Ever race an older muscle car and spank 'em? - Page 2

Dave_mustang_50 · 06-30-2004, 06:44 PM

I ran an Impala with a "crate 350 turbo jet" when I had the Holley 2 kit and walked him bad both off the line and a 40 drop.

GT01 · 06-30-2004, 09:36 PM

Hey Red,

Are you talking about the Fort Street Cruise? I took care of a few local big blocks my self..lol

LX5liter · 07-01-2004, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Maroon xr-7

On stock tires junk heads and intake. Its probably capable of low 12's. and there's still plinty of room for improve meant on it.
Heads and intake long with a 4 speed or a new high performance stall. Also some traction it would be a prity hard to beat. Thetas all motor too if he got a blower, turbo or nitrous it would probably be a 9 SEC Street car.

I don't mean to flame or anything, so don't get me wrong, but running low 12's on stock tires probably isn't going to happen. If you have the power to run low12's then you will be spinning everytime you put your foot into it, even 1/3 of the way down the track if your running anything but drag radials, cheater slicks (like ET streets), slicks, or some gawdafully wide tire. As far as just adding a blower etc... there is a guy up here with a Hemi 'Cuda, that is far from stock (dyno'd at well over 800 hp) that runs mid - low 10's on slicks. Running nines isn't as easy as bolting on a part.

Rev · 07-01-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 302 LX Eric
I guess the roll cage should have clued me in.

E

------------------
1991 5.0 LX Coupe -37,800 miles

13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60'

Pro-Charger D-1SC on the way!!!

Before I had my TFTW heads, my car ran 13.98-14.1. I didn't have to wear a helmet. Whenever I lined up against someone with a helmet on, I knew my ass was about to be handed to me, LOL.

Rev

Lazer50 · 07-01-2004, 11:59 PM

You guys are right about that the name of the game is now applied horsepower, my 67 GTA has the 390 rated at 320HP, and i have only been able to run a 15.4 @90 with it, granted thats not really launching on street tires, but when a Notchback fox can run mid 13's with just an exhaust system and maybe 240HP at the Crank, it still amazes me, and on my first time at the track with my truck i only ran 14.5 with a motor rated at 435-475(Comp Cams Guy) so you fox guys keep hauling ass, and hopfully soon ill be joining you with a 5.0 of my own

Steven

Rev · 07-02-2004, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazer50
67 GTA has the 390 rated at 320HP, and i have only been able to run a 15.4 @90 with it

Steven

One must remember that the 1967 rated HP figures are gross horsepower. Manufacturers now use net horsepower when rating engines. There's a fair amount of difference in gross and net.

Rev

Lazer50 · 07-03-2004, 11:41 AM

either way i think 15.4 is kinda unimpressive for a Big Block Mustang, what the HP calculator is saying is that i put out about 200 at the wheels

Steven

Rev · 07-03-2004, 04:30 PM

Net hp is usually somewhere around 85% of gross hp. So .85 X 320 = 272 net. If it's automatic, then the rwhp is only about 75% of the net flywheel hp. So .75 X 272 = 204 rwhp.

Rev

rwhite65 · 07-04-2004, 02:50 AM

If I run into someone with a big block applying some of today's advancements......gonna get my @#* handed to me. things can always be deceiving.

I also raced a cutlass back in high school when my car ran a solid 16.0 quarter....yes I said 16...and I thought it was quick...so I had this coming. the cutalss had half an inch of dust/dirt all over the top with cat crap and cat prints to boot. the interior was trashed with a walmart guage pod. The car had home made traction bars, but the car sat slightly to one side instead of level.

When we raced, it was so loud....scared me bad enough I killed my engine...and it was an auto. The thing was instantly revved out.....like my cr-250 2 stroke. Never had seen anything like it.
should have noticed the Nitrous plate under the carb...or understood that when they said it was a 383 race engine out of their stock car...they might not be bluffing. U could hear the crowd laughing for miles.

The point...anything can be fast...talking to the owner is what I look at...and not so much the cubic inches of the car.

Ryan

carlos.elliott · 07-04-2004, 03:44 PM

Let me start by saying I don't race anyone as my car is too slow. I love the big block muscle cars. They are what got me hooked on cars in the first place. I ran a big block corvette at national trails once in a monte carlo. This was the fastest car I had ever owned. I was so impressed with the sound reving up next to me I almost didn't want to race but thank goodness I actually won that one. I do wonder if there is a certain break in time before you can put on a keene bell twin screw. My car has 1200 miles and don't want to put on on before it is broke in if it will hurt it.

