Mustang GT
05-05-2003, 10:38 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Mustang GT
I don't know what year but it was a nice looking black GT. I had my cruise control set at 85 and I went around him. He was only going about 70 at the time. Suddenly I see that he is on my butt. He pulls over to the right lane, I slow down to around 75 and drop it into 4th. I know the guy wants to run because of his actions but I can't see his face because he had dark tint. I wait until he takes off and I gun it and run it up until about 110 where I see that he has let off. I was suprised how far ahead I was just from 75-110.
I'm guessing he had an auto or GT's have some weird gearing that makes them slow at that speed. I honelstly thought I was going to get my *** handed to me at those speeds. Maybe some Mustang owners can tell me what happened.
I'm guessing he had an auto or GT's have some weird gearing that makes them slow at that speed. I honelstly thought I was going to get my *** handed to me at those speeds. Maybe some Mustang owners can tell me what happened.
05-05-2003, 02:09 PM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Buzz, you never said what generation Stang Gt. I'm pretty sure that the Z can take on any stock gt stang. old 90 gen. were running 215 bhp? and 235 lb/ft tq???(not sure). The new 03s are running 260bhp. From a roll, or line, we can pull them fairly easy. And plus, Ford Gearing on the Stang sucks a**. Z has better torque delivery because of close gear ratios. I'm sorry, but the stang trannys are just as bad as mitsubishi. I don't understand why Ford won't make their stangs run at higher compression, more power delivery. I mean come on, a 4.6 L making 260 bhp?/sure, 300 lb/ft tq is great, but it still won't beat a Z. Like GM, and ford, their v8s stay at low compression. they stay at the same compression and increase displacement. How inefficient of them. But i'm not complaining, i like the growl of a ls1 or ls6.
05-05-2003, 03:54 PM
#4
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Quad Cities
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle
Buzz, you never said what generation Stang Gt. I'm pretty sure that the Z can take on any stock gt stang. old 90 gen. were running 215 bhp? and 235 lb/ft tq???(not sure). The new 03s are running 260bhp. From a roll, or line, we can pull them fairly easy. And plus, Ford Gearing on the Stang sucks a**. Z has better torque delivery because of close gear ratios. I'm sorry, but the stang trannys are just as bad as mitsubishi. I don't understand why Ford won't make their stangs run at higher compression, more power delivery. I mean come on, a 4.6 L making 260 bhp?/sure, 300 lb/ft tq is great, but it still won't beat a Z.
Buzz, you never said what generation Stang Gt. I'm pretty sure that the Z can take on any stock gt stang. old 90 gen. were running 215 bhp? and 235 lb/ft tq???(not sure). The new 03s are running 260bhp. From a roll, or line, we can pull them fairly easy. And plus, Ford Gearing on the Stang sucks a**. Z has better torque delivery because of close gear ratios. I'm sorry, but the stang trannys are just as bad as mitsubishi. I don't understand why Ford won't make their stangs run at higher compression, more power delivery. I mean come on, a 4.6 L making 260 bhp?/sure, 300 lb/ft tq is great, but it still won't beat a Z.
96 GT 4.6L - 215hp
99 GT 4.6L - 260hp
I have no clue what your talking about in some aspects. The Z vs a DOHC 4.6L is a straight drivers race. They run pretty close to the same times.. some faster ...some slower.. The mid 90s wasn't pretty for the mustang.. more weight..same HP ratings. However the DOHC 4.6 changed that for them. I would say you have a 50/50 chance of beating a 99+ GT. They can, have, and will beat the Z. They can also lose...
Like GM, and ford, their v8s stay at low compression. they stay at the same compression and increase displacement. How inefficient of them. But i'm not complaining, i like the growl of a ls1 or ls6.
LT1 - 10.5:1
LS1 - 10.1:1
Z - 10.3:1 - 350Z
4.6L - 10.1:1 - Mach1 Spec...
4.6L - 9.85:1 - GT Spec
Thats not exactly low compression. Just wanted to let you in on another little secret... the LS1 has lower compression and LOWER displacement (346cid) than the LT1 (350cid) yet puts out upwards of 70hp MORE.
Hmm... I guess I just got lost in whatever the hell it was you were trying to say. Plus ... I would LOVE to have lower compression..(Im currently at 10.7:1
) .... boost friendly. Thats ultimately whats going to limit twin turboing the 350Z. Unless the compression is lowered. Lool at the Mustang those damn 4.6Ls love the boost.. no need to mention the 03 Cobra Im sure 
Last edited by S8ER95Z; 05-05-2003 at 03:58 PM.
05-05-2003, 07:35 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are you ok? Define low compression.. last I looked..
