Another Mustang OWn3D!

[Anthracis]

THIS IS NOT LIKE ME But I was heading out to the Gym Saturday and this primer grey 1992 mustang LX 5.0 pulled up to the light next to me. He was revving his engine and shit. So when light turned green, I stepped on it, he had me by like two cars at first but I passed him up and had three+ cars on him at the end a little down the road.

He pulled hard at first though. His car was highly modded, you could tell very easily. It was lowered, and had all the bolt-ons, roll cage, and was built to street race. He was geared high too. I kicked his ass but it was not as easy as I thought it was going to be.

After it was all over, he caught up and gave me thumbs up and put his head down in defeat.

A stock camaro would have had a hard time with this one.

overall impression = Good Kill!

[Mach1Mustang]

good kill, bad story. your mods?

[secondgearscratch]

i think people tend to forget that fox body stangs are light and virtually none you run into are even close to being stock. ive taken down a few, but they can haul ass when they want to.

good kill.

[Hot Black Trans-Am]

There's a guy that wants to run me once he gets his 88 GT done. I guess he put 4K into the motor. It should be a fun run if he built it right. I was told it was a Steeda or some special one they built in 88. I didn't think they had anything like that back then. You never know if they are 9's or 16's until they hit the go pedal.

[secondgearscratch]

ford did all kinds of weird shit in the 80's. how do you explain the pace car and the svo? im not going to begin to try and understand why a muscle car gets a 2.2 liter turbo (or whatever it was).

[Hot Black Trans-Am]

ford did all kinds of weird shit in the 80's. how do you explain the pace car and the svo? im not going to begin to try and understand why a muscle car gets a 2.2 liter turbo (or whatever it was).

:lmao: That's true! I give up. I'll just wait and run him when his car is done.

[Anthracis]

My mods include:

SLP Lid
SLP CAI
K&N Filter
LS6 Intake
Z06 243 casting heads
Z06 Cam
25% Underdrive Pulley
JBA 1807S Headers
SLP Loudmouth Exhaust
Polyurethane Bushings
Descreened MAF
Truck Coils
Rear Seat Delete
Spare and Jack Removed
Slotted, Cross-Drilled Rotors
Painted Calipers
Performance Brake Pads
COMING SOON:
Dyno Tune (next week after mods below)
EPP (Exotic Performance) Ford 9" Rear with 3.70 gears & Eaton POSI (getting installed next week)
Perfomance build on Tranny (getting done next week)

Later:
Suspension mods Eibach Sportlines, SFCs, STB, SHOCKS.
Wheels and Tires (lightest good looking racing wheels with drag radials) OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS
Stereo Removal
Sound deadener removal

Ultimately:
PROCHARGER
Low end rebuild
Stroker crank

I'm sure I'll think of some other shit as time goes on.

[Hot Black Trans-Am]

Don't get the sportline springs. Get the Pro-kit. You won't be able to drive on the street or tune your suspension with the sportline's.

[Anthracis]

Why wouldn't you be able to drive on the street? would it bottom out or something? I would upgrade to the proper shocks too.

I don't mind a firm ride. but I definitely don't want it bottoming out all the time either.

[Hot Black Trans-Am]

I bottom out with the pro-kit. I trimmed my bump stops down a bit and still hit bottom. I couldn't imagine being any lower and being able to drive on the streets with bumps, dips and stuff. I'm running KYB-AGX shocks that are set fairly firm.

[Anthracis]

I'll have to speak to my shop to see what they recommend.

[Hot Black Trans-Am]

Give Sam a call at Stranoparts.com He really knows F-body's suspension and will give you lots of info.

[BLKCLOUD]

...It was lowered, and had all the bolt-ons, roll cage, and was built to street race. He was geared high too...

As an FYI....a Fox-Body Mustang with 'all the bolt-ons' is typically a high 12 to low 13 second car.

[Rikki_SeVeN]

As an FYI....a Fox-Body Mustang with 'all the bolt-ons' is typically a high 12 to low 13 second car.

yeah but in the vageness of the information given in the story...the car might even have some Juice... so who knows....

[BLKCLOUD]

Might have had a lot more (or less) too - we don't know. My post was for information only on the potential of "bolt-on" 5.0s.

