Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 45

Another Mustang OWn3D!

This is a discussion on Another Mustang OWn3D! within the Kill Stories forums, part of the Racing Forums category; To the original poster - sorry for the hijack. For Mr. Guru. You are mistaken. My own 88 Coupe went ...

  1. #21
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    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 on it in Sep of 1990 (was running 80's by that time). The car later went 12.52 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

  2. #22
    Impounded
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,159

    Red
    2000 Trans Am

    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.

  3. #23
    Puerto Rico LS1 Rikki_SeVeN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,532

    Black
    1999 Camaro Z28 A4

    Quote Originally Posted by secondgearscratch View Post
    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...

  4. #24
    Impounded
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,159

    Red
    2000 Trans Am

    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.

  5. #25
    Puerto Rico LS1 Rikki_SeVeN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,532

    Black
    1999 Camaro Z28 A4

    Quote Originally Posted by 2000T/A Guru View Post
    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

  6. #26
    Impounded
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,159

    Red
    2000 Trans Am

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

  7. #27
    Puerto Rico LS1 Rikki_SeVeN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,532

    Black
    1999 Camaro Z28 A4

    Quote Originally Posted by 2000T/A Guru View Post
    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...

  8. #28
    no more 4th gen secondgearscratch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,463

    Pewter
    2000 z28

    Quote Originally Posted by Rikki_SeVeN View Post
    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.

  9. #29
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2000T/A Guru View Post
    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 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. When I was running 11.9s, I was making 286 RWHP. 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.


  10. #30
    Puerto Rico LS1 Rikki_SeVeN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,532

    Black
    1999 Camaro Z28 A4

    Quote Originally Posted by secondgearscratch View Post
    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...

  11. #31
    Puerto Rico LS1 Rikki_SeVeN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,532

    Black
    1999 Camaro Z28 A4

    Quote Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD View Post
    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 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. When I was running 11.9s, I was making 286 RWHP. 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...

  12. #32
    no more 4th gen secondgearscratch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Age
    29
    Posts
    2,463

    Pewter
    2000 z28

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

    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.

  13. #33
    Puerto Rico LS1 Rikki_SeVeN's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,532

    Black
    1999 Camaro Z28 A4

    Quote Originally Posted by secondgearscratch View Post
    god damnit i knew they were light and you bastards tried to say they werent

    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...

  14. #34
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    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

  15. #35
    Impounded
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,159

    Red
    2000 Trans Am

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

  16. #36
    UberTapping Friction Pimp Anthracis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Omar's Tittie Taverna & Grill, Deh Rawod
    Posts
    1,447

    18D Cock Diesel
    1999 Z28; 98 SS #2043 RIP

    Quote Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD View Post
    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.

  17. #37
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    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...



    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

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    158

    Blue
    99 Z28

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach1Mustang View Post
    good kill, bad story. your mods?
    Why was it a bad story?

    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.

  19. #39
    Sarge for AAG Emperor hutch1999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    3,779

    06 HD Softail
    1998 Trans Am m6

    Quote Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD View Post
    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...

    Click for full size

    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?

  20. #40
    Impounded
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,159

    Red
    2000 Trans Am

    You look like you should be a super trooper lol.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. My '94 T/A vs. '03 Mustang GT
    By Dave-TransAm in forum Kill Stories
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 11:58 AM
  2. the new mustang
    By purplebat66 in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-13-2010, 06:55 PM
  3. Mustang 5.0 vs 4th gen??
    By camaroluvr447 in forum Camaro / SS
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 03-08-2010, 07:41 AM
  4. Own3d
    By burnws6 in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 07-03-2007, 12:42 PM
  5. 06 mustang
    By gusslone in forum Drag Racing
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-30-2006, 11:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •