Fastest 1/4 mile time(Factory only!)

Discussion in '1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-' started by willys1, Nov 11, 2004.

  1. willys1

    willys1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Whats the fastest 2.3 in the 1/4 mile? I know the svo mustang in the 80's was pretty fast,but is there any faster?I here the new Focus is pretty hot.
     
    #1
  2. Stinger

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    7,726
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Location:
    Wilson, KS
    Well, I imagine the new focus SVT is faster but it's a different 2.3...the Mazda 3 turbo also uses a turbo version of the "new" 2.3...it's pretty damn fast (relatively speaking) as well.

    The fastest "magazine" time I've seen for the SVO is 15.0 at 91.0 mph. This is in 1986 btw. I've seen enthusiasts pull lmid 14's out of them bone stock though. (this is all on street tires).

    The 1987 SVO that was canned because they didn't want it to outpower the "legendary" 5.0 made 280hp...too bad they never let it go into production.
     
    #2
  3. Crovax

    Crovax Type O Danzigative the Dark
    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    5,573
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Vinland
    Now that would have been a car to have.
     
    #3
  4. 93 teal terror

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2001
    Messages:
    1,049
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    37
    Location:
    Durham N.C.
    SVO was told the mustang was going to be canned after 1986 in favor for the Mazda MX6 due to its better EPA numbers which made it easier for ford to meet CAFE requirements. The SVO group asked for a thunderbird after considering their SVO a sucess. They had already started on their aero-T-bird and their mid-engine sports car, before the UAW convinced ford to sign an agreement to continue the mustang til 1993.
     
    #4
  5. bhuff30

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    6,021
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    89
    Location:
    Olathe KS
    15.0 doesn't seem to bad considering the corvette of the day was running mid 14's with an engine more than double the size.
     
    #5
  6. Stinger

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    7,726
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Location:
    Wilson, KS
    Yeah, I wish I had a link to that page that compared the 87TC to the corvette, camaro, mustang, etc. of that era...it was amazing how it performed..especially considering it's size.
     
    #6
  7. Asha'man

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,917
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Denver
    Not to mention a stock SVO with 3.08's hit somewhere around 165 mph on a test course back in the '80s.

    Ash
     
    #7
  8. willys1

    willys1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Jersey
    I have too disagree with you here,,theres no way an 86 vette was in the 14's :nonono: Vettes were lame in the 80's.The only fast car in the 80's besides the Stang was the Buick Grand National(Turbo 6banger) it ran high 13's,,and its brother the GNX,,was in the low 13's.They also wanted to make a Turbo 5.0 for the 25th anniversery,,but it was squashed!!
     
    #8
  9. mr_woodster

    mr_woodster Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Riverside, CA
    There were alot of lame cars, that doesnt mean they didnt exsist! The lost vodoo mustang II comes to mind. There were years that the vette/camero smoked the mustang , when the mustang was choked down in the 70's and some early 80's...it comes full circle.

    I think its really good to compare factory times of similar vechiles in that time period. It helps to put things in perspective as to what "fast" was , at that time.
     
    #9
  10. willys1

    willys1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Never said it didnt exist!! Just said there was no way an 86 vette ran in the 14's out of the factory.z28's smoked mustangs for decades,,but starting in 85(1st year of roller cam) Mustang started to kick butt!!
     
    #10
  11. mr_woodster

    mr_woodster Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Riverside, CA
    After doing a couple searches, they all list the vette the same way ...
    Year/make/model/0-60/Qmile times

    1984 Chevrolet Corvette 6.7 15.1
    1985 Chevrolet Corvette 5.7 14.1
    1986 Chevrolet Corvette 5.8 14.4
     
    #11
  12. willys1

    willys1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Jersey
    HUH,,I gotta double check that,,14.1,,all due respect,,85 vettes had less then 250hp,,14.1 seems way off.
     
    #12
  13. 351wcoupe

    351wcoupe New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,828
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Manhattan, Kansas
    we watched a 00' Vette run 13.8 last year
     
    #13
  14. bhuff30

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    6,021
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    89
    Location:
    Olathe KS
    there were 5.0 mustangs in the low 14's bone stock, but we all know most 5.0's are 15s cars. Magazine tests can be all over the place. Some refuse to slip the clutch from more than idle. Others will launch the balls off the thing with no reguard for duribility or repeatablitly. Some apply correction factors which obviously don't account for traction differences. Just look at track times for the all wheel drive cars to prove that. :lol:
     
    #14
  15. willys1

    willys1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Jersey
    aod 5.0's were in the 15's,,low 15's...5spd's were in the 14's. and a 2000 c-5 corvette is leaps and bounds ahead of the 86 vette!!! A 1986 corvette made 230hp,,and ran in the 15's!!! I dont know where you guys get this sh@t from,,14.1 :rlaugh:
     
    #15
  16. bhuff30

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    6,021
    Showcase:
    4
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    89
    Location:
    Olathe KS
    http://www.pr.streetracing.org/whats_new.html#Chevrolet
    http://www.yanmark.com/quartermiletimes.html
    http://blackws6.20m.com/whats_new.html
    http://www.car-stats.com/stats/default.aspx
    I don't know who did the origional test, but all of these sources list the 85 corvette at 14.1 and the 86 corvette at 14.4. If you want, I could even go to the library, and look up the orgional C&D or Motortrend test that shows the corvette in the 14's, but I think 4 seperate sources should be sufficient.
    Also, do you really think a 2 seat corvette weighs SO much more than a mustang that it would be in the 15s instead of the 14s with a slightly higher rated power output? Common man. Get a life.
    You are so blinded by 87-89 5.0 notches running 14's that you can't even imagine a 5.0 powered automatic GT convertable running 16's, which absolutly is the truth.
     
    #16
  17. 351wcoupe

    351wcoupe New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,828
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Manhattan, Kansas
    Slowest GT EVAR..... Cro wasn't around so I did.
     
    #17
  18. Asha'man

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,917
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Denver
    My buddy's bone-stock '87 GT auto hatch ran 17.1 for five bracket rounds last summer. 'Course, we're at altitude, but still....that's pretty bad.

    Ash
     
    #18
  19. 88stangnut

    88stangnut New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    westfield ,mass
    85 vettes are slugs. My 88 5.0 wrecked one with my stock 273 rearend haha :lol:
     
    #19
  20. willys1

    willys1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Dude,your "WRONG",now swallow!! Its the truth,85's had less hp then the 86's!! Just because its about the same in wieght(but it is heavier) doesnt mean there gonna do the same time!! Yes,,go to a mag. ,,just so you can learn the truth for your self!!84,85,86,87,88,89 vettes were "SSLLOOOWWW!!!
     
    #20

Share This Page