69fastback · 07-10-2004, 01:27 AM

come on give me a break. Not everyone in a big block old car is "some old dude." I have had mine since I was 22 years old and now i am 27. I do also own a 91 GT so i know what they are both like. The 5.0 will never ever pull the way my 428 does. It is just a totally different feeling. I have never lost to a 5.0 with my 428 I did lose to a 95 vortech supercharged lighting though. Most of you guys with your lightly moded 5.0 beat old big block cars because most of the are not modified. They are stock because they are worth more money stock moded old cars aren't worth a sit. I would hope that with 20 years of technology on the old cars that stock for stock a newer mustang would win. What the hell would Ford be doing if they couldn't improve on a product 20 years later. You want to compare cars look at NHRA stock eleminator the mods for each class are the same and there sure as hell aren't any 5.0s running in the same class as the big blocks since a stock eleminator 428cj runs deep into the 10s and 5.0 run 11s.

Fat0eknee · 07-11-2004, 01:07 PM

what ever happened to the faithful and for the most part true quote of "there is no replacement for displacement" big block = kill you, hands down

Dave_mustang_50 · 07-11-2004, 01:36 PM

I dont think anyone here is bashing the big blocks, Anything can make power, its just how much you want to spend.
As for the replacement for displacement - I think turbos, superchargers and nos are exceptions to that rule.

rwhite65 · 07-11-2004, 09:15 PM

I also agree that I personally do not feel anyone is bashing the big blocks. I just think some people (including myself) are trying to make the point that just because a car is equiped with a big block, does not necessarily mean it will beat a car with a smaller engine. Especially one that has been put together with choice parts.
Ryan

Rev · 07-13-2004, 03:15 PM

I still think we have to look at horsepower per cubic inch displacement when judging the value of various engines. To me, that's really the nuts of the matter.

Rev

Fat0eknee · 07-13-2004, 03:49 PM

whats the numbers on the 428 cj? anybody know?

Rev · 07-14-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fat0eknee
whats the numbers on the 428 cj? anybody know?

http://forums.mustangworks.com/images/icons/icon4.gif
http://forums.mustangworks.com/images/icons/icon4.gif

The 428 CJ was factory rated at 335 HP. Many folks feel like it was intentionally rated low because of pressure in those days from the Feds and the insurance industry. A lot of people believe the power was near 500 HP. One must remember that we're talking gross HP as apposed to the net HP we use now.

Rev

Fat0eknee · 07-14-2004, 08:19 PM

well lets judge the value on your terms of hp/cube

we'll say that the 428 made around 325 net
take the 5.0L at 225

the cj adds up to .76 hp/cube while the 5.0L is .75 hp/cube ..thats not a whole lot of difference ..what really surprises me now that i think of it - take a B16 which is what ..97 cubes and 160 hp ..thats 1.65hp/cube :-O

i wish my motor made 1.65hp/cube ..id be a beast - so what im trying to say is if you want the best bang for your buck you go with a civic? haha im j/k really i dont know what im talkin about and im just REALLY bored

Rev · 07-16-2004, 03:46 PM

335 for the CJ is not really correct, but 335./428=.78 hp/cid. That's nowhere near correct. 500/428=1.17 which is more correct for a factory hopped up engine. 500/428 is not hard for me to believe f0or a factory hotrod for that era.

Rev

Ford150orp4x4 · 07-18-2004, 07:56 PM

I love the 5.0 and the look in Corvette drivers eyes when they see one stop beside them at a light. I was once one of those fuel injected engine haters. It was because I just didn't understand how it worked. It was easier to work on the old Carbs. I learned how they work and now I am a fan.

Don't forget the old school guys and gals got us to where we are now!!!!

06-30-2004, 06:44 PM	#21
Dave_mustang_50 Registered Member Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: New Port Richey, Florida Posts: 483	I ran an Impala with a "crate 350 turbo jet" when I had the Holley 2 kit and walked him bad both off the line and a 40 drop. __________________ 1969 Mach 1 351C with a c6(for now) Sold 92 Rag Top GT Procharged & intercooled DSS 331 LC Holley Systemax 2 Intake, Edelbrock RPM Heads,E 303 ,blow thru air meter, race bypass, 42 pph injectors,65mm tb,1.7 rr, Mac long tube headers w/off road H pipe, Force 2 catback, TKO,Pro 5.0, K&N, Alum DS,3 core radiator, subframe connectors,3.73`s, Nitto DR`s and a Heavy Foot.

