Last WS6

Thats doable with a 2.0-2.1 60ft time.

djlynch

A few comments:

When I ran the quarter with my BONE stock (except minus the air silencer and spare tire and timing at 14), full weight GT and ran a 14.6 in gulfport MS. The car had 245/45 16 goodyear eagle ZRs.

My best friend had a BONE stock LX hatchback (without the air silencer and spare tire and timing at 14) and ran an 8.50s in the 8th here in Mobile (no 1/4 mile track).

This is the truth. If you dump the clutch in a 5.0, you sit there and watch the tires go up in flames. You have to take it easy. You ease off the clutch leaving the line then lay into it.


Exactly my point. I never said the 5.0 would beat the times of the Z in the quarter.



Right now, the only of those I have is an intake (edelbrock performer rpm) with a 70mm Throttle body, 24lb injectors, 77mm mass air meter, K&N, 3.73 gears, Tremec Transmission w/pro 5.0 shifter, Full length hedders and HPipe/flowmasters) and short belt (bypassing the smog equip.) and the car will beat stock M3s (2002), and stock Vettes (new body style), which are both low 13 second cars. No blower/ turbo/ bench racing/whatever.


Remember that just because its RATED with more doesn't mean it HAS more. The mustang was rated at 225 hp, 215 ft lbs. The 99 accord was rated with what, like 250 hp or something (I don't know, I just remember a friend was going to "smoke me" with his stock v6 accord). How many times you seen an STOCK accord beat a STOCK mustang gt???

Look, I didn't say this to start a debate, I was just saying my personal experience with both cars. If you don't believe me, go out and play with one and find out for yourself. Maybe I'm wrong.

CrazyBosnian

QUOTE/
Right now, the only of those I have is an intake (edelbrock performer rpm) with a 70mm Throttle body, 24lb injectors, 77mm mass air meter, K&N, 3.73 gears, Tremec Transmission w/pro 5.0 shifter, Full length hedders and HPipe/flowmasters) and short belt (bypassing the smog equip.) and the car will beat stock M3s (2002), and stock Vettes (new body style), which are both low 13 second cars. No blower/ turbo/ bench racing/whatever. /QUOTE


You need to get with my friend with his 89 5.0, and nock some sense into his dumb head. Supposedly his car is bored to a 306 with heads cam, he's got headers intake, yada yada, and also gears (he doesnt think he has gears but tops out at 110 in fouth gear) but anyways this car dynoed at 235 rwhp and run a 14.1 at like 100 mph. Obviously he got ripped off when he bought it, cause i know it doesnt have all these things, but he still thinks it does...Anyways, it would be cool if you go to the track with us one of these days (SD maybe) and teach this kid osme things...

Oh and as for M3s and Vettes, maybe in the 1/8 u can take em, but after that you are owned: you trap 102 and they trap 106+...

lyonsd

That's why my timeslips says - believe it or not.

Here are my nine runs that day:

60' 2.174
330' 5.924
660' 8.952@81.64
1000' 11.557
1320' 13.763@102.38
Comment: Spun tires off line

60' 2.127
330' 5.838
660' 8.842@82.27
1000' 11.514
1320' 13.817@98.08
Comment: missed 4th gear

60' 2.340
330' 6.475
660' 9.576@80.25
1000' 12.245
1320' 14.865@79.03
Comment: Spun tires off line and through 2nd gear; gave up

60' 2.048
330' 5.716
660' 8.725@82.04
1000' 11.322
1320' 13.528@101.41
Comment: lifted throttle too early before end of ¼-mile; granny shifted

60' 1.960
330' 5.592
660' 8.598@82.01
1000' 11.193
1320' 13.396@102.59
Comment: granny shifted

60' 2.118
330' 5.767
660' 8.783@81.76
1000' 11.446
1320' 13.752@98.46
Comment: missed 4th gear

60' 2.017
330' 5.644
660' 8.649@81.94
1000' 11.300
1320' 13.594@99.00
Comment: missed 4th gear

60' 2.111
330' 5.760
660' 8.761@82.20
1000' 11.419
1320' 13.697@99.75
Comment: missed 4th gear

60' 2.191
330' 5.874
660' 8.891@81.80
1000' 11.653
1320' 14.425@77.66
Comment: hit 2nd gear instead of 4th

I thought the reason I was missing forth was because I was pulling the shifter too far right. So on the last run I put an extra left force on it and hit second. I guess I found out the hard way that I was pulling too hard left the entire time.

Is it a 5-speed? What mods? Has he checked the basics: timing? Plugs, wires, etc...? Fuel pump & filter? What rear gears? What 60' times?

Fuel pumps tend to wear out on these and affect performance. It happened to me a couple of times. Now I'm running an Aeromotive pump.