LT1 - 10.5:1
LS1 - 10.1:1
Z - 10.3:1 - 350Z
4.6L - 10.1:1 - Mach1 Spec...
4.6L - 9.85:1 - GT Spec
Wait, hold on a minute buddy. So you're saying that a 3.5 liter v6 that pumps out 287bhp is running lower compression than a 96 ford stang 4.6 v8 liter that is pumping out only 215bhp? The fact that the 96 4.6 liter stang is a higher displacement and lower horsepower proves that you are wrong. It's simple logic. Think about it, a big displacement(4.6L 215bhp) compared to a lower displacement(3.5L 287BHP!). And No, it is definitely not a 50/50 chance of a 99 gt + Vs. Z. Sure, if the Z is shifting at 3k when racing, the Stang will beat it. But i'm pretty sure that your "50/50" chance would be best suited for the Acura 3.2 Tl . Do you realize that the Z is significantly lighter with around 20 bhp more? That's at least 14 rwhp more coming from like a 300 lb lighter car. And i'm pretty sure that Ford trannys are still the same, crappy.
LT1 - 10.5:1
LS1 - 10.1:1
Z - 10.3:1 - 350Z
4.6L - 10.1:1 - Mach1 Spec...
4.6L - 9.85:1 - GT Spec
Wait, hold on a minute buddy. So you're saying that a 3.5 liter v6 that pumps out 287bhp is running lower compression than a 96 ford stang 4.6 v8 liter that is pumping out only 215bhp? The fact that the 96 4.6 liter stang is a higher displacement and lower horsepower proves that you are wrong. It's simple logic. Think about it, a big displacement(4.6L 215bhp) compared to a lower displacement(3.5L 287BHP!). And No, it is definitely not a 50/50 chance of a 99 gt + Vs. Z. Sure, if the Z is shifting at 3k when racing, the Stang will beat it. But i'm pretty sure that your "50/50" chance would be best suited for the Acura 3.2 Tl . Do you realize that the Z is significantly lighter with around 20 bhp more? That's at least 14 rwhp more coming from like a 300 lb lighter car. And i'm pretty sure that Ford trannys are still the same, crappy.
05-05-2003, 08:33 PM
#6
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Quad Cities
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle
Are you ok? Define low compression.. last I looked..
LT1 - 10.5:1
LS1 - 10.1:1
Z - 10.3:1 - 350Z
4.6L - 10.1:1 - Mach1 Spec...
4.6L - 9.85:1 - GT Spec
Wait, hold on a minute buddy. So you're saying that a 3.5 liter v6 that pumps out 287bhp is running lower compression than a 96 ford stang 4.6 v8 liter that is pumping out only 215bhp? The fact that the 96 4.6 liter stang is a higher displacement and lower horsepower proves that you are wrong. It's simple logic. Think about it, a big displacement(4.6L 215bhp) compared to a lower displacement(3.5L 287BHP!). And No, it is definitely not a 50/50 chance of a 99 gt + Vs. Z. Sure, if the Z is shifting at 3k when racing, the Stang will beat it. But i'm pretty sure that your "50/50" chance would be best suited for the Acura 3.2 Tl . Do you realize that the Z is significantly lighter with around 20 bhp more? That's at least 14 rwhp more coming from like a 300 lb lighter car. And i'm pretty sure that Ford trannys are still the same, crappy.
Are you ok? Define low compression.. last I looked..
LT1 - 10.5:1
LS1 - 10.1:1
Z - 10.3:1 - 350Z
4.6L - 10.1:1 - Mach1 Spec...
4.6L - 9.85:1 - GT Spec
Wait, hold on a minute buddy. So you're saying that a 3.5 liter v6 that pumps out 287bhp is running lower compression than a 96 ford stang 4.6 v8 liter that is pumping out only 215bhp? The fact that the 96 4.6 liter stang is a higher displacement and lower horsepower proves that you are wrong. It's simple logic. Think about it, a big displacement(4.6L 215bhp) compared to a lower displacement(3.5L 287BHP!). And No, it is definitely not a 50/50 chance of a 99 gt + Vs. Z. Sure, if the Z is shifting at 3k when racing, the Stang will beat it. But i'm pretty sure that your "50/50" chance would be best suited for the Acura 3.2 Tl . Do you realize that the Z is significantly lighter with around 20 bhp more? That's at least 14 rwhp more coming from like a 300 lb lighter car. And i'm pretty sure that Ford trannys are still the same, crappy.
