Lone Ranger

Get 'em, Scorp! Go Go Go!:cheers:

01GT

You guys have got to see what my brother posted on the stang.net
in reply to this post.
01GT :cheers:

Nathan Plemons

I'm not gonna jump in on that particular argument, but look at the mustang point of view.

So what if they can finally keep up with a stock LT1, what does that give them against the LS1, they still see tail lights. Sure I've seen my share of fast Mustangs, but those are all highly modified in one way or another. Ford has some good ideas on using dual overhead cams, blah blah. The problem is that it's an extremely poor implementation, the head and intake design is horrible and quite restrictive. Should you want to change the cams, plural, you're looking at close to $1000. Or they add a supercharger. All of this to make it run with a current chevrolet pushrod v-8 based on 50 year old technology.

What I'm saying is that you can make a Mustang fast, but stock for stock they are a good generation behind. Ford is trying to make them fast, but they can't do it in the engine, they have to put a supercharger on everything they sell now to make it perform like it should. Imagine if GM started putting a supercharger on Vette's from the factory, Ford wouldn't have a prayer.

I've lost ot my share of Mustangs, but they were not stock. Every stock one I've ever seen has been a POS at the drag strip, and NONE of them play on the street.


[Modified by Nathan Plemons, 2:59 PM 5/3/2002]

YellowFvr

let me clear something up....the argument start with the ford guy (badazzblue) saying he could beat 1993-1996 lt1's (including t/a's, camaros, etc....) he(along with others) also said they could beat/keep up with a (1993-1996 300hp) c4, in response to some pro-c4 comments.....now the guy realizes what he said and is trying to back out of his "Faster than a c4 vette" comments, although he repeatedly stated them, and only started saying "I'm not refering to vettes, just trans ams" 5 or 6 vette-hating posts later.

01GT

I love my GT,but it is'nt going to beat a LT1 corvette.Hell,I'm not that
damn stupid.
01GT :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Rick93Z07

Nathan,

The first mistake people make is comparing a cramped, purpose-built 2 seater sports car to a practical, cheap ponycar. My Mustang was able to haul several 4x8 sheets of plywood, a 30"+ TV or 5 passengers in a pinch and was very driveable in the snow. The two chassis are hardly comparable. The Vette is nothing more than a toy while the Mustang can substitute for a sedan. Owning a sports car that does not outperform a ponycar in every performance aspect is downright embarrassing for some folks. This is why many '84's have been relegated to garage queen duty. They can be embarrassed by a SUV in juvenile stoplight play.

On the other side of the coin, a bone stock streetable LT1 will push a purpose-built, gutted & trailered Mustang with SVO-everything around most race courses with equal rubber. In that case, the Mustang may cost more than the $12K street Vette. It's totally out of it's element with it's 1978 underpinnings and aftermarket band-aids. Tons of cash and labor must be dumped into the chassis to compete in turns against a $5K C4 with 5.7L, low center of gravity & aluminum SLA front and rear. From a David and Goliath perspective, I think it's fun to compete with lesser hardware. However, it can become more costly to use the wrong tool...such as Road Racing a Mustang or drag racing a Corvette.


[Modified by Rick93Z07, 4:23 PM 5/3/2002]

Dr. Evil

A 99 GT with MT et streets and auto ran high 9s at about 74-74mph at our local 1/8th track. The car now has heads/cam/gears etc etc. It now runs in the high 8s in the 1/8th. People can say what they want but I am convinced that these motors cant make big hp without some type of forced induction. Not at the average enthusiast level anyways.
I'm certainly not worried about em, especially on the street. The're all 60 foot.

TIMSPEED

My girlfriend's stock 92 LX 5.0 5-speed mustang slaughtered a few C4's (L98's). It ran consistent 13.7's. Now, we got it tuned to run mid 12's...still same displacement as the L98/LT1/LS1(it's got a 5.8 stroker), and Naturally Aspirated. It's quite the deceptive little car.
-5.8 Stroker kit
-Tremec TKO Tranny
-TFS Heads
-Ford Racing E303 Cam
-Ford Racing GT40 intake manifold
-BBK headers with dual 2½" exhaust (with x-pipe)
-SSM Subframe Connectors and other suspension garbage
12.32@110mph. Thank you very much, that's with HER driving!!!