Bob

[Anthracis]

It may have had some juice...who knows? All I know is it was fast as shit off the line. But as I got going, I left his ass behind.

That car was modified as shit, the interior was all stripped down too. I think that he did not have legal exhaust either because it was A LOT louder than just a cat-back setup. I think he was running just a straight H-Pipe out back. It would not surprise me if he had NOS.

...just a thought, it may have had a different engine too! Who knows? The possibilities are endless, I just don't know. It may have been a 347? Or 351 swap?

[BLKCLOUD]

Did you get a chance to talk to him? Pull over and look at the car? As you said, who knows.

Judging by what you described, sounds like a bolt-on car with gear and a tire. They can be quite quick through 1st and 2nd, but just don't have the power after that.

[2000T/A Guru]

Ok first of all Fox bodys arent light my buddies with him in it with a 1/2 tank of gas weighed 3670. He weighs about 180. You say full bolt on fox bodies are low 13 cars, thats wrong i have mulitiple friends with full bolt on fox bodies i even ih ave a friend with a 95 gt with th 5.0 motor in with full bolt ons and he ran a 13.8. I have seen fox bodies with heads and cam with full bolt ons that run high 12s, they are low 15 high 14 second cars bolt ons doesnt drop 2 seconds in the quarter btw.

[secondgearscratch]

most fox bodies stangs around are light because people strip them down. you think alot of lsx's are modded, shit, thats nothing compared to the fox bodies. they are over 20 years old and you would be very hardpressed to find one close to stock.

sure the 5.0 with bolt ons isnt that quick, but then again, i dont know too many people running a stock block 302. the norm is 306 with a large cam, after that its the 347 and the 351w solid roller. fox bodies used to rape chevy back in the day with gears and exhaust, and as modding has progressed i dont see why its so hard to imagine that they could run with damn near anything.

my friend has an 83 fox body that he transplanted a fuel injected 351w into from his grandpas econoline van. it was quite a chore and all he has is a bbk h pipe and its dumped. he ran 13.50s with a stock 351w. i really dont think thats all that slow.....

[2000T/A Guru]

All i was stateing is they arent light stock and they arent fast with bolt ons he said high 12 low 13 second cars with bolt ons i was just arguing those facts.

[BLKCLOUD]

To the original poster - sorry for the hijack.

For Mr. Guru. You are mistaken. My own 88 Coupe went 12.9's 18 years ago with simple bolt-ons, gears, and slicks. Not stripped. MM&FF did a short story (http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/images/mmffsp90.jpg) on it in Sep of 1990 (was running 80's by that time). The car later went 12.52 (http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/images/12_52.JPG) without ever having a valve cover off.

Cars Illustrated went 12.9s in the Spring of 88 with a bolt-on car. The same mag went 13.9 with a bone stock car (nothing removed or changed). Several folks (me included) have gone very low 14s with bone stock cars, and a few others have touched 13.9s.

For those that were around back then (given that you were still crawling, I don't expect you to know), and were actually racing the cars, we know what they were (and are) capable of. Another example: Ed Hohenberg (eventually held the NHRA L/S National Record) went 12.8s in 1989 with bolt-ons and a stock motor. Here's some more light reading for others that have done it: http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=757809

The moral of this story: Just because your buddy billy joe jim bob could only run 13.x doesn't mean it can't be done.

And finally....before someone gets off on the LS1 tangent....stock for stock, there is no comparison between the LS1 and a 5.0.

What was that about 'facts'?

I love these threads. Thanks. :)

Have a great day!
Bob

[2000T/A Guru]

lol 90% of fox bodys ont have the power they used to first of all, i have personally driven 2 mustangs at the track that had full bolt ons and heads and cam with 3.73s and only ran high 12s me and the owners both ran high 12s. Some im just telling you what i have personally seen and done, they are ugly cars that weigh about the same as mine with 240hp. With bolt ons they still arent topping 300 and with 3400lbs to move 99% dont run 12s with just bolt ons.

[Rikki_SeVeN]

most fox bodies stangs around are light because people strip them down. you think alot of lsx's are modded, shit, thats nothing compared to the fox bodies. they are over 20 years old and you would be very hardpressed to find one close to stock.

not true... I know many fully stock... they are actually 3200lbs... in their lightest full interiors stock form... that's still really not THAT light considering it's just 200lbs less then a Stock F-body...

