That is fast but it was 7 miles! A stock Cobra does 160mph that is a year 2000 one new ones have a bit more power now might be even faster, in test it out peforms the z28 http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif (0-60, same time in the 1/4 2mph slower)

I'm not sure if I understand your message dude, but there was no Cobras in 2000 other than the Cobra R.

In 1999, there where some inconsistencies with engine HP output, which were solved for the 2001 Cobra. The actual specification (printed) of the car remain identical.



------------------
http://members.mustangworks.com/liza...rdKing_sig.gif
13.66 @ 100.3MPH, Stock (except for K&N Filter)

• Quartermile run

Sorry about that that was the date of the Mag. It was a 1999. Thanks

Your comparing a cobra with a z28. Compare a cobra with an ss. Make it even =P Anyway a stock 92-96 vette will do 170mph(or pretty close) so I have read in more than a few places. What do you think it would take for a lets say 94 6-speed vette to reach 200mph?

It took my CRX 43 sec. to top out at 130+
I just got through timing it.

Nothing to brag about but it got there. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/wink.gif

------------------
88 mustang gt convertible bored to 306 BBk equal length headers mac cold air fender kit cowl hood nitto drag radials ford racing clutch flow masters h-pipe 160* thermostat 16 degrees of timing electric fan off 94' t-bird jacobs electronics cap and wires. Edelbrock 1 1/2 inch drop springs.
best 60 ft 2.14, best 1/8th 9.65, best 1/4 15.2 @89mph, Stock gears and 3000+ Altitude

Congrats......but was that 130 taking into consideratin that you changed you tire width/height and the fact that they're a little more worn now? http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif

------------------
'90 LX 5.0; 12K original miles (no sh*&); 3.55 gears; pulleys;Edelbrock Performer Heads; BBK shorties; MSD 6AL box w/ blaster 2 coil; Motorsport E303 cam; Pro-M 75mm MAF; BBK 70mm TB; Eibach spring kit; Southside welded subs; K&N cone filter charger; Hurst shifter; fiberglass turbo hood; A/C-less; rear seat-less; cat-less; 2 chamber Flos; Corbeau racing seats (fronts);
30# injectors; JMS Chip; 190 lb fp; TFS track heat Intake (12.299 @ 113)

Wow, your CRX must run 14's? It appears to be faster than Mustang GT's, which have a huge hp/weight advantage and 10mph more top end.

Your speedo is screwed. I rest my case.

Considering the C5 Vette can only pull off 172mph, 170 seems way high for a C4. More like 160. Still the rating for the 94 LT-1 is 170.

Oh, and the ZR-1 was rated for 170mph

[This message has been edited by Unit 5302 (edited 06-18-2001).]

Instead of continuing to argue and talk crap.

Why dont you admit that you were wrong. I said a CRX Si-R can go 145-160 and guess what thanks to lizard you se that it can.

you said no way a CRX with 160hp can go that fast.

With a little tuning you can get 170hp at the flywhel with an CRX Si-R.

Yall were the ones making fun of the CRX Si-R
so now admit it.

you can take your horse power times drag coeficient times lunar alignment and throw all that out the window smart guy.

and as far as my CRX being as fast as a mustang GT no its not and I never said it was
and if my 43sec to peg out the speedo puts my car in the same league with a mustang GT.

Then maybe my speedo is a little off or maybe my friend that was keeping time is on crack. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif I dont know I will admit I was wrong now why dont you do the same http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/wink.gif

You started off saying noway a crx can go 130 cause my escort couldnt.

BUT NOW YOU SEE.

Keep in mind that a CRX Si-R is lower geared than a Si.

Maybe my speedo is screwed but all the same
you were wrong about the Si-R.
I REST MY CASE http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif

------------------
88 mustang gt convertible bored to 306 BBk equal length headers mac cold air fender kit cowl hood nitto drag radials ford racing clutch flow masters h-pipe 160* thermostat 16 degrees of timing electric fan off 94' t-bird jacobs electronics cap and wires. Edelbrock 1 1/2 inch drop springs.
best 60 ft 2.14, best 1/8th 9.65, best 1/4 15.2 @89mph, Stock gears and 3000+ Altitude

[This message has been edited by 5.0 HO (edited 06-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by 5.0 HO (edited 06-18-2001).]

Rest your case about what?

That a aero modded 170hp CRX SiR that's been setup for top end and run on a flat 7mi course to record a top speed of 148?

Oh yes, use some of that impressive ricer logic. Just because 1 car, that's had mods done to it, and completely setup for top end and attempting a land speed record can do 148 doens't mean an off the factory floor CRX SiR will get anywhere near that.