Mine has an intake from a '93 Cobra, Hedman long tube headers and Bassani exhaust, stock heads fitted with slightly bigger valves (1.85 and 1.54), and a huge cam. The cam is really mismatched to the combo and may be hurting my overall performance. If the cam was any bigger I'd have to get the pistons nothced. It's just too much for stock heads and intake (or Cobra intake which isn't much different than stock). It was supposed to be installed 4-degrees advanced but the piston to valve clearance was too tight so it was installed straight up. Underdrive pulleys (which have since been removed - charging problems). 3.73 rear gears. Aluminum driveshaft.

lyonsd

Combo combo combo! (Sure you've heard that before, but I have to wonder if your friend has)

Like in my case - it's a mismatched combo; the cam is too big.

Sounds to me llike he should have compression and leak-down tests performed. With all those (alleged) mods, he should be in the 12s; heck, I'm almost in the 12s with stock heads and a mis-matched cam.

I utterly smoked an 2002 E46 M3 convertible in September. Not in my Mustang, but in my '87 GN. I blew him away off the line and kept pulling away. At the end I had at least 8 car lengths on him.

lyonsd

Actually, '87-'92 5.0s were rated as follows:

Horsepower: 225@4000-4400
Foot-pounds: 300@2800-3200

RPM depends on which source you check.

In '93 they dropped those ratings to 205 hp and 285 ft-lbs. Some say it was to make the upcoming SN95 look more powerful. Some say it was due to the cummulative effect of a number of minor changes over the years. Some say it was a change in the way Ford measured their engines.

sukkoi19

Yeah I would say they did to make the SN95s more powerful. My 95 dynoed 204 hp and 281 tq to the wheels when it was stock. And crazybosnian I would say it is probably a combination of state of tune and combo. He might need a chip also. I havent tuned my Mustang with a chip, and boy does it suffer wont idle cold starts..... well haha. I like your name, a good friend of mine was from Bosnia and let me tell you he was definatly crazy. Man he could drink to. I remember he took me out on my 21 birthday well I remember some and that man drunk me under the table. Ahhh good times, but yeah, I figure some tuning and your buddys car should run pretty good.

CrazyBosnian

haha yes bosnians can drink and are crazy ...Anyways, my friends car has been dyno tuned...

pdtsyzygy

So a $27,000-$34,000 350Z can beat a $20,000-$25,000 Mustang? Is that something to really get excited about? Wouldn't it be more fair to allow the Mustang to have $5,000 in bolt-ons? Or to race a Cobra?

BriGuyMax

iTrader: (4)

No, because both cars are STOCK from the factory, and thus being compared as such. In your logic I could buy a $30,000 Z and compare it to a Corvette Z06 that costs $50,000, allowing me to put 20 GRAND into the Z to make it "fair". I'm sure if I put that much into the Z I'd be BEATING THE PANTS OFF ANY Z06.

Your one of those people that says "Why waste money on a Porsche, when you can drop a built B18 in a early 90s civic hatch, slap a big turbo on it, put some coilovers, SFCs and big brakes on it, and whoop the **** out of any stock Porsche."

ainfante19

what you guys must understand is that a Mustang, Camaro, and TransAm are "Muscle cars". They were not designed to be raced on the highway or from a roll, they are point and go machines... They were designed to run a strait line "1/4 mile." There gear ratio's are setup for the 1/4, just like every other muscle car, nor were they designed to have great handling, because you dont need great handling to run a strait line...

With bolt ons AMERICAN MUSCLE will always own...

Every year at Raceway Park, "Detroit Muscle vs. the World", WE OWN ALL!!! Every year, Since its been around...

BriGuyMax

iTrader: (4)

cough cough...what about the 9 second supras and RX-7s...I don't see many Mustangs or F-bodies hitting the 9 sec mark with stock blocks....

Titan Motorsports ran a supra 9.00@160...stock block, stock 6-speed trans, stock rear end....they even did it on drag radials...not slicks. I'd like to see a stang or f-body do that.

ainfante19

Your lookin in the wrong places Keep your chin up!!!

BriGuyMax

iTrader: (4)

LSs1Power

I think F-bodies are in the low 8's at 150+ now. Mustangs did go 7's though.

Last WS6

http://agostino-racing.com/matt/ARE897.mpg

There ya go buddy.

BriGuyMax

iTrader: (4)

on stock blocks???? Right

BriGuyMax

iTrader: (4)

wow..you sure showed me....an f-body that didn't sound like an LS1 first off...second off had slicks, third was probably either a pro-shift trans or a drag 2-speed auto, third it may have run 3 ONE HUNDRETHS quicker than the supra I mentioned..but the supra trapped 6mph HIGHER....and was on drag radials.

I said show me an f-body or stang with a STOCK block, STOCK trans, STOCK rear-end, and DRAG RADIALS that either runs quicker than 9 flat or traps higher than 160 and I'll shut the f up right now.

CrazyBosnian

Show me a supra that will do that N/A without running mad amounths of boost, oh wait there isnt one, come to think of it there isnt a single import...

pdtsyzygy

I would suggest before you start defining people's character to them, you at least do the most basic homework and read their other posts. Might save you some embarassment the next time you tell a Porsche owner that he's the type of person who thinks a Porsche is a waste of money.