[2000T/A Guru]

Not to mention if you put a f-body next to a fox body what car is bigger. Wider longer but lower the f-body the foxbody should weigh 2500pounds if you consider there size.

[Rikki_SeVeN]

Not to mention if you put a f-body next to a fox body what car is bigger. Wider longer but lower the f-body the foxbody should weigh 2500pounds if you consider there size.

the reason why they don't weight so little...is because they have a IRON BLOCK with IRON HEADS... you'd be hard pressed to find them to be light... either way...it has aditional bracing and such for the extra weight... back then the IROC Z's rocked out at a slim 3600lbs... soooooooooo... 3200lbs...was actually really light... for a Fox-Body

[2000T/A Guru]

The iroc z is also a much larger car that the fox body.

[Rikki_SeVeN]

The iroc z is also a much larger car that the fox body.

I've parked next to them... they are SMAALLLLL cars...compared to 93+ F-body... and they outweigh even the LT1s... not that much larger then a Fox body either...

[secondgearscratch]

not true... I know many fully stock... they are actually 3200lbs... in their lightest full interiors stock form... that's still really not THAT light considering it's just 200lbs less then a Stock F-body...

i said earlier that they were light. then i said they are even lighter because people have stripped them out.

and make no mistake, 3200 pounds is light enough. weight is the great equalizer. i love having a hardtop and low option z. just less shit i have to deal with later on down the line.

[BLKCLOUD]

Wow. Glad to see you were able to dispute those 'facts' I threw at you.

You know, you'd do better by just saying "golly, I didn't know that" and being done with it. But hey, I'm game, so let's go.

lol 90% of fox bodys ont have the power they used to first of all

Really? And you know this because..............you tested em? You've dyno'd a hundred or so and that is how you came to this conclusion? You pulled a number out of your ass?

"I'll take answer number 3, Chuck".

Hmmm...this must be one of the "lucky 10%": http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=894246

Note the date. And the videos, for those that need visual proof.

i have personally driven 2 mustangs at the track that had full bolt ons and heads and cam with 3.73s and only ran high 12s me and the owners both ran high 12s.
Well then, it must be so! Here's some advice - don't try a racing career.

Once again, using my personal car - same one as above....with those same bolt-ons, but add ported stock heads and a good cam, 11.93 @ 111 (http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/images/1193.jpg) mph. And once again, my car is hardly unique. Anybody that has been around the Mustang scene for any length of time knows this.

Some im just telling you what i have personally seen and done
Which is virtually nothing. We got it.

they are ugly cars that weigh about the same as mine with 240hp.
Won't argue looks. You are way, way off on the weight.

With bolt ons they still arent topping 300 and with 3400lbs to move 99% dont run 12s with just bolt ons.
Well, that's at least partly correct. When I was running 12.5s, I dyno'd at 237 RWHP (http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/images/dyno1.jpg). When I was running 11.9s, I was making 286 RWHP (http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/images/dyno2.jpg). However, my weight was nowhere near 3400 lbs. Rather, it was down in the 3200 range, with me. Very little was removed from my car. In fact, it had everything it came with from the factory (that added weight) except the front swaybar, the spare tire, and lighter wheels.

A typical Fox-body Mustang weighed 3000-3100 lbs empty. Would you like references? Or are you just going to go by your buddies car? Ah, what the hell. From the official Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference and Performance Handbook:
LX 5.0 Notch(M/T) - 3037lbs
LX 5.0 Hatch(M/T) - 3102lbs
LX 5.0 Vert(M/T) - 3238lbs
GT 5.0 Hatch(M/T) - 3191lbs
GT 5.0 Vert(M/T) - 3327lbs
LX 5.0 Notch(A/T) - 3097lbs
LX 5.0 Hatch(A/T) - 3162lbs
LX 5.0 Vert(A/T) - 3298lbs
GT 5.0 Hatch(A/T) - 3251lbs
GT 5.0 Vert(A/T) - 3442lbs
93 5.0 Cobra(M/T) - 3225lbs
93 5.0 Cobra-R(M/T) - 3143
94 5.0 GT (SN95)(M/T) - 3380

Note the convertibles are heavier (obviously). Also, notice the SN-95 number thrown in at the bottom.

