ATTN: Unit 5302

StoplightWarrior · 03-26-2001, 01:33 AM

HAHAHA!! I was over at Altimas.net today, and I was reading up on the post regarding the "5.0 thrash" I had replied earlier to it, and I saw that you had actually signed up to set the record straight. Some of the BS at those ricer boards is rediculous, but I usually don't register to do anything about it. That thread, though, I felt just begged for it, so I signed up, and I guess you did too. Those guys were saying that stock 5.0s ran mid 15's when they debuted. I remember when the 5.0 LX's came out, it was a huge deal that some of em were running high 13s basically stock. What a bunch of BS over there! Good Work!

------------------
Black 2000 GT
Magnaflow Catback, K&N

inferno · 03-26-2001, 11:49 AM

While there are some exceptions, a stock early fox would run low 15's, high 14's. Hell, late foxes and SN95's usually run high 14's. It all depends on the driver and also, if someone got a "special" car from the factory. Lizard King has a "special" car as I have never seen a stock 99 or 00 GT run anything faster than a 14.3 in person. Same thing in the case of Sky's 15.4 in his LS Integra. I hadn't heard of any stock LS's running faster than 15.9.

------------------
90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose
84 Toyota Supra aka Natural Born Killa

dinomite · 03-26-2001, 12:49 PM

Actually, inferno, we had been talking about this, and I later figured out that the 87-93 'stangs ran mid14s stock. The 94-95 were slower, the 96-98 even slower, and the new 99 are getting pretty quick, low 14. Just cause its old doesn't mean its slow, thats the ricer thought process.

Mustangbelle306 · 03-26-2001, 01:09 PM

ummmm actually my 94 GT ran 14.01 @ 99mph with only 4.10s which with 3.73s would have been a tad quicker... intact air silencer, stock mufflers etc etc

------------------
Elisha (Mustang Chick Extraordinaire)
1994 GT/Saleen: Cartech intake,4.10s, full exhaust, pulleys, Compucar nitrous kit 125 shot
Sold the 1986 LX sedan

http://www.geocities.com/mustangbelle_306
AOL name: GT306Chick

Unit 5302 · 03-26-2001, 01:14 PM

Well, sometimes the lack of knowledge about the Fox body get's disturbing.

In some cases I just decide to set the facts straight.

I posted on two topics actually, the Fox 5.0's were brought up on two seperate occations.

inferno we can continue to disagree on this issue too. The average early Fox 5.0 should rip off a mid 14 without a problem. If you start adding auto's and verts it's gonna add time, but if you are in say a 1987 GT Hatch 5spd, good driving off the floor should net a 14.4ish pass.

Jaydee · 03-26-2001, 01:43 PM

For what its worth to this discussion, when my 87 LX was new, it ran 14.44 100% bone stock and with marginal traction(2.73,s 225-60-15 Gatorbacks, silencer in etc.)and my driving skills at that time were shall we say, not really polished.

inferno · 03-27-2001, 02:13 AM

I am basing my comments off of what I have seen. You guys rarely believe anything I say about import performance so why should I believe you when I have seen cars with my own eyes run the times I put down. And I don't think that just because a car is older it is slow. I would never under estimate an older car or any car for that matter because of how it looks or it's age.

------------------
90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose
84 Toyota Supra aka Natural Born Killa

Skyman · 03-27-2001, 05:19 AM

While Ive heard of all these cars running this fast. I've yet to see it at the track. Most of them are running high 14's to low 15's. In near stock form. Mostly 15's for Gt's. I never looked for AOD or 5spd, and the drivers may ahve scuekd. but thats where people get these ideas from.

Sky

------------------
-1989 Saleen Mustang #406- TFS Heads, E-303, edelbrock intake,70MM TB, 73mm MAF, off road H, headers and 3chamber flows.
12.55@107mph
Runs on 87 Octane and gets 24mpg!

302 LX Eric · 03-27-2001, 12:18 PM

It all goes back to the Type R discussion we had here 6-9 months ago (maybe more?)...people from other boards jumped on the topic and quoted the Type R as a 14.7 car - when we all know that the Type R is a low 15 performer on an average day.

