Why is my car so slow?!!

[CobraM23]

I ran a [email protected] with a 2.23 60' with my mods below but that was at a 3100' DA. Corrected thats a [email protected] which seems about right for the mods ive done.

 

[Wickky]

geeeze why are the new v6 so fast compared to the v8's my friend has a v6 with 4.10 gears, CAI, underdrives and 17x9's and runs a 14.48

 

[Try Me]

I've got a 96 GT auto and ran 15.4 @ 90 mph with 2 chamber flows, 4.10 gears, cold air intake, Under Drive Pulleys and Timing Adjuster

BTW- I had a 2.0 60ft time
These cars are just really slow.

97GT BONE STOCK 14.9's all day long.

97GT CAI, Pro chamber and flows 14.7's.

With 4.10's i would hope for 14.3's AT LEAST.

 

[new22003]

I have a 1997 GT Auto with the following mods:

Off road x pipe
2 chamber Flowmasters
3.73 gears
K&N
FMS C Springs

I took the car to the track a while back and was very dissapointed. The car ran 15.8s at about 87 MPH with a 2.3 60 ft time. Traction was not a problem. I see new v6 5 speeds duplicating these times Shouldn't my car be faster, especially with the gears? Weather wasn't too good-muggy after one of our Tucson monsoon storms. Any ideas?

Most of the non P.I. stangs at the local track here are running somewhere in the 15's.

I dont know if we have a bad track but my cobra is able to get into the high 12's there and my wifes 2000 gt auto runs mid 14's both 100% stock.

 

[Ronald Jones]

Ford did put better heads on the Mustang. The Cobra was rated about 80 hp higher than the GT in '96.

 

[svtguy]

I have a 1997 GT Auto with the following mods:

Off road x pipe
2 chamber Flowmasters
3.73 gears
K&N
FMS C Springs

I took the car to the track a while back and was very dissapointed. The car ran 15.8s at about 87 MPH with a 2.3 60 ft time. Traction was not a problem. I see new v6 5 speeds duplicating these times Shouldn't my car be faster, especially with the gears? Weather wasn't too good-muggy after one of our Tucson monsoon storms. Any ideas?

Well 15.8 is slow but it really depends on the track your running at....Stock 99+ GT are supose to be in the 13.9 - 14.3 range. Up here in Calgary....most stock GT's run around 14.9 - 15.2 @ 92mph.

 

[navarro98gt]

geeeze why are the new v6 so fast compared to the v8's my friend has a v6 with 4.10 gears, CAI, underdrives and 17x9's and runs a 14.48

WOW. ive only came across a couple of v6 stangs at the track and they were running in the low 16's high 15's.

 

[FallenPhoenix]

Maybe Ford put lesser heads (and other drivetrain components) on the GT to keep the price down.

GM put practically the best of the best components in the TA and Z28 and look where that got them. No one wanted to buy a car (TA or Z28) that was basically the same 4 years in a row ('98-'02 all had LS1 and 6-speed) to top it off they were VERY expensive when fully loaded. Only reason I'll be able to afford a RWD V8 performance car soon is because of Ford keeping the price down on the GT and still having a great set of standard features. I'm getting a base GT and there's really nothing else I want that I could get in an option since I plan to replace wheels, stereo, etc.

Back to the topic, what were the conditions of the track when you ran that? Out here in West Texas we get crappy times due to the altitude and other factors.

 

[mogs01gt]

When you buy a GM, all you get is a motor that makes good power and a nice tranny.

 

[Try Me]

When you buy a GM, all you get is a motor that makes good power and a nice tranny.

True that.
New they were way over priced. Glass rear-ends from the S-10 line up and clutches with 1 year lifespans.. great motor and tranny though.

 

[downsouthman1]

Also people. Remember that Ford didn't need to spend the $$$ it takes to try & make the NA 4.6L outperform a 350 cid GM motor. They were already outselling GM 3:1 Firebirds & Camaros of all kinds combined. Why waste the $$$?

 

[97predator]

by not overpowering the 4.6, ford kept the mustang alive. it sucks for those of us who want speed, but hey speed cost. too much obviously since the f bodies are no more. they had so much power they put themselves out of the market. great cars, but hey they are no more. the ls1 in the f body makes 56 hp/L while the 4.6 makes 55hp/L. so the engines are equal in power per liter. add another liter and you have your f body power. but why pay 30,000 + for an f body when you can get a GT for around 20,000 and then supercharge it and make more power? Parts for f bodies are way expensive. I saw long tubes for over a grand. hells no! I love all muscle cars, but the mustang is the best bang for the buck. Spend 3,000 and get an intercooled procharger. then your car wont be slow.

 

[downsouthman1]

by not overpowering the 4.6, ford kept the mustang alive. it sucks for those of us who want speed, but hey speed cost. too much obviously since the f bodies are no more. they had so much power they put themselves out of the market. great cars, but hey they are no more. the ls1 in the f body makes 56 hp/L while the 4.6 makes 55hp/L. so the engines are equal in power per liter. add another liter and you have your f body power. but why pay 30,000 + for an f body when you can get a GT for around 20,000 and then supercharge it and make more power? Parts for f bodies are way expensive. I saw long tubes for over a grand. hells no! I love all muscle cars, but the mustang is the best bang for the buck. Spend 3,000 and get an intercooled procharger. then your car wont be slow.

I agree wholeheartedly. We can mod our stangs & make them run. F-bodies were pretty much maxed & cost 50% more. No deal. No way. I'll take my Stang over an F-body or even whatever GM comes up w/ in the future anyday.

 

[downsouthman1]

Like look @ the GTO. What is it, $35k. No thanks. I'd rather get a used 03 or 04 Cobra for like 30k.

 

[KJ Hoppus]

i ran 14.2 /w 2.0 60ft in a 98 Auto with only: Mac cai, mac o/r xpipe, flows, steeda pullies and t/a, control arms, stock gears, and S.D. Coils and livewires.

 

[downsouthman1]

i ran 14.2 /w 2.0 60ft in a 98 Auto with only: Mac cai, mac o/r xpipe, flows, steeda pullies and t/a, control arms, stock gears, and S.D. Coils and livewires.

14.2 w/out PI heads is great indeed. Good run.

 

[KJ Hoppus]

thanks

 

[downsouthman1]

no prob. I'm only running 14.3 w/ PI heads. My reaction & 60 ft are killing me through the 1/4. It's been a while since I ran. I decided not to peddle @ the track until I can rally compete. I'll go again after I do my full exhaust, probably sometime in 2004.

 

[DBMSTNG]

the 96-98 heads suck so bad because they were designed in the early 90's possibly late 80's. the 99+ are better because they had more sophiticated methods of designing and manufacturing them. but even the 99+ 2V heads aren't good.

the 99+ V6's are fast (relatively speaking) because they are lighter than the 96-98 GT's and probably haev shorter gearing in the tranny.

 

[StratGT]

Not trying to shift direction of this thread, just a question, you guys say the 96-98 Mustangs need a head swap, why would ford put heads that didnt perform well on a Mustang? I dont understand. Wouldnt they try their best to keep the competition close between the mustang and the Fbodys? Can someone explain that to me? Thanks

The answer is simple. If you wanted maximun performance, you had to buy a Cobra, which was rated at 305hp. If i remember correctly, it was a faster car than all the LT1 Camaros and TA's.