91 5.0 VS. 96 4.6

nmcgrawj said:
Fastdriver...i highly doubt a v6 will beat any GT. The 96-98 might have been dogs compared to the 99+ and 5.0s but a v6 will not beat it.

Well, rest assured that I was surprised as **** when Evan Smith ran a 14.9 in a 5 speed 99 V6. There are certainly AOD 4.6s between '96 and '98 that were incapable of that.
 
  • Sponsors (?)


BlahBlahson said:
bone stock notch lx running 13.8? that sounds VERY farfetch'd, especially when the 04 svt cobras are running 13 flat (13.1 vert). if that is true, props to that friggan driver.

Oh, I'm glad you brought this up... First, stock SVT Cobras are more than capable of 12s. Second, let me see if I can dig up an old article...
 
Darn... I've got the article, and have it scanned, but I have no way to host the pictures. Anyway, In Cars Illustrated back in the day, Tony Defeo got is 88 hatchback to run [email protected]. To do it, he bumped the timing up to 13* initial, and overinflated the tires. That's it! Is it that hard to believe that a notchback without the air-silencer could get a 13.8?
 
BlahBlahson said:
bone stock notch lx running 13.8? that sounds VERY farfetch'd, especially when the 04 svt cobras are running 13 flat (13.1 vert). if that is true, props to that friggan driver.

oh yea, a couple pages back but ill still say it - "Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far the wall goes with you." or something like that, anyways...

my dads new DD, an 03 3.8L 5spd will totally kill my 84 5.0 aod. now ive never driven a 5 spd 5.0 but i dont think a 99+ gt would have a problem handing a 5.0 its @$$ on a silver platter

84 5.0 = S-L-O-W
99+ V6 5-sp. very CAPABLE of beating 96-98 GT (I've done it)
The original ? was "stock for stock 5 speed who would win"
5.0
99+ SHOULD be faster than 5.0, but this is a better comparison than 91 5.0 vs. 96 4.6

As for all this "trap speed Blah Blah Blah"; trap speed does not win a race. A race winner is determined by the fastest TIME to get from point A to point B





















THE END
 
FastDriver - You need to know about the cars...not knowing their stats...you need real world data...I've drove all (except the 03/04 Cobra's...I want to though :D )...I know what they can and can't do...

So a 5.0 weighs significantly less...show me a stock lx that weighs 2900lbs or less?

When I was talking about 250-260rwhp I was referring to the 96-98gt...its called a junkyard...alls you need to get is some pi heads, cams, and pi intake (maybe from a wrecked car) with some bolt-ons and exhaust...and you got it easily...go search around the 4.6 forums before making up stuff to your liking...

My 2000 GT weighed in at 3270lbs with what was in the sig...not quite your 3400 huh?

If I pulled up to you in my now gone 2000 GT...and knew your "mods"...I wouldn't even worry about you :rlaugh:

You have beat the drivers...not the car...sorry that is just the way it is...

And about your times and times I claim...I'm comparing with "equal conditions"...on a nice day, with equal drivers a 99+ GT 5spd will own any stock 5.0...sorry...again that is just the way it is...go drive both and then tell me...with an unbias opinion...

In fact I do have timeslips...don't know how to scan :bang: ...the 00 Gt ran 1mph faster at the end of the strip :nice: ...

My lx hatch weighs 3160 without me in it...

If you have seen 99+ Gt's run 98 mph "on good runs"...then that wasn't a good run...

I'm going to sum it up for you...GO BACK TO THE TRACK...

The 5.0 can never lose huh?...Is bigger better?...

Two words: Reading Accuracy...or better yet Track Accuracy :shrug:

I'm sorry to say Fast Driver but you have been the most inconsistent-"fibber :D "...I have yet to see post back to back posts...get off of here troll...go back to ricedoutstangs.com :shrug:

About me mentioning the condition of the vehicles (comparing the fox to the 96-98 Gt)...I was stating that is why the argument comes up about it being a close race because the conditoin of the vehicle is usually better (96-98) because of the newness...and therefore usually allows it to run better with it...straight of the showroom the 5.0 would win...but in the real world (where you seem to forget sometimes)...it is USUALLY a close race...again because the conditioning...

I would not even worry about your former "stock" 5.0 again if me and you were to race...

Again I have owned both and driven many...there is a difference between internet statistics and your own little world where the 5.0 is god...comparing it to reality...
 
PACETTR said:
84 5.0 = S-L-O-W
99+ V6 5-sp. very CAPABLE of beating 96-98 GT (I've done it)
The original ? was "stock for stock 5 speed who would win"
5.0
99+ SHOULD be faster than 5.0, but this is a better comparison than 91 5.0 vs. 96 4.6

As for all this "trap speed Blah Blah Blah"; trap speed does not win a race. A race winner is determined by the fastest TIME to get from point A to point B


THE END
Yes they are capable...but given equal drivers...the 96-98gt will win...