Nathan Plemons

I'll agree with you about the 84's. I can't agree with you on the car is a toy thing. Sure my car is a mode of recreation, but if it's a toy it is the most practical toy I have. I gets better gas mileage than:

My dad's 95 F-150
My mom's 99 Blazer
My dad's 46 Chevy Truck
My brother's 99 Z-28

So from a fuel economy standpoint it is perfectly practical for me. For that matter I've never seen a Ford get anything near the fuel economy that GM can get. From a hauling standpoint, I can easily put 2 weeks worth of groceries for a family of 4 in it, so it's plenty practical there.

Fact is most families have more than one vehicle. If I am going to be doing any heavy hauling I'll make my second vehicle a truck. But as for the Vette, it's no less practical than any other car. Hell the back seats on Mustangs and Z-28's are what's not practical, it's a joke, why bother.

Practicality is in the eye of the beholder. The sole purpose of my car is to carry my butt back and forth to work, so to me, it's practical.

Just my thoughts, no flames intended.

Nathan Plemons

Put the equivilent parts on a Vette and you'll be seeing similar times. We can compare modified all day long, it won't do any good.

01GT

No that would not.Anyone read the new motortrend.That ought to shut
those ford mod guys up.0-60 in 1.97 seconds for the TT 427 lingenfelter C5!
Enough said!
01GT :eek:

65Z01

TIMSPEED, was her '92 Stang "bone stock"? I'm just curious cause lota guys say "stock" to include K&N, stat, etc (i.e. minor mods).

Like I posted on the Stang board, I don't know if I've ever raced against a truely "bone stock" Mustang, nor in a truely "bone stock" can except for that first outing.

My '88 "bone stock" (down to the air cleaner) ran a best of 14.0x when I baselined it two seasons ago. Of course the '89s with a 6-speed and the 3.07 gears (with my A4 they're 2.59s) are in the high 13s.

BTW, interesting to see that the Stang guys use SSMs as do the Thirdgen guys (I have an '86 IROC too).

MrNuke

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so. Anyone with a totally stock C3 or C4 crossfire is running one, according to Motor Trend, Car & driver and a host of other reliable mags. My 15.8 second near stock '88 Lincoln beats most of them. An '84 C4 can not touch a stock '84 or '85 Holley 4bbl T-5 Mustang GT in a straight line with a 10 foot pole. Those Mustangs ran typical 15.7s 1/4 mile & it was widely recognized that the '84 Vette is quite a bit slower. A 16 flat is respectable for the crossfire. Motor Trend tested the '82 Corvette 4 spd manual crossfire at a blistering 16.5s at 84 MPH. It kicked the Ferrari Mondial butt that ran a blistering 16.7 seconds! (I know, they are all liars...Corvettes MUST be fast)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ummm...First of all, not to put down the '84 C4, you can't consider it stock vs stock the same league as the later L98 C4's.. Then again you have the Z51 vs Z52 issue to think about.. Even in the Ads back in '85-86 claim a 14.5 second 1/4 for a Z51 BONE STOCK.. Actualyl Goto here : http://www.corvettearchive.com/c45.cfm
They link magazine ads and stuff for Many year vettes..
the '84 might be a dog when it comes to straight line speed, ,but put it on a road course, and it'll outhandle most things on the road even today..

:smash:

Dr. Evil

My lowly L-98 traps at 106mph. With stock bottom end, stock heads, stock cam, stock plenum and runners, stock throttle body, stock chip and stock valvetrain. Like Nathan said. If you want to compare stock to stock fine, but mod for mod is another story.

Those are some good times though, congrats.


[Modified by red90sixspeed, 4:28 PM 5/3/2002]

nsimmons

have you ever even driven an 84? Why not come to the crossfire forum and tell the rest of the 84 owners who run 14 flat - 14.3's with hardly any mods that they're dreaming too. Even the bone stock 84's can manage very close to 15 flat, typically 15.1 or 15.2. Now the mph isnt very high usually around 93-95 but these cars are very strong the first 1/8 mile.