Now, is that to say that a Type R can't run a 14.7 in stock form? No. A Type R could run a 14.7 under ideal conditions (driver, weather, traction, etc.).

It really ticks me off when folks start quoting ETs that they once heard a car ran on one occassion under perfect conditions and probably 20 trips down the 1320. Point is that new Mustangs aren't 13.6 performers (no disrespect Lizard) and Type R's aren't 14.7 performers - they are more like 13.9 and 15.2, respectively. And this goes for all cars...I just wish people would quote more realistic ETs & MPHs under average conditions (what a decent driver with decent traction, launch, etc. could expect out of the car.).

Sorry for the rant...
E

------------------
1991 5.0 LX Coupe - 38,000 miles

13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60'

Godslayer · 03-27-2001, 03:19 PM

I agree with the high 14/low 15 quote for the fox bodies. My car is practically stock, still has the 2.73's. The only mods are a full exhaust and a K&N. I am not the greatest driver but I'm certainly not the worst, and the best I could pull was a 15.0 @ 95. The MPH shows a better ET is possible but traction was an issue. The run was on street tires. My average was probably .1-.2 slower depending on weather, driving, etc. This is an 87 GT with a T-5. The car has enough power to pull 14's, but the horrible gearing and lack of traction kill it. I say low 15's average for a GT. Maybe a little faster for an LX.

------------------
87 GT
Full exhaust, K&N, KB Subs, BBK STB, homeade dumps...

87 Taurus
New York
Winters Bite!

inferno · 03-28-2001, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 302 LX Eric:
Point is that new Mustangs aren't 13.6 performers (no disrespect Lizard) and Type R's aren't 14.7 performers - they are more like 13.9 and 15.2, respectively

I have never seen a stock 99 and up GT run faster than a 14.4.

------------------
90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose
84 Toyota Supra aka Natural Born Killa

302 LX Eric · 03-28-2001, 09:05 AM

inferno - I have seen a handful of 99+ GT's with 5 speeds and on STOCK tires rip off 13.9's and even a 13.8x something at National Trial Raceway - while I've also seen a couple of runs from a Type R that couldn't go faster than a 15.4...so what's your point?

To reiterate my point: Let's quote more realistic times from cars. That's it. Plain and simple. After reading numerous posts on this site (and based on my experiences), I think we can all agree that the 99+ GT's are high 13 second performers - and maybe very low 14 second performers.

E

------------------
1991 5.0 LX Coupe - 38,000 miles

13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60'

horseairplane · 03-28-2001, 11:05 AM

"I have never seen a stock 99 and up GT run faster than a 14.4."

Inferno,

I have a stock 2000 GT w/AOD. On March 16, 2001, in Marrion, Tx. I ran a 14.255 @ 95.8 mph beside a 2000 GT w/manual trans running a 14.176 @ 98.112 mph. We were both running on the stock BFG's.

If you want to see it, come to Texas and I will show you.

A

------------------
00 GT

97snakedriver · 03-28-2001, 04:11 PM

I used to drive an Altima:

1. Unless we're comparing it to a wheel chair with a flat tire, I wouldn't call it fast.

2. Luxury? Are they kidding? I mean its not bad, but its not exactly great. I would though my dirty 100 lb dog in with out thinking about it.

3. Those cars have some of the widest turning radiuses of any car I've ever driven. Mustangs aren't exactly great in this department, but Altimas are much worse.

4. The handle like crap. Have a high center of gravity, small tires with little room for larger ones, plow like mad, and are just generally unsettled.

Anyway, to each there own I guess. But I love when the talk about hp/L.

150/2.4 < 305/4.6 < 320/4.6

03-26-2001, 01:33 AM	#1
StoplightWarrior Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Nor-Cal Posts: 1,311	ATTN: Unit 5302 HAHAHA!! I was over at Altimas.net today, and I was reading up on the post regarding the "5.0 thrash" I had replied earlier to it, and I saw that you had actually signed up to set the record straight. Some of the BS at those ricer boards is rediculous, but I usually don't register to do anything about it. That thread, though, I felt just begged for it, so I signed up, and I guess you did too. Those guys were saying that stock 5.0s ran mid 15's when they debuted. I remember when the 5.0 LX's came out, it was a huge deal that some of em were running high 13s basically stock. What a bunch of BS over there! Good Work! ------------------ Black 2000 GT Magnaflow Catback, K&N

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Help with fuel sending unit install on 68 mustang	ciara	Classic Mustangs	3	07-09-2003 01:55 AM
unit 5302	Caribbean Cobra	Modular Madness	0	06-11-2002 01:22 AM
Calling Unit 5302...	Jeb_Bush_2000	Windsor Power	3	01-15-2002 12:08 AM
Where did UNIT 5302 go off to????	Mercury	Blue Oval Lounge	9	07-14-2001 01:11 AM

03-26-2001, 11:49 AM	#2
inferno The Instigator Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: So Cal and Houston Posts: 764	While there are some exceptions, a stock early fox would run low 15's, high 14's. Hell, late foxes and SN95's usually run high 14's. It all depends on the driver and also, if someone got a "special" car from the factory. Lizard King has a "special" car as I have never seen a stock 99 or 00 GT run anything faster than a 14.3 in person. Same thing in the case of Sky's 15.4 in his LS Integra. I hadn't heard of any stock LS's running faster than 15.9. ------------------ 90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose 84 Toyota Supra aka Natural Born Killa

03-26-2001, 12:49 PM	#3
dinomite The Dude Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 1,262	Actually, inferno, we had been talking about this, and I later figured out that the 87-93 'stangs ran mid14s stock. The 94-95 were slower, the 96-98 even slower, and the new 99 are getting pretty quick, low 14. Just cause its old doesn't mean its slow, thats the ricer thought process.

03-26-2001, 01:09 PM	#4
Mustangbelle306 Yay for Chickys Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 1,532	ummmm actually my 94 GT ran 14.01 @ 99mph with only 4.10s which with 3.73s would have been a tad quicker... intact air silencer, stock mufflers etc etc ------------------ Elisha (Mustang Chick Extraordinaire) 1994 GT/Saleen: Cartech intake,4.10s, full exhaust, pulleys, Compucar nitrous kit 125 shot Sold the 1986 LX sedan http://www.geocities.com/mustangbelle_306 AOL name: GT306Chick

03-26-2001, 01:14 PM	#5
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,246	Well, sometimes the lack of knowledge about the Fox body get's disturbing. In some cases I just decide to set the facts straight. I posted on two topics actually, the Fox 5.0's were brought up on two seperate occations. inferno we can continue to disagree on this issue too. The average early Fox 5.0 should rip off a mid 14 without a problem. If you start adding auto's and verts it's gonna add time, but if you are in say a 1987 GT Hatch 5spd, good driving off the floor should net a 14.4ish pass.

03-26-2001, 01:43 PM	#6
Jaydee Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Conn. Posts: 220	For what its worth to this discussion, when my 87 LX was new, it ran 14.44 100% bone stock and with marginal traction(2.73,s 225-60-15 Gatorbacks, silencer in etc.)and my driving skills at that time were shall we say, not really polished.

03-27-2001, 02:13 AM	#7
inferno The Instigator Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: So Cal and Houston Posts: 764	I am basing my comments off of what I have seen. You guys rarely believe anything I say about import performance so why should I believe you when I have seen cars with my own eyes run the times I put down. And I don't think that just because a car is older it is slow. I would never under estimate an older car or any car for that matter because of how it looks or it's age. ------------------ 90 Honda CRX aka Project Mongoose 84 Toyota Supra aka Natural Born Killa

03-27-2001, 05:19 AM	#8
Skyman I need 110mph Trap Speed! Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: So, CA Posts: 4,315	While Ive heard of all these cars running this fast. I've yet to see it at the track. Most of them are running high 14's to low 15's. In near stock form. Mostly 15's for Gt's. I never looked for AOD or 5spd, and the drivers may ahve scuekd. but thats where people get these ideas from. Sky ------------------ -1989 Saleen Mustang #406- TFS Heads, E-303, edelbrock intake,70MM TB, 73mm MAF, off road H, headers and 3chamber flows. 12.55@107mph Runs on 87 Octane and gets 24mpg!

03-27-2001, 12:18 PM	#9
302 LX Eric or '331 LX Eric' Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 2,142	It all goes back to the Type R discussion we had here 6-9 months ago (maybe more?)...people from other boards jumped on the topic and quoted the Type R as a 14.7 car - when we all know that the Type R is a low 15 performer on an average day. Now, is that to say that a Type R can't run a 14.7 in stock form? No. A Type R could run a 14.7 under ideal conditions (driver, weather, traction, etc.). It really ticks me off when folks start quoting ETs that they once heard a car ran on one occassion under perfect conditions and probably 20 trips down the 1320. Point is that new Mustangs aren't 13.6 performers (no disrespect Lizard) and Type R's aren't 14.7 performers - they are more like 13.9 and 15.2, respectively. And this goes for all cars...I just wish people would quote more realistic ETs & MPHs under average conditions (what a decent driver with decent traction, launch, etc. could expect out of the car.). Sorry for the rant... E ------------------ 1991 5.0 LX Coupe - 38,000 miles 13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60'

03-27-2001, 03:19 PM	#10
Godslayer Registered Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Largo, FL USA Posts: 274	I agree with the high 14/low 15 quote for the fox bodies. My car is practically stock, still has the 2.73's. The only mods are a full exhaust and a K&N. I am not the greatest driver but I'm certainly not the worst, and the best I could pull was a 15.0 @ 95. The MPH shows a better ET is possible but traction was an issue. The run was on street tires. My average was probably .1-.2 slower depending on weather, driving, etc. This is an 87 GT with a T-5. The car has enough power to pull 14's, but the horrible gearing and lack of traction kill it. I say low 15's average for a GT. Maybe a little faster for an LX. ------------------ 87 GT Full exhaust, K&N, KB Subs, BBK STB, homeade dumps... 87 Taurus New York Winters Bite!

03-28-2001, 09:05 AM	#12
302 LX Eric or '331 LX Eric' Join Date: Jan 1999 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 2,142	inferno - I have seen a handful of 99+ GT's with 5 speeds and on STOCK tires rip off 13.9's and even a 13.8x something at National Trial Raceway - while I've also seen a couple of runs from a Type R that couldn't go faster than a 15.4...so what's your point? To reiterate my point: Let's quote more realistic times from cars. That's it. Plain and simple. After reading numerous posts on this site (and based on my experiences), I think we can all agree that the 99+ GT's are high 13 second performers - and maybe very low 14 second performers. E ------------------ 1991 5.0 LX Coupe - 38,000 miles 13.17 @ 106.14 mph w/ 2.138 60'

03-28-2001, 11:05 AM	#13
horseairplane Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Austin, Tx Posts: 9	"I have never seen a stock 99 and up GT run faster than a 14.4." Inferno, I have a stock 2000 GT w/AOD. On March 16, 2001, in Marrion, Tx. I ran a 14.255 @ 95.8 mph beside a 2000 GT w/manual trans running a 14.176 @ 98.112 mph. We were both running on the stock BFG's. If you want to see it, come to Texas and I will show you. A ------------------ 00 GT

03-28-2001, 04:11 PM	#14
97snakedriver Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Blacksburg, VA Posts: 1,526	I used to drive an Altima: 1. Unless we're comparing it to a wheel chair with a flat tire, I wouldn't call it fast. 2. Luxury? Are they kidding? I mean its not bad, but its not exactly great. I would though my dirty 100 lb dog in with out thinking about it. 3. Those cars have some of the widest turning radiuses of any car I've ever driven. Mustangs aren't exactly great in this department, but Altimas are much worse. 4. The handle like crap. Have a high center of gravity, small tires with little room for larger ones, plow like mad, and are just generally unsettled. Anyway, to each there own I guess. But I love when the talk about hp/L. 150/2.4 < 305/4.6 < 320/4.6