blk90rdstr

I cant stand them cars. Theyre fugly and about as dependable as they look. I dont care how fast it goes its junk and I wouldnt take a free one if I had to drive it. Its like them vipers which may be faster I dont like them either. I am really a GM guy :chevy :chevy :chevy The first the best the one the only CORVETTE

nsimmons

rick, you have to be the most ignorant a s s to come along in quiet some time ive seen enough time slips including my own to prove to me the drivers at road and track and car and driver must of had the ebrake on to run times like that. Im not talking about the 82 with its lame rear gears, and heavier body. Ive seen the cars run, i've seen the time slips, i've run the times, what do you have? magazine articles from 19 years ago, No real world evidence. You sound like a ricer arguing that some magazine says his car can run the 1/4 in x time so he figured he can do to, and beat any car the magazine says is slower.

I post proof you pretend its fake, you want more time slips, I know of other people who ran 15 or under with stock cars.

You seem to think i have no frame of reference, we all know your mighty lt1 is the end all and be all of performance. This hasnt been the only vette i've owned, and i had a z28 that would of embarrassed yours nicely.

One more thing, this is straight from one of scorps posts

"Personally my '87 ran 13.8 @ 98 when she was bone stock and had over 100k miles on her"

which is 0.7 better than magazine times, i suppose he's full of it also.

[Modified by nsimmons, 6:54 PM 5/3/2002]


[Modified by nsimmons, 7:12 PM 5/3/2002]

Nathan Plemons

Magazines do have notoriously bad times. I've seen many a magazine test the LT1 in the 13.8 range, which many people drive it 13.30's, some even manage to slip up and catch a 12.

Remember that every car in the world is different. I don't care how good a driver you are, you can't sit down in my car for a day and drive it like I do. That's what these magazines are asked to do. They could easily see much improved time slips if they had more time to learn the cars. The best drivers in the world know their own car and can get more out of it than anybody else.

BTW, my personal opinion is that Crossfires are turds, but there are plenty of people out there who can drive them faster than advertised. The same thing goes for Mustangs.

To get back on topic, I've seen many a supercharged mustang dyno less HP than my car does N/A. Add to that all the tuning headaches of the supercharger and the fact that any kind of forced induction has a lag and you have a poor performer. I even saw a very nice looking very mean sounding heads/cam mustang dyno 205 hp.

nsimmons

I completley agree with you Nathan, and yes they are turds in stock form, some are freakishly fast some are freakishly slow.

Im planning to finish modifying my car over the next few weeks. Based on similar setups and my 600 dollar budget, im hoping for 270-280hp, that should give it respectible times.

Lone Ranger

Let's all agree we disagree, and try not to call names, we all got our opinions :D (even though we think Rick's is wrong :lol: ). I still don't buy the SUV comment, not the led sled heavy one's of late. As for Lexus's... granted my car is an LT1 which is cuts above a stock crossfire (stock crossfire mind you...), and a 'vert at that... with 2.59's, but I embarrased a Lexus SC400 (unk year but looked fairly new) last month: was all on my rear bumper down the road, whips around me passes on right and gets in front of me at stoplight in left lane. light changes he had to have nailed it because the rear bumper drops and his tires chirp. So I thought what the hell, and nailed it... darted right and howled right past him in the righthand lane. I figure he was WOT because at next light he turned right onto the intersecting street and chirped off again :lol:

GlockLT4

hahah.. i like this comment:

Someone hasn't done their homework :lol: :lol:


[Modified by Glock'94, 1:58 AM 5/4/2002]

snaketr

I've got a great story for this one. When I was in HS in 89 my dad had a gold 85 that would flat out run. I was bone stock auto with exhaust. This guy who had already graduated has an 87 5spd mustang and always hasseled me about racing him. Now I was still recuperating from a reckless driving ticket so racing on the street I was not going to do. Well he finally pissed me off so we did tow runs, one from 50mph which I completely smoked him over 10 car lengths. Then we were supposed to turn around and start from a stop, but instead he nailed and I thought he would do this so I had kept the car in 1st. About 4 seconds later I waived as I went by. He to this day has never tried to race any vette that I have had, and he still tells everyone that my dads 85 had to have an high hp engine in it. Well it did not, it was just one of those lucky vettes that would absoluty haul from the factory. I regret that I never took it to the track to see what it would do. But I know this and I don't give a crap what any mustang owner might say, it roasted him and for about a month his friend that was with him would not even look at me in the halls at school he was so embarrased.

