 | | 
08-22-09, 06:17 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2009 Location: Kearneysville, WV
Posts: 341
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SS02  ^^^ Agreed with the 12.80 comment...... Still from what I take from his comment is hes stating the 5.0 isnt slow stock. I mean we can make any engine faster by bolting on stuff and a H/C/I Swap, steeper gears and such. I think im right on this one, and if im not then sorry for the misinterpretation.
Also....I still dont see a 94 breaking the 12s with just gears and Boltons. Just my 2 cents. | Well, I guess we can agree to disagree, but I'll say this. A buddy of mine had a '95 Z28 with an A4 and with just bolt-ons he was turning 12.60s. He had a full suspension, headers, CAI, throttlebody, exhaust, tune, etc. His engine was bone stock. If I'm not mistaken, a 4th Generation F-Body was probably about 300 lbs heavier than an SN95 Mustang. No reason why it couldn't be done in a SN95 Mustang GT.
FWIW, the SN95 Cobras were pretty good performers. Nice cars. |
08-22-09, 06:35 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: March 2007
Posts: 111
| |
Hey Top Speed I'll weigh it again,The car is bone stock except the hood and the wheels with a auto in it. might have some stuff in the trunk.LOL |
08-22-09, 07:37 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2009 Location: Kearneysville, WV
Posts: 341
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Sa-When Hey Top Speed I'll weigh it again,The car is bone stock except the hood and the wheels with a auto in it. might have some stuff in the trunk.LOL | Good thinking! Don't forget to remove the change from the ashtray!   |
08-22-09, 11:12 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Top Speed Well, I guess we can agree to disagree, but I'll say this. A buddy of mine had a '95 Z28 with an A4 and with just bolt-ons he was turning 12.60s. He had a full suspension, headers, CAI, throttlebody, exhaust, tune, etc. His engine was bone stock. If I'm not mistaken, a 4th Generation F-Body was probably about 300 lbs heavier than an SN95 Mustang. No reason why it couldn't be done in a SN95 Mustang GT.
FWIW, the SN95 Cobras were pretty good performers. Nice cars. |
94 Z28 weighed 3440lbs and a 94 GT weighed 3531lbs
A 95 Z28 had a LT1 280hp 350ci engine in it. A 94 Mustang GT had a 215hp 302ci. Both cars weighed close, with the GT outweighing the Z28 by nearly 100lbs. Also Exhaust Boltons(Headers) change the airflow from a stock engine and creat horsepower, which inturns makes a stock Engine modified.
A 94-97 LT1 would run what a 99-04 Mustang GT would run, which had a 260hp 281ci engine. Displacement is a major factor when be able to creat horsepower, especially naturally aspirated horsepower. No replacement for Displacement.
Also keep in mind when you start modifing the suspension, your talking major adjustments in track times !!! If you took a stock 95 Z28 with a full suspension upgrade, you would see amazing track results compared to the stock suspension.
Also keep in mind the SN95 body style ranged from 1994 to 2004, and the cobras also ranged in power from 305hp to 390hp during that timeline. All cobras ran well, but only the 03-04 terminators were able to hit the 12s in stock form.
I still dont see a full bolton, geared 94 GT hitting 12s. Just my opinion.
Last edited by SS02; 08-22-09 at 11:26 AM.
|
08-22-09, 11:21 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| |
This came off a Mustang Performance review site of the 94 GT
mustangspecs.com
0-60 mph: 6.9 sec
Quarter Mile: 15.3 sec |
08-22-09, 12:13 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2005 Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 376
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SS02 This came off a Mustang Performance review site of the 94 GT
mustangspecs.com
0-60 mph: 6.9 sec
Quarter Mile: 15.3 sec | Not to throw gas on the fire or anything but I agree with SS02, 12s seems a bit out of reach with bolt ons for a 94, granted I don't know much about how well the 5.0 responded to mods, so someone enlighten me if I'm wrong. |
08-22-09, 01:41 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2008
Posts: 77
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SS02 a 94 GT weighed 3531lbs | maybe a convertible. A coupe with a manual weighs under 3400. Quote:
Originally Posted by SS02 This came off a Mustang Performance review site of the 94 GT
mustangspecs.com
0-60 mph: 6.9 sec
Quarter Mile: 15.3 sec | again maybe a convertible, or a coupe with and auto. Coupe with a manual did the quarter at 14.9, and it isn't too tough run 14.9.