And finally, there were no Fox-body 5.0s rated at 240 HP. 87-92 were 225. 93 was 205 (though the same motor), with the Cobra being 235 HP. 94/95 5.0s were rated at 215, with the Cobra's at 240.

:)

[Rikki_SeVeN]

i said earlier that they were light. then i said they are even lighter because people have stripped them out.

and make no mistake, 3200 pounds is light enough. weight is the great equalizer. i love having a hardtop and low option z. just less shit i have to deal with later on down the line.

yeah... I found a few places where it says that they where actually like 2800lbs... but I don't know how much I can trust 1 or 2 places that say that...when the rest of the places I look at say it's 3200lbs...

I got a HardTop too...as far as options...I don't know but it's pretty loaded... but I love my Boat of a car... cause it kicks ass...:kick:

[Rikki_SeVeN]

Wow. Glad to see you were able to dispute those 'facts' I threw at you.

You know, you'd do better by just saying "golly, I didn't know that" and being done with it. But hey, I'm game, so let's go.



Really? And you know this because..............you tested em? You've dyno'd a hundred or so and that is how you came to this conclusion? You pulled a number out of your ass?

"I'll take answer number 3, Chuck".

Hmmm...this must be one of the "lucky 10%": http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=894246

Note the date. And the videos, for those that need visual proof.


Well then, it must be so! Here's some advice - don't try a racing career.

Once again, using my personal car - same one as above....with those same bolt-ons, but add ported stock heads and a good cam, 11.93 @ 111 (http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/images/1193.jpg) mph. And once again, my car is hardly unique. Anybody that has been around the Mustang scene for any length of time knows this.


Which is virtually nothing. We got it.


Won't argue looks. You are way, way off on the weight.


Well, that's at least partly correct. When I was running 12.5s, I dyno'd at 237 RWHP (http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/images/dyno1.jpg). When I was running 11.9s, I was making 286 RWHP (http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/images/dyno2.jpg). However, my weight was nowhere near 3400 lbs. Rather, it was down in the 3200 range, with me. Very little was removed from my car. In fact, it had everything it came with from the factory (that added weight) except the front swaybar, the spare tire, and lighter wheels.

A typical Fox-body Mustang weighed 3000-3100 lbs empty. Would you like references? Or are you just going to go by your buddies car? Ah, what the hell. From the official Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference and Performance Handbook:
LX 5.0 Notch(M/T) - 3037lbs
LX 5.0 Hatch(M/T) - 3102lbs
LX 5.0 Vert(M/T) - 3238lbs
GT 5.0 Hatch(M/T) - 3191lbs
GT 5.0 Vert(M/T) - 3327lbs
LX 5.0 Notch(A/T) - 3097lbs
LX 5.0 Hatch(A/T) - 3162lbs
LX 5.0 Vert(A/T) - 3298lbs
GT 5.0 Hatch(A/T) - 3251lbs
GT 5.0 Vert(A/T) - 3442lbs
93 5.0 Cobra(M/T) - 3225lbs
93 5.0 Cobra-R(M/T) - 3143
94 5.0 GT (SN95)(M/T) - 3380

Note the convertibles are heavier (obviously). Also, notice the SN-95 number thrown in at the bottom.

And finally, there were no Fox-body 5.0s rated at 240 HP. 87-92 were 225. 93 was 205 (though the same motor), with the Cobra being 235 HP. 94/95 5.0s were rated at 215, with the Cobra's at 240.

:)

Always like to see when people take the time to look up numbers...:rockon:

[secondgearscratch]

god damnit i knew they were light and you bastards tried to say they werent:drunk2: :woo:

anyway, they can be killers. anything can. i personally wouldnt assume anything with cars that have been around that long. just expect them to have power, thats all you can do.

my cousin had a notch back 5.0 and it really melted the tires! they are pretty nifty for what they are. like i said, no one here can deny that the fox body stangs would and did for many years chew up and spit out the under powered 3rd gen f bodies.

