veedub vs. stangs
 

since i'm here, i figured i'd post on a pair of mustang runs i've had:

this one ocurred about 4 months ago, early summer 2002, i'd just broken in my car and was learning to drive it hard:

then the other night, i got a run with an foxbody, lx hatchback, 5.0 badging and matching v8 rumble, no exposed tailpipes........2 healthy sized adult men in the car, don't know if it was an auto or manny.............

we both jumped at about 35 and ran it up to about 90, 92 mph......i took about 2 cars on him, maybe a touch less........

when i got in front of him in the same lane, he brightlighted me............i didn't really know what that meant, but i let off and switched to the left lane so he could pull up beside me.........he pulled up, i looked over at him, hoping he wanted another run...........he stared at me completely expression-less for a while, but didn't do anything...........i sped up a bit and continued with my life

Let me get this right....You drive and Import....


Imports "Its whats for dinner"


Your trying to take on Nova's and Stangs...

Wrong car...but good luck...shoulda saved your money bought a classic stang put in a 396 and been done with it...


ImportKiller:D

That's the problem when relying on a turbo\blower for any decent amount of power....

If you time it right and are in the right gear... you can get some boost. but if your not in the power band, you're gonna get walked....

Sometimes its just a matter of cubic inches... I know, I've been on the short end of the stick once or twice myself...

So.....have you.......run your.........veedub..........at the track.....................yet?

If so...............what did......it..........run???? And are........you........modded.....????

...........thanks..........

E

sorry, habit from work........

haven't made it to the track, it rains every single import night, and i don't want to deal with all the rednecks on test & tune night......

no horsepower mods at this time, or any installed mods at all for that matter.......i got a sway bar and a strut tower brace to slap on as soon as i can borrow a drill :D

No problem. :D


Well good luck when you get a chance to go. I'm curious to see what you'll run.

Take it easy,
E

Hmm, most stock 5.0s run early 14s and I ran a 14.6 with my stock 94 GT. Either you raced some slow auto mustangs or you have a factory freak GTI.

what kinda crack are you smoking steeda90gt? Most stock 5.0's do not run early 14's unless you have an 87-93 notch back. Otherwise in every single mag I have ever read, they all turn low 15's to very high 14's. I have a heavy 5.0 gt 86 vert, running 14.9 and have beat just about every stock 5.0 I have raced.

BTW, the new vw golf was rated 15.3 in the quarter.

14.9???? My GF ran 14.7 with her old 88 GT back in the day. I ran 14.4 with my LX then eventually went 14.0 with just exhuast.air filter/pulleys. Every mag back in the day rated the 5.0 at around 14.7ish. But driven hard could produce better results. Talk to a few guys in here, they will tell you. One last note, most 5.0 drivers cant drive. My friend has an 88 5.0 Notchback...Full exhaust, Pulleys, Cobra Intake, 65 TB, 75 MAF and his first time at the track was 15.5!!!! His 60 ft time was like 2.6!!! This just proves that some people out there arent just capable of piloting a 5.0 down the track.

I congradulate you on those times. Keep in mind, my time is with 173k original miles on a convertible. You speak from experience with your previous foxes, and I speak from knoweledge read of many many mags, and racing many cars.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jfgalbraith/qtimes.html
http://www.mustangregistry.org/lx_85_86.htm
http://www.mustangregistry.org/lx_87_89.htm

Those are just a few sites, go ahead and read up. Like I said b4, the LX will do a mid to High 14, but for the other 90% produced, meaning everything with an automatic and everything non-lx did low to high 15's. Tell the professionals at road & track, at car & driver, at 5.0 mustang that they don't know how to drive.

Actually your partially right, they dont know how to drive. They acheive their times by doing an avg run. One of their methods is "the drop clutch" method, which we all know spells nothing but trouble for any RWD car. Then what they do is take the average of 3 runs and thats the ET you get...I NEVER trust R&T and C&D.....Perfect example:

1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.0
1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6

These runs were both taken from the "professional" drivers on that first link you sent me. We all know that 1987-1993 5.0 GTs were rated the same in terms of HP. (note: 1993 they changed their methods of HP testing...resulting in 205 HP vs 225 HP)

6/10s of a second is a LONG time. Thats car lengths in a street race and is roughly equal to 60HP. So are you telling me that the 88 5.0 had 60 more ponies under the hood or do you agree with my theory that you CAN NOT rely on these "professional" drivers.

Another example taken from your link:

1994 Ford Mustang Cobra 6.9 15.3
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.1

Now the Cobra we all know came with GT40 heads, Cobra Intake, MAF, and 24lb injectors....it was rated at a very underestimated 240HP(People dynoed them stock and the flywheel HP was actually 255-260HP) and the GT gets blessed with 215HP...yet they managed to tool the GT down the line quicker than the mightier Cobra....both vehicles are identical in weight.

One last example to show you Im not biased against our cars..

1993 Pontiac Firebird Formula 6.1 14.7

My cousin owns the EXACT same car and ran a whopping best of 14.0@99MPH stock.

So you tell me, are you going to rely on these "professional drivers" to give you the correct data.

My '87 LX Hatch ran low 14s bone stock all day at the track, and I have a female friend that ran 14.3 several times at the track in her bone stock '89 Hatch. That's not to say that most drivers can do that, but a stock 5.0 definitely can. Magazines are not the best place to get times.

i don't really feel a need to justify what happened, cause i know that i experienced it, but look at it this way.......

-i think we can agree that a 14.3x is a good time for a 5.0 lx.
-the 02 gti's are quoted in the mags at 15.3. i've seen countless slips where a good driver put them in the 14's stock........
-lets say the stang is a 14.3 car and the gti is a 15.0 flat car
-the stang has an obvious advantage off the line, so that is a few tenths right there........these runs were from a roll
-lord knows how well the mustang has been maintained, whereas, the volkswagen is a new car, so there are a few other things going for me
-he may have simply underestimated my wee little economy car

that is why such a result should not be terribly inconceivable

don't know if it was stock but i raced one of those little turbo gti's and it ran a 14.6 @ 102mph. I think he had mods but i was impressed! his 60ft was like a 2.6. so he could have ran a 13.x if he could drive!
Leon

that one is definitely not stock.........sounds like he turned up the boost and add a few bolt-ons (prolly intake/exhaust/downpipe/diverter valve, maybe a few other smaller things)

Yeah, you are right about a few things. Especially about the 5.0s showing their age. Most 5.0s on the street are pretty tired by now and some are over 15 yrs old and have passed the 200K mark!!! So throw that in with a not so great driver and you have a pretty sad car. I remember back in the late 80s or early 90s no 4 cyl would even think of challenging the 5.0 on the steet. Times are certainly different now, especially as our beloved 5.0 is getting older and tired...

Hard-top 5-speed 5.0's are mid 14 second cars.

Auto's are in the high 14 second range. So it's very possable that you could take one.

Because there were no 4 bangers that could hang with a 5.0 back then.

Exactly...

5.0's are not Tired,

If you want to race on the street and beat these ricers just rebuild your motor.

Or be like me and put in a rebuilt 351Windsor with a supercharger:D :D

then the ricer will only be a mere spectator when he tries to race u