S197 vs previous years

[Dreadnaught]

So I was at a stop light last night; pulled up beside a fox body mustang with "5.0L" on the side of it. Definitly sounded like a 5.0 was under the hood. Now, I do not race...period. Anyways, he revs up, holds, and dumps it peeling out...I never budge - the fox moved pretty quick.

Now, here comes the question. Beside special editions Mustangs of days past, SVT, Cobra, Mach 1, etc., what stock past model year Mustangs could a stock S197 V6 NOT BEAT in say...a quarter-mile?

 

[kooldawg6]

I'd say the biggest thing depends on engine/trans and driver's racing ability. The ones to watch out for would be the '92-'93 notchback 5 spds, possibly the '96-'98 5 spds. I don't believe you could match the '99-04 GTs, but that would be close.

Here is my timeslip from the 1/8 mile in my '00 5 spd GT with only Flowmaster mufflers and Eibach lowering springs.

 

[313Speed]

My fox with 160,000 miles is faster then my S197 GT, both with minor bolt ons. I can't imagine a V6 S197 taking out to many of the previous rides, maybe the early SN95's with the 5.0 or the non-PI motors. The S197 is heavy, so even with the extra HP that the GT has, it's can't over come the weight savings of a Fox. A 5.0 fox with light mods would smoke a V6 S197.

 

[scupking]

The only thing an S197 V6 will beat are the older V6 stangs.

 

[93GrunT]

Stock 5.0's (maybe a notch, I haven't driven one before) won't outrun a new S197 in my experience at the track, and most foxes aren't stock. Most foxes are running gears, exhaust, and throttle body or/and throttle body if not more anymore. Stock they are 14 second cars at best from the three I owned, it is just cheap and easy to put them into the high 13's, if you aren't driving an auto vert or something. The S197 V6 is a different story though.

 

[PoopDawg]

A dead stock 5.0 with stock type tires would be a very close race with a S197 V6. The V6s run low 15s, high 14s from what I've seen and read. Now an automatic 5.0 liter, I would say the V6 would have a much better chance.

Also, the 92-93 5 liters are no different from the 89-93s. All are equally quick with the same engine/tran combo.

And to the guy who said his Fox is faster then is s197... LOL. 331 with nitrous is about as far from "minor bolt ons" that I can think of.

Nick

 

[blacksheep06]

A stock 5.0 is a good match for a stock 96-98 gt but that's about it. At least that's my
experience and I drove a total of around a dozen different gt's. I owend a 98 gt at the same time my dad owned a fox 5.0. Both motors were stock, both had offroad exhaust, his had 3.73's, mine had stock 2.73's. Those cars ran neck to neck even when we swapped.

A stock 5.0 has nothing on the top end, they are dogs. They are just a good motor to build up for cheap.

I still think a stock 5.0 or non PI 4.6 will beat a s197 V6 though because of torque even though HP is virtually the same.

 

[Maza4ever14]

you cant beat a 00-04 GT manual or auto.

 

[Five Oh Brian]

you cant beat a 00-04 GT manual or auto.

My 2000 Mustang GT 5-speed coupe ran 13.85 @ 98 mph bone stock. An S197 V6 can't even come close. Most 99-04 Mustang GT's ran about 14 flat in the 1/4 mile (manual trans) or high 14's (automatic). The 99-04 GT automatics might be a good race for an S197 V6.

 

[Five Oh Brian]

I bought my 1989 Mustang 5.0L LX Sport brand new in March 1989. 5-speed with 2.73 gears. Bone stock it ran 14.51 at 94 mph in the 1/4 mile. Best I've ever read about an S197 V6 (manual trans) run bone stock is 14.9's in the 1/4 mile (and that's with much better 3.31 factory gearing).

The new S197 V6's are good performers, but they are not quicker than the Fox-Body 5.0L's built from 1987-1993. Similar horsepower, yes, but far less torque (240 lb ft for the S197 V6 vs 300 lb ft for the 5.0L V8). Torque is king at the dragstrip.

 

[scupking]

My 2000 Mustang GT 5-speed coupe ran 13.85 @ 98 mph bone stock. An S197 V6 can't even come close. Most 99-04 Mustang GT's ran about 14 flat in the 1/4 mile (manual trans) or high 14's (automatic). The 99-04 GT automatics might be a good race for an S197 V6.

I'v seen stock 99-04 autos run low 14s. I hope I will be in the mid 13s with my mods.

 

[Dreadnaught]

Thanks for the replies guys and girls, interesting stuff indeed. What will be more interesting is when I move into my new job soon, and double my salary.

To pay off the v6er a year early and cash in on the latest Mustang or a pending special edition, or keep the v6 and deck it out. It will be hard to get rid of the sixer, the only difference between it and a fully loaded GT is the engine. My sixer has all the bells and whistles it can have, just the insurance on the GT and the extra $5k in price was too high for me (being young does in fact have some disadvantages ).

