2004 SRT-4 vs. 93 5.0 Mustang

  • Sponsors (?)


#22
It's interesting -- for years the 'experts' said that it was impossible for humans to run quicker than a 4 minute mile. Then Roger Bannister broke the 4 minute mile, and they said that, uh, 3:50 was the limit. That's come and gone too. Similarly, it wasn't that long ago that the 'experts' said that a car couldn't cover the quarter any quicker than 6 seconds, and then after someone went 5's and later into the 4's, well, you get the picture. The world is full of people that simply look at the past and their own limited experience, and then extrapolate that to erroneously conclude other things. For example, to paraphrase powershift351 - "The best I have seen is a 13.7......so I know they will not run a 13.2..." I find that to be very interesting logic.
 
#23
Hmm...

I was lucky enough to be handed the keys and a dealer plate to one a few weekends ago by a salesman who happened to be my old hockey coach.

It was a red 2004. Didnt like the seats... unless youre a thin guy its tight fit in the butt area...

Anyways, this dealer is on a road that goes from town to rural in like 3 minutes... theres a hill I had to go down to make sure there are no cops doing radar at this old church and then I have a good 2 miles to stop, and beat for a mile then let off... my luck there's a cop doing radar. So, drove down to the end and turned right onto a hwy called Hwy 20... I drove a few miles then turned around in a driveway, backed out, car in 1st I let out the clutch car rolling, floor it. Something must have been wrong because it GOT 14 PSI, but it never even torque steered let alone skeeeek'd the tires in 1st, went the shift into second [not powershifting] and the shifter ball came off the rod, and was in my hand :notnice: So.... I push the ball back on, and pound on it to make it stick, at this point the car is at a crawl again.. and I dump it back in 1st, and mash it, same as before, so so.. bit of a whooosh when the boost came up, shift into 2nd and it pulled ok, shifted into 3rd went for a second or two and let off around 70 MPH.

There had to have been either something WRONG with this car, OR the dealer was not smart enough to put good gas and dumped 87 octane in there so the timing was being cut back [probably severely] due to knock sensor... but I didnt hear any audible knock..

That one I drove felt like a low 15 second car at best.. BUT I refuse to base my conclusion on that one car because too many people have seen them running low 14s at least.... Up here they start at $27000 + taxes 15% and for 60 or 72 months the insterest rate was like 6 or 7% I forget which but it was insane. Told me they "dont offer the 0% or good rates because it's a specialty car".

I like my Mustang. :nice:
 
#26
From Car and Driver:
"The '03 car ran to 60 mph in 5.6 seconds and cleared the quarter in 14.1 seconds at 102 mph. The '04 model nipped 0.3 second off the 60-mph sprint (5.3 seconds) and ran the quarter in 13.9 at 103 mph. Braking from 70 mph (169 feet), roadholding (0.86 g), and top speed (153 mph) were all about the same for both models."

" Subaru makes a 2.5L turbo version of their Forrester station wagon (XT) that runs 13.8's with only 210HP. And it weighs 3500 lbs."

Now they make a 2.5L turbo 250HP Legacy turbo weighing in at 3000-3200lb, can't wait to see the times for this car.
 
#27
That C&D test is the one that makes me think the 13.2's quoted above are within the realm of possbility under optimum conditions. They test with stock tires, and the cars they test are almost always new - given a few thousand miles things loosen up and times almost always improve to the tune of a .2 to .3 seconds. Throw sticky tires on it (as we all would), remove floor mats, spare, etc., and pick a nice chilly evening that the turbo/intercooler would just love - I think 13.2's are do-able. But everything would have to be right. Nothing I could see in that story that would cause me to call the poster a liar.

Love the XT Subaru - and it's a stoplight warrior. With awd and lower gearing, it's acceleration at lower speeds is unbelievable. It cut the quickest 0-30 mph time I've ever seen in the mag for a street car - 1.3 seconds.
 
#33
Indyblck(HI!) - you're kidding right? You're not really gonna tell me that it takes a turbo for turbo match up to make the 302 cubic inch Stang stand up to the 121 cubic inch Neon? OK - I feel an S2000 comparo coming on; the Honda weighs about 2900 lbs., similar to the 93 Fox (notch); it has 120 cubes (240HP) compared to 302 (215HP); both naturally aspirated; the Honda runs high 13's stock; a stock 93 Fox with sticky tires on a good day is probably lucky to run mid 14's. Ball's in your court.....
 
#35
i'll give ya something to talk about. Sure, the 302 motor only puts out 215 hp, but is with around a 5500k of useable power, and heads that GASP for air...
Now the s2000 on the other hand, revs to 9k, and has a much better head setup...
So heres your flame material...
If ford was truely thinking about performance hard, why did they stick with the e7te?
 
#38
Michael Yount said:
It's interesting -- for years the 'experts' said that it was impossible for humans to run quicker than a 4 minute mile. Then Roger Bannister broke the 4 minute mile, and they said that, uh, 3:50 was the limit. That's come and gone too. Similarly, it wasn't that long ago that the 'experts' said that a car couldn't cover the quarter any quicker than 6 seconds, and then after someone went 5's and later into the 4's, well, you get the picture. The world is full of people that simply look at the past and their own limited experience, and then extrapolate that to erroneously conclude other things. For example, to paraphrase powershift351 - "The best I have seen is a 13.7......so I know they will not run a 13.2..." I find that to be very interesting logic.
Click to expand...

Very good point. I'll take a listen to what Mr. Yount says. He keeps an open mind and has nothing to prove.

It's still kind of unsettling to know a neon can beat my car. I used to own one as a beater and have developed a special hatred for them Lol. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mindseye007
Engine 1986-93 Mustang March Performance Ram Air Kit 5.0
Replies
10
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
limp
limp
J
2004 mustang gt cooling fan question.
Replies
1
Views
204
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
jk66
J
G
Fuel Stock 1994 5.0 throttle body size
Replies
9
Views
628
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
GOvert
G
b_arrington
Engine 66 heater box hoses to 5.0 heater hard tubes
Replies
28
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Noobz347
Noobz347
C
For Sale Original 1985-1986 Mustang "GT" side 1/4 moldings
Replies
0
Views
208
Interior Exterior Parts
Cobra Jet NJ
C
Top Bottom
Back
New
Hot
Menu