drove 4.6 01 GT not impressed

[Unit 5302]

Don't know what your trying to point out, Lizard. I don't think you have a leg to stand on. I raced the 87 vs the 01. The 87 pulled the 01. The 87 will trap 100mph+ The 01 cannot stop a car that traps 100+ from pulling, then reel it back in and pass it before the end of the quarter.

My 1987 Mustang GT Hatchback with 160,000 miles.

flex fan
removed silencer
K&N (dirty)
15k since last tuneup
10* initial timing
Splitfire wires
2.5" BBK cat H pipe
2.5" dynomax catback
2.95:1 T-5z first gear (worse than stock 3.35:1)
2.73:1 rear end ratio

Last I checked, that was pretty stock. No gears, no slicks, no engine modification whatsoever, no N20, no forced induction, no intake, no headers, no electric fan, no underdrives.

I'm sorry your ego is bruised. Sorry my rusty but trusty 15yr old 160,000mi car pulled on my shiny new car that's supposed to be faster. If you want to think happy thoughts, my 01 did win the race once my friend missed 2nd.

Mercury, you're not throwing any fuel on the fire as far as I'm concerned. I'm debating Lizard's disrespectful, uninformed statements regarding NO stock or near stock 5.0 can hang with a 99+GT. Mine did. End of story. Will it happen in general, car to car? Nope. Most 5.0's are mid 14 cars, and a new GT should beat them. A good stock 5.0 will dyno at near 230hp (converted to crank hp). An early Fox is about 200lbs lighter than a 99+. That puts them into an awfully close power to weight ratio when any light mods are made. 225hp is the stock rating. Removing the intake silencer and bumping the timing is worth 10hp+ on a 5.0. Add a set of underdrives, a K&N and you'll be sitting around 245hp+. All the sudden a very lightly modded 5.0 is 200lbs lighter, with only a 15hp or less difference between the two cars, assuming the car isn't a freak.

You can't walk up to a dead guy and tell him he can't die. Then insist to everybody there that since he can't die, he must not be dead.

[FHP Chris]

#1 Post YEA!

Unit does have some points, comparing the 4.6 to the 5.0 is a very wide range of mustangs, a 93 AOD GT Vert will not run what some of the lighter, cheaper coupes will.

Likewise, that new Bullitt wont run what a 99 Auto Vert will.

these ranges are so large that, when the cars condition's (mileage, etc) are factored in that it is a push, with mabye a little going to the new GT.

Congrats in 10 years the mustang got a little faster STOCK VS STOCK.

Start throwing parts on and you will not see the same gains that the 5.0s will, and start adding non motor parts to the 5.0, (eg: gears, slicks,the like) and the 5.0 will run very close, if not, the 12s,not the 13s.

If you want a fox to compare look no further than Bob Cosby's 88 SD Coupe. All $12,500 it cost NEW. He kept impeckable records from when he started racing the car, when it was new. Take a look.

http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/

[slow98]

unit who is driving the 4.6? whoever it may be needs to learn to drive because that just is not gonna happen with equaly matched drivers.... are u pulling out in second? hehe....

peace

[96GTPRT]

WHY CAN"T WE JUST ALL GET ALONG?!?!

[Lizard King]

Unit ... all I can say is return that new shiny 2001 GT;

1. It's abnormaly slow.
2. The driver is not capable of driving it properly.
3. That old 87GT rust bucket (as you refer to it) is just a WAY better car. You know, it puts my "bruised" ego to shame.

Your argument about the NOTCH being a solid 200lbs lighter is bogus since you also forgot to mention that the stock gears in the newer stangs are better (3.27 vs 2.73).

I love it when you say that your "stock" 87 which has an exaust is stock. If I put a similar exaust I am looking at 20HP more at the wheels. Which should put you back another car and a half.

K. i'm done. My mighty 4.6L EGO has had enough for today.

[Lizard King]

Originally posted by 96GTPRT
WHY CAN"T WE JUST ALL GET ALONG?!?!

Oh we can. This is just a bit of shiat talk ... nothing personal. You know when you open the can of worms with Unit, you get the full story!!!

[QKHORSE]

well how about the dyno numbers get added to this dispute.

87-93 lx sedan stock stang 180-190 wrhp
250-260 wrtq


99-2002 gt stock 225-230 wrhp
280-290 wrtq


A BONE STOCK 87-93 STANG WILL NOT BEAT A 99-2002 GT

PERFESSIONAL DRIVER FOR 1/4 MILE WILL PULL A 14.2-14.0 WITH 87-93 LX ON STREET TIRES. BONE STOCK!