I'm sure the v6 can easily be upgraded to give stock S197 GT a run for its money, the question is can I live knowing that I always wanted a V8 . I don't race, but I like to know that what I am rolling with would ghost the other car in the lane next to me, should I chose to.

 

[DevilGT]

I know supercharging these new V6 engines is very popular, so you can make up some of the horsepower. Shelby released a SC V6 about a year ago, didn't they? 330 hp I want to say.

But yeah, a stock Fox and a new Six will be a pretty decent race.

 

[stangdude2000]

I've seen a couple posts on here from WAYYYY back in the day about bone stock 99-04 V6's running 14.9s. It would've had to have been a 99-01 since that was that last time I was active. And I only heard of one or two do it, and show proof.

and no stock fox body is faster than an s197 GT. 95 more hp, 45 more ft-lbs, much better gearing, with only a few more lbs added on.

 

[93GrunT]

I might be adding wrong but wouldn't it be 75 more hp and 20 more ft lbs not that it has anything to do with the accuracy of the rest of your statement.

 

[Five Oh Brian]

I might be adding wrong but wouldn't it be 75 more hp and 20 more ft lbs not that it has anything to do with the accuracy of the rest of your statement.

Depends on the year of Fox 5.0L in question. Ford rated the 1987-1989's at 225hp, but had a camshaft change in 1990 that lowered the rating to 205hp. Then Ford said the cam didn't change the rating, but that the earlier ones were overstated at 225hp and were really 205hp all along (even though all the literature and brochures from 87-89 say 225hp). By 1995 (last year of the 5.0L Mustang) it was still rated low at 205hp. Torque was in the 280-300 lb ft range, depending on who you ask. Either way, bone stock 5.0L Fox bodies only put down about 180 rwhp. S197 GT's put down about 250 (autos) to 270 (manuals) rwhp. S197 V6's put down similar rwhp to the 5.0L Fox bodies, but torque is much higher in the 5.0L's.

 

[93GrunT]

Depends on the year of Fox 5.0L in question. Ford rated the 1987-1989's at 225hp, but had a camshaft change in 1990 that lowered the rating to 205hp. Then Ford said the cam didn't change the rating, but that the earlier ones were overstated at 225hp and were really 205hp all along (even though all the literature and brochures from 87-89 say 225hp). By 1995 (last year of the 5.0L Mustang) it was still rated low at 205hp. Torque was in the 280-300 lb ft range, depending on who you ask. Either way, bone stock 5.0L Fox bodies only put down about 180 rwhp. S197 GT's put down about 250 (autos) to 270 (manuals) rwhp. S197 V6's put down similar rwhp to the 5.0L Fox bodies, but torque is much higher in the 5.0L's.

Cool

 

[PoopDawg]

Depends on the year of Fox 5.0L in question. Ford rated the 1987-1989's at 225hp, but had a camshaft change in 1990 that lowered the rating to 205hp. Then Ford said the cam didn't change the rating, but that the earlier ones were overstated at 225hp and were really 205hp all along (even though all the literature and brochures from 87-89 say 225hp). By 1995 (last year of the 5.0L Mustang) it was still rated low at 205hp. Torque was in the 280-300 lb ft range, depending on who you ask. Either way, bone stock 5.0L Fox bodies only put down about 180 rwhp. S197 GT's put down about 250 (autos) to 270 (manuals) rwhp. S197 V6's put down similar rwhp to the 5.0L Fox bodies, but torque is much higher in the 5.0L's.

Um, wrong. The hp rating was dropped in 93 due to Ford using, what they called, a better way of testing. Instead of using a test mule motor for hp and tq ratings, they began using factory built motors... The HP dropped then to 205.. which we all know is BS as this was an attempt to make the 94 GT look better because the intake was more strictive and caused a hp loss. And the cam profile did not change, except the 93 Cobra.

 

[stangdude2000]

I might be adding wrong but wouldn't it be 75 more hp and 20 more ft lbs not that it has anything to do with the accuracy of the rest of your statement.

i dunno, maybe it was me that was adding wrong, or i found bad info (more likely). did a VERY quick search for torque on the fox's and thought i remember seeing 285 ft-lb? the s197 do have 320 right? please correct me - i don't know a whole lot about the fox's. also don't know from which year i was looking at the specs.

 

[Dreadnaught]

I know supercharging these new V6 engines is very popular, so you can make up some of the horsepower. Shelby released a SC V6 about a year ago, didn't they? 330 hp I want to say.

I was thinking about turning my sixer into a CS6, but it would cost at least $15k for the parts and god knows how much for the labor/paint. Even if I would uprade the essentials, CAI, tune, gears, exhaust, supercharger I'd still be looking at an upwards of $5k easy when it's all said and done. My $25k sixer is now a $30k sixer, which is approximately the price of an equivalent GT. Question is, how would my sixer stack up to a stock GT with said upgrades.

I think it comes down to patience, pay off the six then trade it in for something bigger