07-01-2004, 11:59 PM	#25
Lazer50 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Central Coast, Ca Posts: 24	You guys are right about that the name of the game is now applied horsepower, my 67 GTA has the 390 rated at 320HP, and i have only been able to run a 15.4 @90 with it, granted thats not really launching on street tires, but when a Notchback fox can run mid 13's with just an exhaust system and maybe 240HP at the Crank, it still amazes me, and on my first time at the track with my truck i only ran 14.5 with a motor rated at 435-475(Comp Cams Guy) so you fox guys keep hauling ass, and hopfully soon ill be joining you with a 5.0 of my own Steven __________________ 48 Ford F1 Pickup- NEW BEST 8/20 Best ET- 13.765 @ 103.31 60FT 2.193 (My Flying Brick) 67 GTA Mustang (All Stock) Best ET- 15.454 @ 90.58MPH 60FT 2.45

07-03-2004, 11:41 AM	#27
Lazer50 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Central Coast, Ca Posts: 24	either way i think 15.4 is kinda unimpressive for a Big Block Mustang, what the HP calculator is saying is that i put out about 200 at the wheels Steven __________________ 48 Ford F1 Pickup- NEW BEST 8/20 Best ET- 13.765 @ 103.31 60FT 2.193 (My Flying Brick) 67 GTA Mustang (All Stock) Best ET- 15.454 @ 90.58MPH 60FT 2.45

07-03-2004, 04:30 PM	#28
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	200 about right Net hp is usually somewhere around 85% of gross hp. So .85 X 320 = 272 net. If it's automatic, then the rwhp is only about 75% of the net flywheel hp. So .75 X 272 = 204 rwhp. Rev __________________ '66 Coupe, 306, 350-375 HP, C-4, 13.07 e.t., 104.8 mph, 1/4 mi. O.B.C. #2 '66 coupe

07-04-2004, 02:50 AM	#29
rwhite65 Ride Hard Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Wyoming IL Posts: 1,094	If I run into someone with a big block applying some of today's advancements......gonna get my @#* handed to me. things can always be deceiving. I also raced a cutlass back in high school when my car ran a solid 16.0 quarter....yes I said 16...and I thought it was quick...so I had this coming. the cutalss had half an inch of dust/dirt all over the top with cat crap and cat prints to boot. the interior was trashed with a walmart guage pod. The car had home made traction bars, but the car sat slightly to one side instead of level. When we raced, it was so loud....scared me bad enough I killed my engine...and it was an auto. The thing was instantly revved out.....like my cr-250 2 stroke. Never had seen anything like it. should have noticed the Nitrous plate under the carb...or understood that when they said it was a 383 race engine out of their stock car...they might not be bluffing. U could hear the crowd laughing for miles. The point...anything can be fast...talking to the owner is what I look at...and not so much the cubic inches of the car. Ryan __________________ 65 Fastback 91 roller 306, H/C/I AOD-Bauman, PI Stallion, 4.10's and traction loc 04 Grand Cherokee Freedom Edition 79 Ford F-250 4x4 - Restored

06-30-2004, 09:36 PM	#22
GT01 Registered Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 11	Hey Red, Are you talking about the Fort Street Cruise? I took care of a few local big blocks my self..lol

07-04-2004, 03:44 PM	#30
carlos.elliott Registered Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Ohio Posts: 68	Let me start by saying I don't race anyone as my car is too slow. I love the big block muscle cars. They are what got me hooked on cars in the first place. I ran a big block corvette at national trails once in a monte carlo. This was the fastest car I had ever owned. I was so impressed with the sound reving up next to me I almost didn't want to race but thank goodness I actually won that one. I do wonder if there is a certain break in time before you can put on a keene bell twin screw. My car has 1200 miles and don't want to put on on before it is broke in if it will hurt it.