It appears you know nothing about the 4.6L motor. While the SOHC version puts out a measly 215hp..the DOHC variety puts out ...305HP (Mach1) and 260hp (GT Spec)
In reality... they still put down less HP.. however if you notice.... The Mach1 (13.2 1/4) runs close to a second faster than the GT (14.1 1/4)... I would say their gearing is not as bad as the 350Z if they are getting almost the same 1/4 times with less HP
Another thing you are forgetting is Trq.. they have more trq than you do enabling them to get that 300 extra lbs moving faster than the 3.5L is capable of. Don't believe me look around the internet some more..don't be blind to whats around you.. and don't come whining to me when a blue oval hands you your ***... it will happen..its just a matter of when.
05-05-2003, 08:49 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Moline IL
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle
Are you ok? Define low compression.. last I looked..
LT1 - 10.5:1
LS1 - 10.1:1
Z - 10.3:1 - 350Z
4.6L - 10.1:1 - Mach1 Spec...
4.6L - 9.85:1 - GT Spec
Wait, hold on a minute buddy. So you're saying that a 3.5 liter v6 that pumps out 287bhp is running lower compression than a 96 ford stang 4.6 v8 liter that is pumping out only 215bhp? The fact that the 96 4.6 liter stang is a higher displacement and lower horsepower proves that you are wrong. It's simple logic. Think about it, a big displacement(4.6L 215bhp) compared to a lower displacement(3.5L 287BHP!). And No, it is definitely not a 50/50 chance of a 99 gt + Vs. Z. Sure, if the Z is shifting at 3k when racing, the Stang will beat it. But i'm pretty sure that your "50/50" chance would be best suited for the Acura 3.2 Tl . Do you realize that the Z is significantly lighter with around 20 bhp more? That's at least 14 rwhp more coming from like a 300 lb lighter car. And i'm pretty sure that Ford trannys are still the same, crappy.
Are you ok? Define low compression.. last I looked..
LT1 - 10.5:1
LS1 - 10.1:1
Z - 10.3:1 - 350Z
4.6L - 10.1:1 - Mach1 Spec...
4.6L - 9.85:1 - GT Spec
Wait, hold on a minute buddy. So you're saying that a 3.5 liter v6 that pumps out 287bhp is running lower compression than a 96 ford stang 4.6 v8 liter that is pumping out only 215bhp? The fact that the 96 4.6 liter stang is a higher displacement and lower horsepower proves that you are wrong. It's simple logic. Think about it, a big displacement(4.6L 215bhp) compared to a lower displacement(3.5L 287BHP!). And No, it is definitely not a 50/50 chance of a 99 gt + Vs. Z. Sure, if the Z is shifting at 3k when racing, the Stang will beat it. But i'm pretty sure that your "50/50" chance would be best suited for the Acura 3.2 Tl . Do you realize that the Z is significantly lighter with around 20 bhp more? That's at least 14 rwhp more coming from like a 300 lb lighter car. And i'm pretty sure that Ford trannys are still the same, crappy.
Trending Topics
05-05-2003, 10:05 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: TX
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle
Buzz, you never said what generation Stang Gt. I'm pretty sure that the Z can take on any stock gt stang. old 90 gen. were running 215 bhp? and 235 lb/ft tq???(not sure). The new 03s are running 260bhp. From a roll, or line, we can pull them fairly easy. And plus, Ford Gearing on the Stang sucks a**. Z has better torque delivery because of close gear ratios. I'm sorry, but the stang trannys are just as bad as mitsubishi. I don't understand why Ford won't make their stangs run at higher compression, more power delivery. I mean come on, a 4.6 L making 260 bhp?/sure, 300 lb/ft tq is great, but it still won't beat a Z. Like GM, and ford, their v8s stay at low compression. they stay at the same compression and increase displacement. How inefficient of them. But i'm not complaining, i like the growl of a ls1 or ls6.
Buzz, you never said what generation Stang Gt. I'm pretty sure that the Z can take on any stock gt stang. old 90 gen. were running 215 bhp? and 235 lb/ft tq???(not sure). The new 03s are running 260bhp. From a roll, or line, we can pull them fairly easy. And plus, Ford Gearing on the Stang sucks a**. Z has better torque delivery because of close gear ratios. I'm sorry, but the stang trannys are just as bad as mitsubishi. I don't understand why Ford won't make their stangs run at higher compression, more power delivery. I mean come on, a 4.6 L making 260 bhp?/sure, 300 lb/ft tq is great, but it still won't beat a Z. Like GM, and ford, their v8s stay at low compression. they stay at the same compression and increase displacement. How inefficient of them. But i'm not complaining, i like the growl of a ls1 or ls6.
Compression and displacement aren't the 2 determining factors of HP.
05-06-2003, 08:27 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mercer, NJ
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You still got the compression on the 4.6 wrong.
1999-2001 windsor block, 4.6L, 9:1 compression, 260HP
2001.5-now romeo block, 4.6L, 9.4:1 compression, 260HP
Ford give you a car that is not tuned to it's maximum. That's why it comes with crappy gears and can be run on 87 octane gas. Ford give you a base car with lots of potential. Ford even sells aftermarket racing parts for it. I don't know anyone who drives a stock mustang either.
If you look at the rwhp on the 350z and GT (romeo block), the 350 only gets 5-8HP more on top end. The 350Z is only slightly lighter that the GT.
I don't hate the 350Z's. I'm just not rich enough to have one as a daily driver. I think they look great, and handle awsome. No flame wars intended, and I don't care which is faster.
1999-2001 windsor block, 4.6L, 9:1 compression, 260HP
2001.5-now romeo block, 4.6L, 9.4:1 compression, 260HP
Ford give you a car that is not tuned to it's maximum. That's why it comes with crappy gears and can be run on 87 octane gas. Ford give you a base car with lots of potential. Ford even sells aftermarket racing parts for it. I don't know anyone who drives a stock mustang either.
If you look at the rwhp on the 350z and GT (romeo block), the 350 only gets 5-8HP more on top end. The 350Z is only slightly lighter that the GT.
I don't hate the 350Z's. I'm just not rich enough to have one as a daily driver. I think they look great, and handle awsome. No flame wars intended, and I don't care which is faster.
05-06-2003, 09:32 AM
#11
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Quad Cities
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by forpointsex
You still got the compression on the 4.6 wrong.
1999-2001 windsor block, 4.6L, 9:1 compression, 260HP
2001.5-now romeo block, 4.6L, 9.4:1 compression, 260HP
Ford give you a car that is not tuned to it's maximum. That's why it comes with crappy gears and can be run on 87 octane gas. Ford give you a base car with lots of potential. Ford even sells aftermarket racing parts for it. I don't know anyone who drives a stock mustang either.
If you look at the rwhp on the 350z and GT (romeo block), the 350 only gets 5-8HP more on top end. The 350Z is only slightly lighter that the GT.
I don't hate the 350Z's. I'm just not rich enough to have one as a daily driver. I think they look great, and handle awsome. No flame wars intended, and I don't care which is faster.
You still got the compression on the 4.6 wrong.
1999-2001 windsor block, 4.6L, 9:1 compression, 260HP
2001.5-now romeo block, 4.6L, 9.4:1 compression, 260HP
Ford give you a car that is not tuned to it's maximum. That's why it comes with crappy gears and can be run on 87 octane gas. Ford give you a base car with lots of potential. Ford even sells aftermarket racing parts for it. I don't know anyone who drives a stock mustang either.
If you look at the rwhp on the 350z and GT (romeo block), the 350 only gets 5-8HP more on top end. The 350Z is only slightly lighter that the GT.
I don't hate the 350Z's. I'm just not rich enough to have one as a daily driver. I think they look great, and handle awsome. No flame wars intended, and I don't care which is faster.
I quoted the 9.85:1 from a http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/history_svt.htm DOHC Cobra not the GT. Though the Mach1 is still 10.1:1.... GT vs Mach1 So for the correction...
Mach1 - 10.1:1 - 305hp/320trq
03 GT - 9.4:1 - 265hp/305trq
97 Cobra - 9.85:1 - 305hp/300trq
if Im off still..let me know
05-06-2003, 11:22 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tx
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle
The new 03s are running 260bhp. From a roll, or line, we can pull them fairly easy. And plus, Ford Gearing on the Stang sucks a**. Z has better torque delivery because of close gear ratios. I'm sorry, but the stang trannys are just as bad as mitsubishi. I don't understand why Ford won't make their stangs run at higher compression, more power delivery. I mean come on, a 4.6 L making 260 bhp?/sure, 300 lb/ft tq is great, but it still won't beat a Z. Like GM, and ford, their v8s stay at low compression. they stay at the same compression and increase displacement. How inefficient of them. But i'm not complaining, i like the growl of a ls1 or ls6.
The new 03s are running 260bhp. From a roll, or line, we can pull them fairly easy. And plus, Ford Gearing on the Stang sucks a**. Z has better torque delivery because of close gear ratios. I'm sorry, but the stang trannys are just as bad as mitsubishi. I don't understand why Ford won't make their stangs run at higher compression, more power delivery. I mean come on, a 4.6 L making 260 bhp?/sure, 300 lb/ft tq is great, but it still won't beat a Z. Like GM, and ford, their v8s stay at low compression. they stay at the same compression and increase displacement. How inefficient of them. But i'm not complaining, i like the growl of a ls1 or ls6.
and how is it that 350Z's can "pull them fairly easy"???
