Killed a 2002 Mustang GT Manual
03-27-2003, 10:48 AM
#21
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by M Powered
Yea I think 4-5 cars is A LOT; especially if you both were starting out at 10mph roll. For you to put that much distance on a new GT Mustang would take a lot more power than what you are putting down now, I guarantee that!
I know Mustang GT's stock are dogs but they are not that slow.
I put about 4-5 cars on a slightly modded GT from a dead stop and I can put about a little over 2 1/2 cars on a 350Z. That is from a stop, from a roll, give and take a car or so.
Yea I think 4-5 cars is A LOT; especially if you both were starting out at 10mph roll. For you to put that much distance on a new GT Mustang would take a lot more power than what you are putting down now, I guarantee that!
I know Mustang GT's stock are dogs but they are not that slow.
I put about 4-5 cars on a slightly modded GT from a dead stop and I can put about a little over 2 1/2 cars on a 350Z. That is from a stop, from a roll, give and take a car or so.
03-27-2003, 10:55 AM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Tweaked the Ecu & Killed a 2002 Mustang GT Manual
Originally posted by Oh4aZ
Well, obviously, that is a matter of opinion. Depends on where you do most of your racing
Well, obviously, that is a matter of opinion. Depends on where you do most of your racing
03-27-2003, 11:16 AM
#23
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tweaked the Ecu & Killed a 2002 Mustang GT Manual
Originally posted by AngelGT2000
Think it matters alot, if you're going to come online and start thread after thread of "350z's Vs GT's". I'll take a timeslip over your kill stories anytime.
Think it matters alot, if you're going to come online and start thread after thread of "350z's Vs GT's". I'll take a timeslip over your kill stories anytime.
He and I both belong to the same colorado street racing board and he even admitted that I walked all over him.
03-27-2003, 11:21 AM
#24
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is from 02YellowGT on Colorado Street Racing board:
It was cool meeting you guys last night. Hey, are you going to go to the test and tune on the 30th? I bet your car runs a high 13, very low 14.0x. I ran a 14.89 at PMI last year, the way you walked all over me you should be that good.
It was cool meeting you guys last night. Hey, are you going to go to the test and tune on the 30th? I bet your car runs a high 13, very low 14.0x. I ran a 14.89 at PMI last year, the way you walked all over me you should be that good.
03-27-2003, 01:50 PM
#26
Originally posted by hk350
sorrie i'm a newbie, but wat is the ECU?
sorrie i'm a newbie, but wat is the ECU?
Just kidding here is a link
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-computer.htm
this should help
Later
Aceman
03-27-2003, 03:29 PM
#27
Originally posted by krinkov
well if you mean just a regular GT, not a bullit or cobra, than this is about right on. Road and Track lists the 260hp GT as pulling a 14.7 sec 1/4mi. Figuring the drag rule of thumb that every tenth is a car legnth, a Z running 14.2 should be 5 legnths no sweat.
well if you mean just a regular GT, not a bullit or cobra, than this is about right on. Road and Track lists the 260hp GT as pulling a 14.7 sec 1/4mi. Figuring the drag rule of thumb that every tenth is a car legnth, a Z running 14.2 should be 5 legnths no sweat.
Originally posted by BriGuyMax
LS1 camaro = 290-305whp STOCK
Mustang GT = 220-230whp STOCK
not even REMOTELY close....
LS1 camaro = 290-305whp STOCK
Mustang GT = 220-230whp STOCK
not even REMOTELY close....
Originally posted by Oh4aZ
12 witnesses saw the same thing
12 witnesses saw the same thing
03-28-2003, 06:47 AM
#29
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jester
good kill
14.89 though....he ain't that good of a driver, is he?
good kill
14.89 though....he ain't that good of a driver, is he?
Last edited by Oh4aZ; 03-28-2003 at 07:08 AM.
03-28-2003, 08:39 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peachtree City GA
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Oh4aZ
Quite the contrary. At this elevation, that is a damn good time (for a stock Mustang GT).
Quite the contrary. At this elevation, that is a damn good time (for a stock Mustang GT).
03-29-2003, 12:35 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Tweaked the Ecu & Killed a 2002 Mustang GT Manual
Originally posted by Oh4aZ
The general rule of thumb is add .15 seconds for every 1,000 feet to your quarter mile time from the base sea level times.
The general rule of thumb is add .15 seconds for every 1,000 feet to your quarter mile time from the base sea level times.
03-30-2003, 11:39 PM
#32
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: Tweaked the Ecu & Killed a 2002 Mustang GT Manual
Originally posted by AngelGT2000
According to the NHRA it's actually .13 per 1000ft and in this case we would subtract to achieve his sea level times.
According to the NHRA it's actually .13 per 1000ft and in this case we would subtract to achieve his sea level times.
http://www.nhra.com/2002/sportsman/n...ry/021501.html
03-30-2003, 11:47 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: sohub
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i definately believe you beat the guy... but not by 5 lengths.. thats just too many...the track numbers are too comparable... either bad driving... or bad judgment?
either way good kill man. keep it up
either way good kill man. keep it up
03-30-2003, 11:59 PM
#34
Registered User
Guys! Mustang GTs ARE NOT that fast! 5 legnths is just .5 seconds, R&T has the Mustang GT here at 14.7sec http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....ber=5&preview=
We've all seen Magazine times for the Z down around 13.9-14.2, so whats the big disbelief!!!
We've all seen Magazine times for the Z down around 13.9-14.2, so whats the big disbelief!!!
03-31-2003, 12:13 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by krinkov
Guys! Mustang GTs ARE NOT that fast! 5 legnths is just .5 seconds, R&T has the Mustang GT here at 14.7sec http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....ber=5&preview=
We've all seen Magazine times for the Z down around 13.9-14.2, so whats the big disbelief!!!
Guys! Mustang GTs ARE NOT that fast! 5 legnths is just .5 seconds, R&T has the Mustang GT here at 14.7sec http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....ber=5&preview=
We've all seen Magazine times for the Z down around 13.9-14.2, so whats the big disbelief!!!
03-31-2003, 10:50 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: sohub
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by krinkov
Guys! Mustang GTs ARE NOT that fast! 5 legnths is just .5 seconds, R&T has the Mustang GT here at 14.7sec http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....ber=5&preview=
We've all seen Magazine times for the Z down around 13.9-14.2, so whats the big disbelief!!!
Guys! Mustang GTs ARE NOT that fast! 5 legnths is just .5 seconds, R&T has the Mustang GT here at 14.7sec http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....ber=5&preview=
We've all seen Magazine times for the Z down around 13.9-14.2, so whats the big disbelief!!!
1: mag racing is gay
2: its common knowledge that 99+ mustang gt's are capable of high 13's stock... this is not a rare occurance and is more common than not.... i still think the 350z is faster... but lets not blow things out of proportion
03-31-2003, 01:31 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Peachtree City GA
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by |T3|
its common knowledge that 99+ mustang gt's are capable of high 13's stock... this is not a rare occurance and is more common than not....
its common knowledge that 99+ mustang gt's are capable of high 13's stock... this is not a rare occurance and is more common than not....
I got into it one time trying to let people know this.... Watch it cause you're getting ready to open a can of worms with that statement....lol
thats funny