[Rikki_SeVeN]

god damnit i knew they were light and you bastards tried to say they werent:drunk2: :woo:

anyway, they can be killers. anything can. i personally wouldnt assume anything with cars that have been around that long. just expect them to have power, thats all you can do.

my cousin had a notch back 5.0 and it really melted the tires! they are pretty nifty for what they are. like i said, no one here can deny that the fox body stangs would and did for many years chew up and spit out the under powered 3rd gen f bodies.

yeah... they where infact the reason why GM had to get the LT1 in the F-bodys... and later the LS1... just to put the fight back against Ford... :bomb:

[BLKCLOUD]

If you see a publication that has them weighing 2700-2800 lbs or so, that is likely for the 4 Cyl versions. Edmunds is an example of a place that will do that.

Bob

[2000T/A Guru]

The pre lt1 camaros and trans am were useless cars other than looking ok and having t-tops.

[Anthracis]

Did you get a chance to talk to him? Pull over and look at the car? As you said, who knows.

Judging by what you described, sounds like a bolt-on car with gear and a tire. They can be quite quick through 1st and 2nd, but just don't have the power after that.

It was a 92 lx coupe. Not a hatchback.

I wish I was able to pull over with the guy to take a look at what he got. But I was eager to get to the gym and he turned off.

[BLKCLOUD]

As an aside, the 92 LX Coupe is one of the most sought-after late-model Mustangs. It's a Coupe, which means the lightest version, and 92 was the last year for factory forged pistons. Friend of mine had one that ran very well. Take a peak at the bottom left portion of the Dec 97 issue of MM&FF, "Stock Stang Nats" article...

http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/images/stkstngnats.jpg

Obviously his car isn't on that page, but it was black, and like most other LX Coupes of the time, had a nice set of Weld wheels. Because so many Mustangs had (or still have) Weld Draglites, we used to joke that they were an option from the factory. ;)

Bob

[cavpat]

good kill, bad story. your mods?

Why was it a bad story? :shrug:

Anyway, nice kill . It reminded me of this one time, back when all I had was a lid and cat-back, a primer gray foxbody pulled up next to me at a light. All I could see was that he had a big cowl induction hood and LOUD exhaust. He was revin at me, I thought I was gonna get beat, but we went, and by the time I shifted to 3rd, I had like 2.5 car lengths on him.

[hutch1999]

As an aside, the 92 LX Coupe is one of the most sought-after late-model Mustangs. It's a Coupe, which means the lightest version, and 92 was the last year for factory forged pistons. Friend of mine had one that ran very well. Take a peak at the bottom left portion of the Dec 97 issue of MM&FF, "Stock Stang Nats" article...

http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/stang/images/stkstngnats.jpg

Obviously his car isn't on that page, but it was black, and like most other LX Coupes of the time, had a nice set of Weld wheels. Because so many Mustangs had (or still have) Weld Draglites, we used to joke that they were an option from the factory. ;)

Bob


Isnt that you in the mustang article on the bottom right?

[2000T/A Guru]

You look like you should be a super trooper lol.

[N20LT4]

Don't be fooled. 5-0's can run to. It's just as easy as a stroker kit and one of the thousand proven heads/cam/intake combo's -- and your talking easy 11's for a fox-body.

[2000T/A Guru]

Never said they cant, liek i said my GFs cousin has a turbo built 302 motor making 622rwhp, but i still thinks its ugly even with all that power.

[N20LT4]

Never said they cant, liek i said my GFs cousin has a turbo built 302 motor making 622rwhp, but i still thinks its ugly even with all that power.

I do not like the GT's of '87-'93. Or any mustang really for that matter. The ONLY exception I will make (and I always despise myself for this) is the LX notchback (CHP-bodies). With a hood and production wheels of some sort, they look nice. Not to mention you can get them down to 3,000lbs without pulling out any seats or any weight reduction of the body. My friend Teddy has a '92 CHP, .030" bore 306ci H/C/I that pulls 12.60's with no tune.

[2000T/A Guru]

Its not a GT its a 91 LX he hsa the cobra symbol on the side and it says SVT on the back with some cobra rims, but its not its just a turbo lx thats fast as hell lol.

[2000T/A Guru]

Speaking of Cobras, if anyone is interested there is a 04 Orange Cobra for sale right dow nthe street from my work in Brookfield Wisconsin. Has a smaller pulley, lt headers exhaust drag radials and a tune, Made 440rwhp and ran a 11.9 in the quarter. 17,000 miles on it the dealership wants 29k for it.