99+ IS faster...no if, ands, buts, about it...

91 5.0 vs. 96 4.6 is a good comparison (given equal tunes) the 5.0 will win...

Yes Trap speed shows true power...not your E.T's...you can put a full out drag racing suspension/gears on a stock 5.0 and possibly tick off high 12's...but it is at 97mph when the GT could easily walk away from it from 50mph on up...TRAP speed shows true potential...because if I was driving that "GT"...I know I could beat that 5.0 - power for power...

Somepeople need to go to the track and do some math and use some logic...
 
NeVeRLiFt said:
Fact is the fox bodies more than hold their own after all these years and the great aftermarket performance parts out for them make them a cheap super/muscle/sport car and stock and setup right with a good driver they did very well ;)

The End

No not the End :) ...but very true...
 
NeVeRLiFt said:
At the local Street Outlaw races in my area the Limited and Real street mustangs are all the proof I need that the fox bodies are fast as hell and run low times ;)



Stop whoring your heavy overpriced newer stang and let the old fox have its respect :nice:

Oh yeah...the foxes have a nice cheap base to start with...I would pick it for a drag car...

It's not heavy, nor overpriced, you have to own one to know...you can pick up a low mileage used one for 9k now a days...very reliable and the aftermarket is growing...I drive my fox everyday...(only driver)...so I give them plenty of respect... :nice:
 
Where I live I see them selling for $3 -5k with 75 - 130k miles on them and pretty much stock. Its actually harder around here to find a 82 - 86' stang thats nice and low priced than it is to find a 87 -93'.

I know where an 85' sits now all original with grey insides and black paint and the guy is the original owner. He asking alot for it thou :(
 
NeVeRLiFt said:
Where I live I see them selling for $3 -5k with 75 - 130k miles on them and pretty much stock. Its actually harder around here to find a 82 - 86' stang thats nice and low priced than it is to find a 87 -93'.

I know where an 85' sits now all original with grey insides and black paint and the guy is the original owner. He asking alot for it thou :(

Yep same here...besides the 85' example... :)
 
Ray III said:
I don't agree with that. Ford fixes the flimsy peice of trash that the 87-93 Mustang was built on, and all people can do is piss and moan about the extra 300lbs.

My car won't be good enough for me until it has about 500 pounds of chassis reinforcement.

Not to mention that the car actually stands a chance of getting around in the snow, when it weighs more than a cheese puff.
Go through the past 20 years of the stang and look at the various weights of them and tell me the trend you see. Check out the weight of the 03'/04' cobra especially and get back to me on that one.............

You can still build a solid car and make it lightweight. It mostly has to do with design of structure and choice of materials is what it boils down to.
 
87'GTstang said:
Go through the past 20 years of the stang and look at the various weights of them and tell me the trend you see. Check out the weight of the 03'/04' cobra especially and get back to me on that one.............

You can still build a solid car and make it lightweight. It mostly has to do with design of structure and choice of materials is what it boils down to.
Agreed. Check out the weights of the Vette's. Better than a stock Mustang chassis on all counts, and several hundred pounds lighter to boot.
 
Ray III said:
Engines make torque REGARDLESS of speed.

Horsepower is a result of torque and engine speed. Without torque, there is NO horsepower.
I'm quite aware of that. Hp = torque X RPM / 5252

You are right about there being no horsepower without torque, I never said otherwise. An engine can develop quite a bit of hp with a low amount of torque, all you have to do is increase one variable in the equation - say a high rpm revver. Does it make sense to have a vehicle with 75 ft/lbs of torque and is able to rev to 15k rpm? No, but work it out and you're still working with 214 hp. It makes no sense to make an engine with torque comeing on at like 3500 rpm - it is pointless. Most engines will run out of air not much higher than that and it will never be able to be taken advantage of very well. Torque is a great advantage when it is down low because it is the main factor that gets a great amount of weight (a car) moving from a dead stop to rolling down the road.

Yes torque is made regardless of when an engine is running, I never said it didn't - but you still won't see much happening at the top of an engine's rpm band. When it boils down to it, where is torque MOST important in an everyday vehicle - down low or up high? Mid-range is ideal and favorable in a lot of instances especially racing, but how often to people run around shifting at 4k-5k all the time?

My point being I never said torque was not important, I merely stated WHERE it was most desired.
 
Ray III said:
Not to mention that the car actually stands a chance of getting around in the snow, when it weighs more than a cheese puff.

I'm going to have to ask you this one plain and simple, what kind of vehicle do you THINK you are driving in the first place?