I have seen several bolt on 94-95 cars running mid to high 13's with bolt ons on street tires, so i think high 12's wouldn't be out of reach on slicks. Haven't seen it myself, but I think it would be possible. |
08-22-09, 04:51 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: March 2007
Posts: 111
| |
Look guys it depends alot on the mods, It would be easy for a striped down 94GT with all the bolt-ons to run 12s. I have seen personaly a 93LX bone stock motor striped down run 12.99. 1 seat all interior taken out, [I do mean all]a/c delete,smog,emmission system,heater core,everything,all sway bars removed, stock 3:08 gear on slicks and skinnies up front launch off the rev limiter.
You guys can debate this all day and never agree.. to tell the truth and I must point this out again.this is a mustang site know one cares about a camaro,don't care what it runs! what it should run !what it might run ! whos driving it! If we wanted to know we would go to LS1tech or whatever it is.
Now this to normal folk would be the end tof the arguement but I am sure we will here from MR. camaro again.
And yes I am all FORD here thats why I am on a Mustang site!!!Get a clue already man!!!!!!!!!!! |
08-22-09, 05:23 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| |
LOL  |
08-22-09, 05:24 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by whitesqual maybe a convertible. A coupe with a manual weighs under 3400.
again maybe a convertible, or a coupe with and auto. Coupe with a manual did the quarter at 14.9, and it isn't too tough run 14.9.
I have seen several bolt on 94-95 cars running mid to high 13's with bolt ons on street tires, so i think high 12's wouldn't be out of reach on slicks. Haven't seen it myself, but I think it would be possible. | Yeah im not sure, but it dont seem possible to me. Guy said a Stock motored 94 GT ran high 12s. |
08-22-09, 05:26 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by whitesqual maybe a convertible. A coupe with a manual weighs under 3400.
again maybe a convertible, or a coupe with and auto. Coupe with a manual did the quarter at 14.9, and it isn't too tough run 14.9.
I have seen several bolt on 94-95 cars running mid to high 13's with bolt ons on street tires, so i think high 12's wouldn't be out of reach on slicks. Haven't seen it myself, but I think it would be possible. | Yeah your right on the Weight, the convertable tipped the scales at 3531lbs, the Coupe came in right under 3400lbs, but not 200-300lbs under the 94 Z28 like what was speculated. |
08-22-09, 05:35 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Sa-When Look guys it depends alot on the mods, It would be easy for a striped down 94GT with all the bolt-ons to run 12s. I have seen personaly a 93LX bone stock motor striped down run 12.99. 1 seat all interior taken out, [I do mean all]a/c delete,smog,emmission system,heater core,everything,all sway bars removed, stock 3:08 gear on slicks and skinnies up front launch off the rev limiter.
You guys can debate this all day and never agree.. to tell the truth and I must point this out again.this is a mustang site know one cares about a camaro,don't care what it runs! what it should run !what it might run ! whos driving it! If we wanted to know we would go to LS1tech or whatever it is.
Now this to normal folk would be the end tof the arguement but I am sure we will here from MR. camaro again.
And yes I am all FORD here thats why I am on a Mustang site!!!Get a clue already man!!!!!!!!!!! | Besides the childish rant at the bottom, I think Sa When makes the arguement pretty clear. The LX weighed in at around 3350lbs in complete form, after the stripping im sure it came in around 2800-2900lbs right? The 93LX was rated at 225hp. The 94 came in at 3400lbs with 215hp, im assuming because it wasnt stated otherwise,that the 94 was in complete form. If the way lighter, more powerfull 93 is pulling 12.99.....How is it possible that a 94 runs high 12s, in full form, geared or not. Thats all im saying.
I guess ill wait until the guy makes another statement. Good discussion 
Last edited by SS02; 08-22-09 at 05:37 PM.
|
08-22-09, 05:47 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: March 2007
Posts: 111
| |
I got a good way to end this.Why don't you post a video of your SS running in the 12s?? not someone elses yours, with you driving.. title in your hand with regerstation so we know its really yours!!
Now don't make excuess you claimed they ran 12s bone stock. now you have a couple of mods we can let that slide.. post the video!!! hell I would be surprised if your car went mid 13s. Now put up or shut up!!!!!!!!! |
08-22-09, 05:59 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| | ......YESA MASTA |
08-22-09, 06:00 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| |
Mid 13s....... I thought you said thats all were good for, DAMN....am I runnin 14s now !!!!! Sheesh |
08-22-09, 06:07 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: April 2009
Posts: 61
| |
All this talk about 12's and it seems like everytime I go to my local track everyone runs 13's+. The only cars I ever really see hitting less than 13.0 are the supercharged, turbo charged or major modded cars. Maybe I'm missing something but I still think that HP means almost nothing when the average driver doesn't have the skill to use it all. |
08-22-09, 06:14 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2009 Location: Kearneysville, WV
Posts: 341
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SS02 94 Z28 weighed 3440lbs and a 94 GT weighed 3531lbs
A 95 Z28 had a LT1 280hp 350ci engine in it. A 94 Mustang GT had a 215hp 302ci. Both cars weighed close, with the GT outweighing the Z28 by nearly 100lbs. Also Exhaust Boltons(Headers) change the airflow from a stock engine and creat horsepower, which inturns makes a stock Engine modified.