shera

gtsyellow,
First off I have to say that I have owned both a 1987 Vette and a 1999 GT. Both have been to the track many times up at New England Dragway. They get very similar times 14 sec. @ 100mph when the track wasn`t like ice.
The Vette would allways hook up better off the line but after 4400 rpm in second it was all over for the TPI. The GT is not making power until 3500 rpm but it is making more hp than the TPI 236 rear wheel HP at 5K vs a peak of 207 with the Vette at 4K. The Vette had more torque at 307 vs 277 in the GT.
So stock to stock with a good driver that hooks up look out it is going to be close in the quarter mile.
The Vette will take the GT in top speed on the highway no problem. Which is a better car well the Vette is.

lt4 gs

Even.........EVEN.......if it did.........which we all know it didn't...............It would still be a Ford................ :chevy :chevy :chevy :chevy :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

YellowFvr

once again, the comments from stangnet.com that I refer to in the title of this thread are aimed at the 300hp lt1 vettes and the 275hp lt1 camaros, t/a's, not older vette years such as 1987,etc (making the claim that 1999+ mustangs are faster even more outlandish).....

DragMan

My friend just bought a 99 Gt Mustang and raced it last night went 9.49 & 9.50s faster that a corvette righhtt! I went 8.81 stock!! :lol:

shera

lt4 gs,
Not sure why you would doubt it? The Dyno numbers speak for themselves. The latest Dyno on the GT was done on the same Dyno and day in April 2002 that Fastguy, Afy, Slorvett etc., had their cars done. No one on the Corvette Forum would doubt that a stock Z06 would Dyno 360 rear wheel H.P. I belong to the same Corvette Club as they do. I guess a stock Lt4 is faster than a stock Lt5 too? They all can hit 180 mph right? (Not)
The older C4 Vettes before the Lt1 and your Lt4 have lost some ground over the years in the horsepower race. This is a fact.

S & K Dunn

Any "bone stock" 95 Z-51 would run mid 14s...but do you guys know that the (stock) automatics were faster than manual cars? Somewhere in my attic with more than 40 years of Corvette and Playboy magazines, I have an article that tested a stock '95 Z51, where they ran consistant 14 flats with a top speed more than 6mph faster than the standard cars. The authors of this article came to the same conclusion I reached through observation on the street and track that the Z51 automatics were the fastest of the C-4s. (Remember this was way before the days of the ZR-1.) That test demostrated the auto trans was almost a half second quicker than the equally equiped manual cars. When I bought my first tunned port car I found an automatic Z51. It ran 14.20s, but it had 64K on the original plugs, wires and everything else. I sold that car eight years later with a quarter million miles on it for $2K more than I paid for it. Try that with a mustang!

This auto advantage remained true all the way up to '96 when the manual cars got the LT4. Before I modified my '96 Z51, auto, I was running 1320.s (stock except for a flowmaster exhaust) which was just a click short of par with the LT4 guys. That was with the 3.07 rear end which, though not a real performance gear ratio, was much better than the base (non Z-51) ratio. Unfortuanatly, there weren't alot of performance enthusiests who opted for a Z-51 with an automatic.

The problem with all this Stang vs. C-4 talk is that it's an apples to oranges comparison. The truth is, GM made most Corvettes with low performance, low emmissions power train combos for the old folks who made up the majority of new Corvette buyers. Most of us young folks couldn't afford the insurance on a new Vette, much less the price tag. Likewise, Ford made the four and six banger base versions of the Stang. Their performance model was the GT. Unless you run base crossfires and early TPI against six banger mustangs and reserve the Z-51 cars for the GTs, it's apples to oranges.

On the otherhand, I always got got a kick out of the goofballs at Motortrend and Car and Driver who regularly tested base suspension C-4s with the tallest gears thet could find and then list their top speed as tested in 6th gear! These are same guys that raved about the Cordoba and Mustang II. I subscibe to both, as well as about a half dozen other auto mags but I've learned over the years to read between the lines and not take anything I read as absolute. :)

AquaMetallic94LT1

Somewhere in the back of my collective and fuzzy memory, I recall 84 vettes running 15.1 when tested by Car and Driver. I also remember that the auto 85 ran 14.1 which was pretty damn impressive at that time. I think they were impressed by the 1 sec improvement in the qtr mile at the time.

Some stock C4s will definitley be beaten by stock Mustangs. If you do a same model year comparison between the two cars, you will find that the vette will be faster or equal to the mustang.

Shriker

Oh boy.......let me jump into this one with a good view from both sides of the fence.

I owned a 97 Cobra Conv. prior to buying my 96 LT4. I have long been a Ford fan and am well versed in Mustangs from the early 80's up , having raced, driven, owned and have MANY friends own them in ALL states and stages of modification. My brother in law has a Bullitt Mustang currently.