How about instead of quoting magazine stats from 19 year ago, you actually take alook around and see what they really run.

This isnt my car but a fellow members time slips
Here is stock


Drag radials 1.6 rockers, flow masters


3.73's 125 shot


Yes thats a 12 sec. run, Must be doctored, no way a crossfire could run 12's


[Modified by nsimmons, 2:53 PM 5/3/2002]

guywade

truth of the matter is all you stang owners only wished you were in a corvette, dream on!!!!!!!!! chevy rules!!!

gtsyellow

i was just going to say that, the new gt with a great driver might and i mean might keep up with the late L98 cars. however when i first bought mine and it was bone total stock i beat a 99gt by almost a car length and the guy driving it was a compitent driver. we were both slamming 2nd, 3rd hard. however at 100mph to when we stopped at around 120 i was slowly pulling. i think the lt1 cars would be a good run with the new cobras but it would also probably wind up similar. i know personally i can roast a new cobra now..but i;m not exactly stock either :eek:

tpivette89

theres no way a Crossfire is in the 16s. my 84' carbed 305 Z28 has run a best of 16.2 at 85mph bone stock. Crossfire Vettes have 50 or so more hp than that! as for the 99+ GTs, ive heard they run low 14s - high 13s with a good driver (though ive never seen it). thats exactly what L98 Vettes run. they wouldnt stand a chance with an LT1, stock for stock. i raced a 2000 GT auto for about an 1/8 mile on the street and beat him by about 3-4 lengths. at the time all i had was a Flowmaster cat-back and a AFPR, andhe was sporting a Flowmaster cat-back. whoever started the thread about beating C4s either raced an 84', or a newer C4 with 2 disconnected plug wires

Lone Ranger

:bs with a capital "B", Mustang man.

Rick93Z07

Lone Ranger, how fast do you think an '84 Vette is in the 1/4 mile?? How do you think it'll do in a straight line against a 4dr Lexus or Neon or Maxima or the neighbor lady's Grand Cherokee or that BMW X5 off road thing? Wake up....time passes and things change.

A particular car will vary widely from track to track. You quote me ANY reputable magazine test showing an '84 crossfire near the 15 flat threshold and I'll go look it up in the local library. Save the effort, there are none (unless the Crossfire forum archived one from "GM Monthly"). Every reputable test I've seen is high 15's and somewhat faster but quite consistent with low 16 second '82 Crossfire Corvettes. The Mustang was in control of straight line performance from '82 through '84. In '85 thru '87 it was a tossup and by '89 the Mustang actually ran slower with Mass Air Flow while the L98 got faster. You have to give Ford the acceleration crown during that brief period...all the reputable press did. GM was not BEST every single year, sorry.

Unofficial times posted by individuals are not the least bit convincing, compared to a controlled magazine test monitored and sponsored by GM test engineers. Some of these cars were prototype ringers and they weren't slower than average. These times you quote are either outright lies or cars with modifications & tweaking or downhill or short tracks or unrepeatable flukes due to timer malfunction etc. Such oddball times are proudly touted on every auto enthusiast forum on the net. A couple impressive timeslips pretend to represent thousands of slug motors. Go to the Mark VIII forum and witness "stock" Lincolns in the low 14's with timeslips on prominent display. Imagine, performance like that from a watered down, detuned Cobra motor with less HP, smaller tailpipes, luxo-silent mufflers, automatic, lower flow induction, 225/60's and an extra 500 lbs!!?? Cobras struggle to meet that time with a 5 speed, steeper gearing and 255 rubber. Those Mark's are slower than a Seville or Impala, not a second faster. Just like the crossfire forum...living in a bubble fantasy. I am glad to hear your modified car is fast (and pleases you) but give me a break. I've heard it all before (and don't believe it represents reality).


[Modified by Rick93Z07, 9:31 PM 5/3/2002]