Bottom line, CRX SiR, just like I posted above is in all likelyhood a 130-135mph car from the factory. I'll be damned if you can't pick up 15mph doing the kinds of mods that guy did. Please re-read your post. 145-150 stock. That CRX is far from stock for top speed performance. He's been setup for top end. Lowered, belly pan underneath, remapped computer, geared, a little this and that. If you can't pick up 15mph top end from all that, you're doing something wrong.

My Mustang is a 6sec 1/4 mile car and it'll do 200mph because there are other Mustang's that have done it. Modded cars need not apply to the rules of what a stock car can or cannot do.

That's bascially it in a nutshell. Since the CRX SiR is good for 130-135 (maybe on a 7 mile straight course tuned and running perfect), but it's also making 30more hp than you. That puts you a fair share down the list. Around 120, maybe.

130mph in 43sec. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/rolleyes.gif You need to get your speedo calibrated. Not only can your little shoebox not hit 130 period, but you think you can do it quicker than a car with 100 more hp, that has 15+mph higher on the top end, and a power to weight ratio equivelent to the difference between a new Z28 SS and a 93GT. Last time I took a look the 93 GT vs an LS1 looked pretty ugly stock for stock. That being said I'm having a hard time figuring out how your 16sec CRX can out accelerate a 14sec Mustang?

But hey, open the doors to ricer dream land. Throw out the coefficient of drag, throw out horsepower, throw out power to weight ratios for acceleration curves. None of that matters because your little CRX is a Honda; therefore, it can do impossible things simply because it's a "quality built car." LOL.

Why must you restate the obvious. I admitted that I was wrong, wrong about the number of seconds but not the 130mph.

My bad I did not read the link I looked at the mph and that was it.

I dont buy into ricer logic just cause that car did 148mph NO i dont think that mine can. I stuck my foot in my mouth it was late and I was tired and I did not read the link sorry about that.

Here is my last gasp and I am through with this topic.

The CRX Si is rated at 125mph from HONDA and I believe someone said motortrend in the old thread. I have at least 25-30 more horsepower than a stocker.

Since your so into logic make some out of that. Seriously



------------------
88 mustang gt convertible bored to 306 BBk equal length headers mac cold air fender kit cowl hood nitto drag radials ford racing clutch flow masters h-pipe 160* thermostat 16 degrees of timing electric fan off 94' t-bird jacobs electronics cap and wires. Edelbrock 1 1/2 inch drop springs.
best 60 ft 2.14, best 1/8th 9.65, best 1/4 15.2 @89mph, Stock gears and 3000+ Altitude

[This message has been edited by 5.0 HO (edited 06-19-2001).]

I'm gonna miss this http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif

------------------
'90 LX 5.0; 12K original miles (no sh*&); 3.55 gears; pulleys;Edelbrock Performer Heads; BBK shorties; MSD 6AL box w/ blaster 2 coil; Motorsport E303 cam; Pro-M 75mm MAF; BBK 70mm TB; Eibach spring kit; Southside welded subs; K&N cone filter charger; Hurst shifter; fiberglass turbo hood; A/C-less; rear seat-less; cat-less; 2 chamber Flos; Corbeau racing seats (fronts);
30# injectors; JMS Chip; 190 lb fp; TFS track heat Intake (12.299 @ 113)

I honestly don't think a CRX Si will pull 125. The car I raced certainly wouldn't.

If the stock Si is accurate at 125mph, then yeah, you should have 130. The whole question is, is the 125 accurate.

Above the comment on the C4 doing 170 was made. The C4 was rated at anywhere between 300-330hp. The 94 LT-1 Vette was rated in Motor Trend as a 170mph top end car. The C5's have been tested for top end. They hit the wall at 172. The C5 is way slippery when compared to the C4, and it's got way more hp than that LT-1 Vette. We're talking 50hp there. That equates to 2mph? Something isn't adding up there. Since the C5 has been road tested for top end, and it is done at 172, there is no way I can believe the C4 could do 170. What does that mean to me? Chevy lied about the top speed rating.

Maybe the Si has a much better Cd than my Escort did, but they aren't too far off in hp. The scort was good for what it was, and yeah, it was a POS in quality dispite being a Japanese (Mazda) car.

That being said, I think you at least had something to base your claims on.

Sorry if I'm harsh, damn, I must be in a bad mood or something.

hehe, gotta luuuuuv those LS1s!!!! im not trying to start anything and i really like stangs, i almost bought one... But im surprised you did 'that' good against him....

To improve your upper rpms would be a pita, and i doubt you would be able to keep your new car warrenty with a cam/head swap.... Sooooo, how about some N20 for a little extra boost for 3rdgear!?!? http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif If you ever have to take it to the dealer it would be easy to unhookt he system like it was never ever their, and the only cars youll ever need the bottle on the street 90% of the time for are LS1s anyway...