99+ GT vs 350Z is a driver's race...either can run as fast as hi 13's stock...
05-06-2003, 12:13 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by JamRWS6
this statement pretty much proves you don't know jack.....not being an ***...just stating the facts...
Compression and displacement aren't the 2 determining factors of HP.
this statement pretty much proves you don't know jack.....not being an ***...just stating the facts...
Compression and displacement aren't the 2 determining factors of HP.
05-06-2003, 02:40 PM
#17
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Quad Cities
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by forpointsex
[B I don't know anyone who drives a stock mustang either.
[/B]
[B I don't know anyone who drives a stock mustang either.
[/B]
Probably not for long as they keep getting kicked in the teeth by a certain Z28 everytime they mess with it. 
05-06-2003, 02:55 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle
I don't want to seem like a **** or anything. But yes, compression, intake timing. and displacement are huge factors in determing horsepower.
I don't want to seem like a **** or anything. But yes, compression, intake timing. and displacement are huge factors in determing horsepower.
You're not kidding anyone. It's obvious that you know little to nothing about what makes horsepower. You were claiming that the static compression of the SOHC 4.6L Ford modular V8 must be wrong, based solely in the idea that it makes less horsepower with similar static compression and more displacement. The reason you came to that conclusion is because you are ill informed on engine design. Better stick to bolting on CAI's and catbacks.
05-06-2003, 03:49 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whoa Caswell, It's only the internet.
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle :
I don't want to seem like a **** or anything. But yes, compression, intake timing. and displacement are huge factors in determing horsepower.
Originally posted By Caswell:
What about exhaust timing, LSA, intake and exhaust duration, intake and exhaust lift, port design including flow and swirl, and countless other variables?
Caswell, you basically summed up what i said before. You repeated Intake like 2 times. Sure, you typed more "variables", but i said that "compression, intake timing,and displacement" are huge factors in determining Horsepower. And how is that not true? Boy, you sure are a picky Jew.If you wanted to be such a **** about it, why not measure the coefficient of friction on the cyliner walls. less friction in the cylinders, less energy lost, therefore more energy to turn the crankshaft/more tq. Caswell, i'm pretty sure that i'm going to need bolt ons before i do any internal block work. You kind of flopped on the "insult". Stick to your mullet maro, and i'll stick to my Z.
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle :
I don't want to seem like a **** or anything. But yes, compression, intake timing. and displacement are huge factors in determing horsepower.
Originally posted By Caswell:
What about exhaust timing, LSA, intake and exhaust duration, intake and exhaust lift, port design including flow and swirl, and countless other variables?
Caswell, you basically summed up what i said before. You repeated Intake like 2 times. Sure, you typed more "variables", but i said that "compression, intake timing,and displacement" are huge factors in determining Horsepower. And how is that not true? Boy, you sure are a picky Jew.If you wanted to be such a **** about it, why not measure the coefficient of friction on the cyliner walls. less friction in the cylinders, less energy lost, therefore more energy to turn the crankshaft/more tq. Caswell, i'm pretty sure that i'm going to need bolt ons before i do any internal block work. You kind of flopped on the "insult". Stick to your mullet maro, and i'll stick to my Z.
05-06-2003, 05:05 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle
You repeated Intake like 2 times. Sure, you typed more "variables"
You repeated Intake like 2 times. Sure, you typed more "variables"
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle
But i said that "compression, intake timing,and displacement" are huge factors in determining Horsepower. And how is that not true? Boy, you sure are a picky Jew.
But i said that "compression, intake timing,and displacement" are huge factors in determining Horsepower. And how is that not true? Boy, you sure are a picky Jew.
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle
If you wanted to be such a **** about it, why not measure the coefficient of friction on the cyliner walls. less friction in the cylinders, less energy lost, therefore more energy to turn the crankshaft/more tq.
If you wanted to be such a **** about it, why not measure the coefficient of friction on the cyliner walls. less friction in the cylinders, less energy lost, therefore more energy to turn the crankshaft/more tq.
Originally posted by OklahomaStyle
Caswell, i'm pretty sure that i'm going to need bolt ons before i do any internal block work. You kind of flopped on the "insult". Stick to your mullet maro, and i'll stick to my Z.
Caswell, i'm pretty sure that i'm going to need bolt ons before i do any internal block work. You kind of flopped on the "insult". Stick to your mullet maro, and i'll stick to my Z.