IN A 99-2002 GT 13.7-13.6 ON STREET TIRES. BONE STOCK!

SO THE NUMBERS SPEAK FOR THEM SELVES.

But the whole truth is IT comes down to the driver!!! Plus if you think that an 87 gt makes power the same way as a 99-2002 gt well your wrong!. 87-93 stock stangs make most of their power up to 5000 rpm, where newer stang make it in the higher rpm. So if your racing a newer stang for the first time against an older stang, more than likely your going to lose.


Ian

[Try Me]

Originally posted by Dark_5.0


GTSR515 & Yan88GT both run 12.8's in pretty much stock stangs on slicks.

Look at some of the times at "the user rides" for 87-88 5 speed notch backs.

You may be right tha t if both drivers are matched the 4.6 will always beat the 5.0 stock vs. stock......As we well know all drivers are not equal.

Later,

Man you're still high eh?
Near stock Stangs running 12.8's?

That's funny because my friend "LT1 Z28" has an 89 'Notch with a 12LBS Vortech along with a whole lot of other stuff (FAR FROM STOCK) and runs 12.5s.

Your credibility is now 0.

A factory freak 5.0 will run.. maybe 13.9's. To run 12's you need to put down 350HP at the wheel. No near stock Fox does.

[SLOW 97]

The new GT's are not only faster but they can beat a car that is 400+ pounds less! A stock 4.6 vs. a mildly modded 5.0 will win every time. A lot of 5.0 guys refuse to believe our heavy cars with 'wussy' 4.6 will run 13's out of the box with ease. My friend in high school has an '87 GT (Speed density) w/ 5-speed, O/R pipes, and flows. Against my car (see sig. My car is not very fast) he can barely beat me and his car makes more power, it's a 5-speed, and it's way lighter. But, now he has 3.73's and will definitley smoke me. But when I get my 4.10's in a few weeks the party is over for him!

[Dark_5.0]

Originally posted by Try Me


Man you're still high eh?
Near stock Stangs running 12.8's?

That's funny because my friend "LT1 Z28" has an 89 'Notch with a 12LBS Vortech along with a whole lot of other stuff (FAR FROM STOCK) and runs 12.5s.

Your credibility is now 0.

A factory freak 5.0 will run.. maybe 13.9's. To run 12's you need to put down 350HP at the wheel. No near stock Fox does.

It is common to see fox bodies with Gears, exhaust a good tune and a 1.5-1.6 60ft on slicks run high 12's. When I said stock I meant stock engine.

I am really hurt to know that in your eyes my credibility is "0"
but, i am sure ill get over it

BTW, anyone running 12#'s of boost and only a 12.5.......Should keep that to there self cause its not impressive.

Im always high...High on life my friend.

Thanks for caring,
Later...

[Dark_5.0]

Originally posted by SLOW 97
The new GT's are not only faster but they can beat a car that is 400+ pounds less! A stock 4.6 vs. a mildly modded 5.0 will win every time. A lot of 5.0 guys refuse to believe our heavy cars with 'wussy' 4.6 will run 13's out of the box with ease. My friend in high school has an '87 GT (Speed density) w/ 5-speed, O/R pipes, and flows. Against my car (see sig. My car is not very fast) he can barely beat me and his car makes more power, it's a 5-speed, and it's way lighter. But, now he has 3.73's and will definitley smoke me. But when I get my 4.10's in a few weeks the party is over for him!

My 88 convertible would have handed you your @ss bone stock with 2.73 gears.

I have outran some 96-98 stangs in my bone stock 00' GMC truck...It is truely sad

So what is your point

[Try Me]

Originally posted by Dark_5.0


It is common to see fox bodies with Gears, exhaust a good tune and a 1.5-1.6 60ft on slicks run high 12's. When I said stock I meant stock engine.

Why didn't anyone tell me i can cut 2.5 seconds off my ET for $1,000?

Also - what the hell do you mean by "a good tune"? Like a tune up? New spark plugs? An SUV intake? I hear rice boys talk alot about "tuning" but they don't really know either.

BTW, anyone running 12#'s of boost and only a 12.5.......Should keep that to there self cause its not impressive.

I think it's very impressive. On street tires (i know you'll tell me he can cut over a second off with slicks) and street trim.

What times do you run?
I read your sig and i would guess maybe you run a mid 13 but according to your reasoning your 88 muset be a mid 12 second car.
I'm curious as is everyone else.