Magazine tests can be fun to read and reasonable reference tools at times. BUT I have seen many real 1/4 mile passes and many real dyno runs of all types of performance cars and the magazines dont always paint the most realistic picture.

All this being said, 99-02 Mustang GT's are capable of high 13's @100+ bone stock on a decent day with a decent driver on a decent track. This is roughly the equivelent of a L98 Vette (close enough that the DRIVER will win the race - not the car) , BUT the Vette is easier to launch, has more low end and mid range power and is more consistent with all other things being equal. On a perfect day with perfect drivers the Mustang may have the quickest et of the day , on average the races would be pretty even.

LT1 Vettes generally will outrun the Mustang, being capable of mid to high 13's @ 102-3+ stock. LT4's generally are capable of low 13's to high 12's @ 107-109 and ZR1's are 12 second cars running from 108-112+.

That leaves the 84 cross fire Vette vs. the 99+ GT Mustang. With two good drivers my money would be on the Mustang. That may sound discouraging until you realize that an 84 Mustang GT was rated at 175 hp and would get KILLED by an 84 Vette in ANY performance test imaginable.

I love Mustangs , but I bought a Vette for one reason....it is a true sports car. As good as Mustangs are and can be made (which is pretty good considering their humble roots), the Vette is on a completely different level of performance , ESPECIALLY with regard to its chassis dynamics and brakes.

Just to let you know, my Cobra had all the boltons (intake and exhaust , gears, pulleys and suspension stuff etc.) , was a lot of fun , and was capable of low 13's @ 105-6 (it had about 300 rwhp). My bone stock LT4 is faster in every way, and the chassis and brakes are another level completely. DONT however, get me started on GM quality!! :seeya

TIMSPEED

SO...they should have stopped producing mustangs after 1970. cuz from then on, it's been all downhill.

Rick93Z07

Tim, Mustang performance has not gone "downhill" compared to other models. The current Cobras will run circles around a '67-70 Mustang in turns and their 1/4 mile performance is on-par with a 427 Crossbolt, 428 Super Cobra Jet or 429 Boss. On a Road Race course which takes all-around performance (braking, handling and acceleration), the new GT's will run circles around any '60's or '70's Shelby. In fact, a bone stock Cobra R runs similar lap times to the record-holding 1970 302 Boss Trans Am factory race car and a generic Cobra is not far behind.

Everyone continues to reference timeslips at a local track. There is no point of reference or valid comparison info for these decalarations. Secondly, it's obvious that "fuzzy memories" of '84 magazine tests are the best anyone can do here. I see no reputable magazine tests being quoted that show 15 flat '84's. I have the '84 Car & Driver magazine 1/4 mi test in my hand and it was almost a second slower, much like every other article.

Motor Trend wrote a nice, thorough article entitled "Domestic Dynamite" that pitted 7 of the fastest cars together in 1987. This comprehensive, carefully controlled testing was conducted in the presence of a dozen or so GM, Chrysler & Ford Detroit Automotive Engineers at the huge TRC General Motors Proving Grounds track, mind you. Again....GM/Chevy facility. Voila....The '87 Mustang turned out to be 0.2 seconds quicker and 4 MPH faster than the '87 Vette on the exact same track...exact same day...exact same drivers. This was a totally valid comparison, not numbers picked out of the sky. ...Mustang ran 144 MPH, Vette 152 MPH.

I hardly think a showroom stock '84 Vette would have punished both of those '87 cars in the 1/4 mi on that day...although the Buick Regal GN in attendance surely did (by a whopping 0.4 sec).


[Modified by Rick93Z07, 9:48 AM 5/5/2002]

Springer's LT4

I will throw out Road & Tracks time for the 84 for what it's worth... 15.5
http://www.corvettearchive.com/image...1984/page2.jpg

Rick93Z07

Well, there's one reputable article about a blistering fast '84 touted by the Corvette Archive site...posted by one of our 16,000+ forum members. That's one of the few I didn't see. Still, that 15.5 doesn't quite compare with the 14.1 to 14.4 times for the '87-'88 Mustang LX or '99+ GT. I could scan a dozen Hot Rod, Car Craft, Motor Trend & Road and Track articles showing the substantial gap under controlled condition...but why bother. The 1/4 mi performance of the '99+ GT and the early Fox Mustangs lies somewhere around a later L98, in my opinion. That means there are plenty of slower C4's on the street.

NUckINg FuTS

October issue of Car and Driver (1983) tested an '84 crossfire vette running 0-60 in 6.7sec and the 1/4 mile in 15.1 @ 91mph. :cheers: