is there.