07-10-2004, 01:27 AM	#31
69fastback IRAQ VET Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: high desert California Posts: 1,480	come on give me a break. Not everyone in a big block old car is "some old dude." I have had mine since I was 22 years old and now i am 27. I do also own a 91 GT so i know what they are both like. The 5.0 will never ever pull the way my 428 does. It is just a totally different feeling. I have never lost to a 5.0 with my 428 I did lose to a 95 vortech supercharged lighting though. Most of you guys with your lightly moded 5.0 beat old big block cars because most of the are not modified. They are stock because they are worth more money stock moded old cars aren't worth a sit. I would hope that with 20 years of technology on the old cars that stock for stock a newer mustang would win. What the hell would Ford be doing if they couldn't improve on a product 20 years later. You want to compare cars look at NHRA stock eleminator the mods for each class are the same and there sure as hell aren't any 5.0s running in the same class as the big blocks since a stock eleminator 428cj runs deep into the 10s and 5.0 run 11s. __________________ 428 Cobra Jet SOHC 5.4 3V F-150 96 mystic cobra 91 GT

07-11-2004, 01:07 PM	#32
Fat0eknee I'm slow ...I know. Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: houston Posts: 518	what ever happened to the faithful and for the most part true quote of "there is no replacement for displacement" big block = kill you, hands down

07-11-2004, 01:36 PM	#33
Dave_mustang_50 Registered Member Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: New Port Richey, Florida Posts: 483	I dont think anyone here is bashing the big blocks, Anything can make power, its just how much you want to spend. As for the replacement for displacement - I think turbos, superchargers and nos are exceptions to that rule. __________________ 1969 Mach 1 351C with a c6(for now) Sold 92 Rag Top GT Procharged & intercooled DSS 331 LC Holley Systemax 2 Intake, Edelbrock RPM Heads,E 303 ,blow thru air meter, race bypass, 42 pph injectors,65mm tb,1.7 rr, Mac long tube headers w/off road H pipe, Force 2 catback, TKO,Pro 5.0, K&N, Alum DS,3 core radiator, subframe connectors,3.73`s, Nitto DR`s and a Heavy Foot.

07-11-2004, 09:15 PM	#34
rwhite65 Ride Hard Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Wyoming IL Posts: 1,094	I also agree that I personally do not feel anyone is bashing the big blocks. I just think some people (including myself) are trying to make the point that just because a car is equiped with a big block, does not necessarily mean it will beat a car with a smaller engine. Especially one that has been put together with choice parts. Ryan __________________ 65 Fastback 91 roller 306, H/C/I AOD-Bauman, PI Stallion, 4.10's and traction loc 04 Grand Cherokee Freedom Edition 79 Ford F-250 4x4 - Restored

07-13-2004, 03:15 PM	#35
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	HP/CID I still think we have to look at horsepower per cubic inch displacement when judging the value of various engines. To me, that's really the nuts of the matter. Rev __________________ '66 Coupe, 306, 350-375 HP, C-4, 13.07 e.t., 104.8 mph, 1/4 mi. O.B.C. #2 '66 coupe

07-13-2004, 03:49 PM	#36
Fat0eknee I'm slow ...I know. Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: houston Posts: 518	whats the numbers on the 428 cj? anybody know?

07-14-2004, 08:19 PM	#38
Fat0eknee I'm slow ...I know. Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: houston Posts: 518	well lets judge the value on your terms of hp/cube we'll say that the 428 made around 325 net take the 5.0L at 225 the cj adds up to .76 hp/cube while the 5.0L is .75 hp/cube ..thats not a whole lot of difference ..what really surprises me now that i think of it - take a B16 which is what ..97 cubes and 160 hp ..thats 1.65hp/cube :-O i wish my motor made 1.65hp/cube ..id be a beast - so what im trying to say is if you want the best bang for your buck you go with a civic? haha im j/k really i dont know what im talkin about and im just REALLY bored

07-16-2004, 03:46 PM	#39
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	WTF? 335 for the CJ is not really correct, but 335./428=.78 hp/cid. That's nowhere near correct. 500/428=1.17 which is more correct for a factory hopped up engine. 500/428 is not hard for me to believe f0or a factory hotrod for that era. Rev __________________ '66 Coupe, 306, 350-375 HP, C-4, 13.07 e.t., 104.8 mph, 1/4 mi. O.B.C. #2 '66 coupe

07-18-2004, 07:56 PM	#40
Ford150orp4x4 Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5	I love the 5.0 and the look in Corvette drivers eyes when they see one stop beside them at a light. I was once one of those fuel injected engine haters. It was because I just didn't understand how it worked. It was easier to work on the old Carbs. I learned how they work and now I am a fan. Don't forget the old school guys and gals got us to where we are now!!!!