Im always high...High on life my friend.

Thanks for caring,
Later...

I'm not your friend and your pathetic attempt of coming across as mr. cool with your lamo closing remarks has backfired.

The purpose of this post is not to flame - but you are clearly misleading people with wrong information. There's a difference between giving your opinion and telling lies.

I wanna set to record straight so John Stafford doens't buy slicks and expect a 12 second timeslip.

[Mustang92]

Originally posted by Dark_5.0


It is common to see fox bodies with Gears, exhaust a good tune and a 1.5-1.6 60ft on slicks run high 12's. When I said stock I meant stock engine.

It's as common to see 1999 and up GT's with gears, exhaust and basic bolt-ons with or without out a tune to run high 12's (see sig)...stock engine including manifolds.

Bill

[Unit 5302]

Alright TryMe, you're so horribly misinformed that I don't know where to begin. Take a look at Jeff Chambers car. Stock GT40P heads. Mild cam. Edelbrock Intake. Naturally aspirated. 11.4@118mph. 1990 Mustang GT. That's impressive. What's more impressive is this year he switched to a mild intake and a Holley 650cfm carb. 11.343@120mph, at 4500ft cutting 1.59 60ft when he normally 60ft's in the high 1.4's to low 1.5's. In other words, he's got a 10sec car with Factory Explorer heads. Jeff was running high 11's on stock GT40 Irons.

Take the fastest stock Gen 1 4.6L Vert in the galaxie and come to a place where the tracks aren't 200ft short, and then see what it'll do. Nobody in their right mind will believe your car is a stock Gen 1 4.6L vert running 14's. A fox running 12's off the factory floor is just about as believable as your claims.

Lizard King, it may be that I have exhuast. Still has cats. I'm also at stock timing, and my 1st gear ratio sux way more than stock. My 87 can do over 50mph in 1st gear if I were to strech it. Believe me, there is a night and day difference between the 2.95 1st gear on 2.73's and the stock 3.35's. There was a 3.08 option from the factory, and 3.27 for the AOD cars as well. I wince at thinking about bad my 5.0 would have killed the 01 had it been equipped with the 3.08's and a 3.35:1 stock tranny when I ran them. Other factors. 161,000mi on the engine, no tune for over 15,000mi. Dirty air filter. Dual sub iso baric bandpass in the trunk, and it was 90* out. The 5.0 HATES hot weather. If there was ever a time the 87 would have been running slow, it was then.

QKHORSE, you really don't want to do the dyno numbers like I've done above. Fine, let's go there. Average SD 5.0. 185rwhp. Average 1999+ GT. 220rwhp. I don't know where you're coming up with 225-230. Might want to check out a few more dyno pulls not made on a Mustang dyno that's been tampered with. The Bullitt isn't even dynoing 230. Now. Take the 5.0 and bump the timing, remove the intake silencer. 200rwhp.

Weight of SD Mustang Coupe. 3000lbs. Weight of 99+ GT. 3250lbs. Now. Which one launches better? Lizard King is considered by many on this board to be an excellent driver, correct? His 60ft's are 2.1-2.2. An excellent driver can pull a 1.9-2.0 on street tires with the coupe 5.0. Now you've got a 4 tenth advantage for the 5.0 right off the bat. Plus, it's 250lbs lighter. It's only down 20rwhp. The 5.0 and the new GT can trap at the same mph, in fact, Lizard's 98-99 isn't even top form for a real strong running stock 5.0.

Check out these following sites. Some of you may have heard of Mr 5 0, the site administrator, who has personally witnessed a stock, not even broken in 87 LX run a 13.8 in the quarter just off the showroom floor.

http://members.tripod.com/tomak3/page9.html

http://www.corral.net/projects/deepf...eezemods1.html

For the non believers, I'm going to setup another run with the 87GT. This time it'll be the new 2002GT vs the 1987GT. Like I said earlier. Gloves are coming off, and I'm actually going to tune the 87 up and bump the timing on it for the first time ever. Any suggestions on shift points for the 2002? The 87 get's shifted at 5800rpm and traps 100+

[Hammer]

Well,
I think this thread has been officially beat to death.

Good points made on both sides. Only thing that I think is funny is just what "stock" means to some folks... (on both sides of this issue)

I think we can conclude that both engines are very capable, well made powerplants.

A good friend of mine once said:
"Stop flappin' your gums and show me a time slip..."

And the rest my friends, should be settled at the track...