Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by JuggalotuStang, Oct 12, 2004.
Yep there you go...there are some small tricks that weren't posted...
I wasn't laughing
I believe that one...the weight had a bunch to do with it...no factory freak there...I have yet to see an obvious factory freak
My race weight on my '93 is just under 3400lbs and that car you ran weighed 2950...that is almost a 500lb difference...which in essence is half a second ...but then again race weights vary and so does the driver weight (I'm 220lb)...
Just some dang good drivers, low weight, matched with good 60fts...= Factory Freak
60hp difference from factory does not make sense at all
Some how,that made sense
Hey Mike,when I get my Thumper Heads,do you think he can hook me up with larger valves?
I'm sure Mr. Schultz can fix you up with larger valves - but ask him about cost/benefit. You may get most of the flow you want with whatever he puts in there.
Ahhh yes,,,,he talks often of high velocity
I got a few pics of my car from the track!!! First pic was a 1.699 60' on the stock suspension, second pic was actually a 1.79 spinning a TON...
For stock suspension your front end is lifting nicely
Actually that isnt really the front lifting, so much as the back end squating. If you look the tires are wrinkled a LOT, and with the front lifting some, it looks like good weight transfer, but definately isnt great! I have other pics that show this better, but cant post them (will IM them if you want to see, MHRA47).
Did you change the springs yet?If not throw some 4 cyl. springs in.I think that qualifies as factory stock,,,its still Ford rite
Im allowed to change everything under there short of the Kmember but as of now its original, nothing has been changed (sway bar is out). I plan on LCAs, UCAs, springs, shocks and struts at some point, just cant afford it now!
Stock suspension,thats amazing!! If you get that stuff you should gain 3-4 tenths
Yes the suspension has never been touched, and has over 133,000 miles on it now. I should have done this first, but as a dumb kid I didnt listen to the racers and added more power (well actually rims were the first mod) before I addressed any suspension. Ill be looking for some cheap stuff at our local swap meet soon!
Yes sir, I own one... or at least it was untill the motor blew up at 195,000. due to a missed shift. But, it was a bone stock, air restricter and all '90 LX 5.0, 5spd and smashed every Saleen, Bolt on modded Mustang, Camaro, 80's-90's Corvete, etc.. I ever raced. And I even swaped cars with my friend (drove one anothers car) and still it took the cake, so driver was not to blame. Have several times ****ed off Saleen owners when the found out the car was running completely stock and was running 3.08 gears to there slower off the line 3.75/3.55's geared cars. That car would get good tire spin off a 2-3 shift every time, now that I put a bone yard motor in it it's just not the same. Honestly, I got in a race with a Saleen that had evrything you could imagine for bolt ons and had him by 20 feet in the fist 60 feet and kept on palling away. After the race he wanted to know what I had done to the car as it was "pulling hard into third" (tires chirped hard), I told him "all stock"- he went nuts telling me I was a liar... Also raced a '69 DZ302 Camaro (road race) and he couldn't loose me, I couldn't pass due to he driving, but I was right with him everywhere. He stopped and asked what was modded, again surprised/baffeled as he said two of his brothers had modded GT's that couldn't even run with him in the corners, yet alone long straights at 120+ MPH.
BTW, everything was working good at 195,000, and I know it was all stock as I was the original owner... heck the clutch was stock and working good when I blew the motor at 195,000, no kidding.
Sounds like you outdrove a bunch of people ...and how are racing all these Saleens...there pretty rare...you don't see them everyday...
A '92+ vette you can't beat...unless you beat the driver or the condition of the car...
What year model Saleen's were these...if they were the foxbodied...several weren't any quicker than a stock 5.0...
What kind of times did you run?
I agree without track times or dyno numbers or ANYTHING... it could just be the case of a kid with his first fast car and thinking it owns the road. I have seen a lot of races go the wrong way on the street, and thats the thing, the street proves nothing. It could have been a freak, but without any solid comparable numbers, it means nothing, to me at least!
jd351 - That is strange how you blew the motor missing a shift...your factory rev-limiter should have saved you in that little amount of time...hmm....
Yeah I remember when I first got my 2000 Gt (16)...I thought I was the fastest thing around...and was beating 5.0's (and I was a horrible driver) and even beat a couple ls1's...but I don't know what the ls1's were capable of until later ...the stock 5.0's continued to get beat...just much worse when I got better
This was not my "first fast car", and I am sure driving has a lot to do with it, but through 14 years of driving several stock to modified 'Stangs I can tell you none short of a power adder were quicker... or faster on the open Highway.
I do agree, without numbers or scientific proof it is hard to believe, but It does happen. It is a simple fact that the tollernace on factory parts is great enough to create a .3 increase in CR and the cam profiles vary as much as 1.5 deg. and lift as much as .015", rocker ratio as much as .1 (1.5-1.7 is acceptable to ford) and loose bearings VS tight bearings, etc....
Not a Ford product but a good example is the ZR-1 Vets. Lingenfelter (Spilling is wrong I'm sure) tested several of them and found a 85hp variation from the highest to the lowest. This all from "production variations".
Now I am not saying that the "freake" cars are going to run 11's, but they are quicker than the norm, and a lot quicker than the slow "freaks"... and those too do exsist. I test drove a new Gt in 1989 5spd that was the slowest dog I have ever been in, slower than any stock 2.73 geared AOD. I actualy had to take a look at the distributor to see if they had majorly retarded the timing, it looked to be on the stock mark, so ?? couldn't tell why.
As for how you split a 302 block into two pieces missing a shift (yep, could see inside like a cutaway)... find first gear while speed shifting to third, all along holding a coke in you lap and a bag of food in your hand. Stupid, stupid , stupid Yeh, I cried for a brief moment, than laughed about when I got back to work (was at lunch), then proceded to borrow a truck to drive to an wrecking yard for another motor that was in and running a day later. Timing chains tend to give realy easy this way, and when one ties in a knot around the end of the crank at those speeds, the destruction is nuclear like devistation. Pretty cool now, pretty stupid then, but lucky it wasn't worse.
"cam profiles vary as much as 1.5 deg. and lift as much as .015" "
Cam profiles can vary MUCH more than that on the stock HO cams. The 266/266 early cam or the later 276/266 cams generally measure out to right around 210/210 duration at .050". The stock cam that tmoss has in his car measured out at .050" to 219/212.
"find first gear while speed shifting to third,..." I did the same thing in an old Audi I drove in college. Luckily, the clutch gave up rather than the engine.