------------------
Arctic White 1998 Camaro Z28
See my Can of Whoop Azz here
Flowmaster 3in American Thunder Catback - MTI Air Lid/K&N filter,!MAF, FRA

If you didnt have someone to argue with what fun would that be http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif

Let's say a 94 all stock is rated at 300hp, the new LS1 vettes are rated at 345hp that is 45hp more not 50hp. You fail your math class Unit? =P Plus the vettes were underated from the factory anyway I think. I've been at the dyno on numerous cars LT1's , LT4's. The LT4's I have seen dynoed almost 330hp all stock, 328rwhp to be exact. And the LT1's were around 275-290hp. Also the new vettes LS1 not LS6(Z06) are rated at 173mph not 172mph. =P http://www.netvettes.com/1992.html http://www.netvettes.com/1997.html

I have plenty more places that tell the facts. Also I have seen a video that my buddy brought back from the salt flats that showed a 92 vette wth only a k and n going 171mph. So hmmmmmm......nothing like the cold hard facts huh? I would love to argue with you over vettes, I have been reearching them for a while now. But I suppose we could argue and argue all we wanted but your mind is probaly not going to change on the subject, unless you see viual proof as I did. I'm the same way.

[This message has been edited by 1BAD89 (edited 06-21-2001).]

So you're saying the LS-1 is rated correctly? Okay.

Anyway, god forbid I should round 45 to 50. Regardless of that, the new Vette has a .29 Cd, I don't recall what the C-4 is. I believe one of the issues of M/T I have top ended some cars in a test. Viper, Vette, Ferrari, whatever. I'm going off memory, but the Vette peaked at 172mph.

If you look up at my post, it says the C-4 is rated at 170mph, I just don't think I'll get there. There is a typo also, the ZR-1 is rated at 178, not 170. The Grand Sport, which makes 330hp with it's LT4 motor is rated at 165mph.

I've done research on Vette's too. My research shows at least 2x as many Vette's on the side of the road with the hood up as Mustangs, LOL! That dispite the fact there are a ton more Stang's on the road.

This is funny, i got my '85 prelude (first car) up to 120 on a flat straightaway, but it took awhile, i've also gotten a '91 4 banger mustang up to 115 a friend in a maxima pacing me. this doesn't settle anything, but it took forever in both cars.

------------------
'84 Mustang 5.0 LX
My car

I have never in my whole life seen a vette on the side of the road, ever. Zr1 385-405hp depending on year. I never said anything about a ZR1.

[This message has been edited by 1BAD89 (edited 06-21-2001).]

More proof... a 94 stock LT1
http://images.cardomain.com/installs...917_7_full.jpg

No, I commented on the ZR-1, not you.

From my understanding, again, radar isn't perfectly accurate above 100mph. I never delved deep into that subject to find out why. Just something I was informed a while ago.

I've seen 2 Vette's and 0 stangs on the side of the road in the last week.

Usually, if I'm driving a lot, I'll see a couple/three Vette's broken down a month. Usually with the hood up and some guy crawling around trying hopelessly to look underneath.

Well around here I have never seen one on the side of the road, my stang has been on the side of the road before though. =P I would imagine all cars have there problems though including corvettes.

1bad89, now I'm completely convinced....that 167mph radar reading proves it! (but how do I know that wasn't your Civic) http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif j/k Civic's I WILL argue against.....Vettes I will not.

------------------
'90 LX 5.0; 12K original miles (no sh*&); 3.55 gears; pulleys;Edelbrock Performer Heads; BBK shorties; MSD 6AL box w/ blaster 2 coil; Motorsport E303 cam; Pro-M 75mm MAF; BBK 70mm TB; Eibach spring kit; Southside welded subs; K&N cone filter charger; Hurst shifter; fiberglass turbo hood; A/C-less; rear seat-less; cat-less; 2 chamber Flos; Corbeau racing seats (fronts);
30# injectors; JMS Chip; 190 lb fp; TFS track heat Intake (12.299 @ 113)

I think this trend of speedos reading high from the factory is a plot by the automakers to make your warranty run out faster.
By the way, I think I got up to 3 mph walking to the bathroom just now. Challenge my claim if you must.

When I walk to my room I usuallu pace mysef at about 3.89997 mph. So I guess I would win if we were racing huh? =P

I have seen a vette broke down on i35, about a 91-95 but oh well my car broke down before too, it was when my fuel pump decided to go, at least it wasnt on the highway.

This is what I think. The honda was being pushed by a fox mustang. That explains the 130 mph. Sorry I just cant argue with UNIT. He knows his shitt.

------------------
1987 black with t-tops. Cobra intake, 1.7 cobra crane rollers, gt40p's, bbk shorties, off road h-pipe, adj. FPR, Tremec t-5z, 65mm TB, 4.10's, adj cable, 155lph fuel pump, Ram clutch kit,
275-60-15 BFG TA's on Welds, Hurts shifter,Former AOD Semper Fi