A 94-97 LT1 would run what a 99-04 Mustang GT would run, which had a 260hp 281ci engine. Displacement is a major factor when be able to creat horsepower, especially naturally aspirated horsepower. No replacement for Displacement.
Also keep in mind when you start modifing the suspension, your talking major adjustments in track times !!! If you took a stock 95 Z28 with a full suspension upgrade, you would see amazing track results compared to the stock suspension.
Also keep in mind the SN95 body style ranged from 1994 to 2004, and the cobras also ranged in power from 305hp to 390hp during that timeline. All cobras ran well, but only the 03-04 terminators were able to hit the 12s in stock form.
I still dont see a full bolton, geared 94 GT hitting 12s. Just my opinion. | Maybe I'm overlooking or misunderstanding something, but I was under the impression that we were talking about stock engines? In my understanding, bolt-ons still equate to a stock engine...  |
08-22-09, 06:14 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2005 Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 376
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by black2010 All this talk about 12's and it seems like everytime I go to my local track everyone runs 13's+. The only cars I ever really see hitting less than 13.0 are the supercharged, turbo charged or major modded cars. Maybe I'm missing something but I still think that HP means almost nothing when the average driver doesn't have the skill to use it all. | Yup. With the mods in my signature I actually ran a 14.4 the very first time I went to the track. LOL. Bad I know. Once I got my launch down and on about my 10th attempt (not all on the same day) I managed a 12.96. Which made me happy. But to your point, the average driver does not know how to drive with all that power. |
08-22-09, 06:16 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2009 Location: Kearneysville, WV
Posts: 341
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Sa-When I got a good way to end this.Why don't you post a video of your SS running in the 12s?? not someone elses yours, with you driving.. title in your hand with regerstation so we know its really yours!!
Now don't make excuess you claimed they ran 12s bone stock. now you have a couple of mods we can let that slide.. post the video!!! hell I would be surprised if your car went mid 13s. Now put up or shut up!!!!!!!!! | YEAH! I TRIPLE-DOG-DARE YOU! |
08-22-09, 06:20 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Sa-When I got a good way to end this.Why don't you post a video of your SS running in the 12s?? not someone elses yours, with you driving.. title in your hand with regerstation so we know its really yours!!
Now don't make excuess you claimed they ran 12s bone stock. now you have a couple of mods we can let that slide.. post the video!!! hell I would be surprised if your car went mid 13s. Now put up or shut up!!!!!!!!! | NUUU UHHHH......Evan Smith Claimed they ran 12s.....  I KNOW I KNOW.....What a Nub this Evan guy is.... |
08-22-09, 06:22 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| |
I said low 13 runner....... CRAZY TALK..im sipping the KOOLAID I KNOW !!!! |
08-22-09, 06:22 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2005 Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 376
| |
How quickly this conversation got way off topic |
08-22-09, 06:32 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Top Speed Maybe I'm overlooking or misunderstanding something, but I was under the impression that we were talking about stock engines? In my understanding, bolt-ons still equate to a stock engine... | Well....I guess if you mean internals, then yes...its a stock motor. I myself feel that if your adding boltons...your increasing the Stock power....now becoming modified power. When most ppl say these times are stock numbers...most mean down to the tailpipes.
With a full exhaust Lid and Tune...most LS1s are putting 330-340RWhp, dipping in the mid to high 12s easy. No one ever claims "Hey these are my stock motored Times" Going from 300-305 Rwhp to the above mentioned is a result of modifing, which makes your times Modified from stock.
If the word stockmotored is in the conversation, I think ppl take it as such..without any modifications leading to higher horsepower output other than factory. 
Last edited by SS02; 08-22-09 at 06:33 PM.
|
08-22-09, 06:33 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 426
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast05 How quickly this conversation got way off topic | I cant stay on conversation....im always being called out  |
08-22-09, 06:35 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2008
Posts: 77
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SS02 With a full exhaust Lid and Tune...most LS1s are putting 330-340RWhp, dipping in the mid to high 12s easy. No one ever claims "Hey these are my stock motored Times" | , some do! | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
| | | |
| |
