87 mustang vs. 73 BB..help guys....
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,728
Likes: 1
From: Maple
87 mustang vs. 73 BB..help guys....
my friend had an 87 stang. i had a 73 BB..he feels he would have spanked me off the lights..i say no way..stang was 225hp stock,300ft/lbs. torque..
my vette was 400 at crank, 395ft/lbs. torque, 3spd. auto...stang was 5spd.....what do you think???? :boxing
my vette was 400 at crank, 395ft/lbs. torque, 3spd. auto...stang was 5spd.....what do you think???? :boxing
Drifting
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 1
Re: 87 mustang vs. 73 BB..help guys.... (1bad69)
Drag start with slicks= Mustang 1 car lenght in 60 foot.Then Vette engine blows from sucking the Ford into the intake so just run an air filter to avoid this common occurance :yesnod:
Race Director
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 10,073
Likes: 1
From: Toronto
Re: 87 mustang vs. 73 BB..help guys.... (1bad69)
OK, a stock 5.0 is a decent car off the line but so is Rob's L48. The LS-4's ONLY problem off the line in your car would have been traction.
Mustang owners tend to be deluded. They truly believe the 5.0 to be a benchmark for V8 engines and seem to forget that L98 powered f-bodies didn't have any problem with them on the street or track.
The low compression BBs have gotten worse press than they ever deserved because as a street engine, they were as tough as any. They're shortcomings were in airflow and compression and the higher end of the rpm band. Down low, 395 lb/ft NET ALWAYS beats 300lb/ft when traction is not an issue.
Tell him to grow up. Mustangs are for 17 year olds.
Mustang owners tend to be deluded. They truly believe the 5.0 to be a benchmark for V8 engines and seem to forget that L98 powered f-bodies didn't have any problem with them on the street or track.
The low compression BBs have gotten worse press than they ever deserved because as a street engine, they were as tough as any. They're shortcomings were in airflow and compression and the higher end of the rpm band. Down low, 395 lb/ft NET ALWAYS beats 300lb/ft when traction is not an issue.
Tell him to grow up. Mustangs are for 17 year olds.
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,728
Likes: 1
From: Maple
Re: 87 mustang vs. 73 BB..help guys.... (SuperFast80)
AMEN.. :blueangel: ....i think i had you guys in my t-bird the other day..i ran out of room to go... :boxing
[Modified by 1bad69, 11:28 AM 1/31/2002]
[Modified by 1bad69, 11:28 AM 1/31/2002]
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Every 2027 Corvette Engine Explained
Joe Kucinski
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Verdad Gallardo
10 Ugly Corvettes That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer
Brett Foote
10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years
Joe Kucinski
How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!
Michael S. Palmer
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 8,032
Likes: 20
From: Schaumburg, Il, USA IL
Re: 87 mustang vs. 73 BB..help guys.... (1bad69)
The '73 454 was rated @ 275hp
The '87 5.0 was rated @ 225hp
The '73 weighed ~3,400lbs
The '87 weighed ~3000lbs
You stated the '73 was running a slushbox the 5.0 a T-5.
The '87 5.0's were speed density and were produced before cam revisions
were made for NHV improvements. They were some of the hardest charging (stock) 5.0's made.
So, my hunch...being lighter, quicker, geared better, and with less drivetrain losses you'd be choking on fumes...assuming he could row a 5 speed.
...but we all know there is only 1 way to find out for sure...
The '87 5.0 was rated @ 225hp
The '73 weighed ~3,400lbs
The '87 weighed ~3000lbs
You stated the '73 was running a slushbox the 5.0 a T-5.
The '87 5.0's were speed density and were produced before cam revisions
were made for NHV improvements. They were some of the hardest charging (stock) 5.0's made.
So, my hunch...being lighter, quicker, geared better, and with less drivetrain losses you'd be choking on fumes...assuming he could row a 5 speed.
...but we all know there is only 1 way to find out for sure...
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,728
Likes: 1
From: Maple
Re: 87 mustang vs. 73 BB..help guys.... (Top_Notch)
we dont have the cars anymore...what about the torque?? i had an extra 100 on him?? i believe the stang was a few hundred pounds more than that too....
Safety Car
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,892
Likes: 13
From: Pettis Performance 565 with two stages of Nitrous Supply nitrous 1.082, 4.61 at 155, 7.17 at 192
Re: 87 mustang vs. 73 BB..help guys.... (1bad69)
MountainMotor: Thanks for the advise on how to keep those pesky mustangs out of my intake (they fly right past my flowed out 850 dp) sometimes they will hang up in my three inch exhaust, any suggestions :chevy
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 6,134
Likes: 46
From: Raleigh North Carolina
Re: 87 mustang vs. 73 BB..help guys.... (69 N.O.X. RATT)
I have a 90 5.0 HO with a AOD which is stock, never been worked on, 125,000 miles.
I have a 1970 LS5 454 4spd., 56,000 miles, recent valve job, Holley spreadbore.
Forgive me guys, but I do like my Mustang... it is a sweet toy.
The LS5 is faster than the Ford.... the torque puts you back in the seat, and if you shift fast enough (I can & do) it will keep you there. I have driven a 88 Mustang (clutch) with the supercharger correctly installed, and that car will probably spank my LS5.
The 90 Ford (MAF, stock cam etc) is on more equal footing with my 66 Vette 327/350 HP. 4 spd.
Since I can drive a clutch (speed shift) just as easily as a slush box, I can't make any comments on variance in that arena.
Tom
I have a 1970 LS5 454 4spd., 56,000 miles, recent valve job, Holley spreadbore.
Forgive me guys, but I do like my Mustang... it is a sweet toy.
The LS5 is faster than the Ford.... the torque puts you back in the seat, and if you shift fast enough (I can & do) it will keep you there. I have driven a 88 Mustang (clutch) with the supercharger correctly installed, and that car will probably spank my LS5.
The 90 Ford (MAF, stock cam etc) is on more equal footing with my 66 Vette 327/350 HP. 4 spd.
Since I can drive a clutch (speed shift) just as easily as a slush box, I can't make any comments on variance in that arena.
Tom
Race Director
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 10,073
Likes: 1
From: Toronto
Re: 87 mustang vs. 73 BB..help guys.... (1bad69)
what about the torque?? i had an extra 100 on him?? i believe the stang was a few hundred pounds more than that too....
BTW, I think you gave Rob a little too much competition there. I was embarrased for him. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: