Baffled... help me out here guys... mustang kill

**MaxPlusTen** · 06-28-2007, 06:35 PM

ok so im on 340 going into fredrick tonight and out of nowheres this black 06-07 Gt comes flying up on my ass... shifts lanes and gets up next to me... im running like 80 so i step into it right as he gets even with me and to my suprise i start pulling him... we ran it up to 130 and his nose was at the back of my bumper... how the hell did i pull on this thing... im a stock lt1 for christ sakes. My only mods are intake and magnaflow catback so i figure maaaaaybe if im lucky im putting down 300 at the rear wheels in optimal conditions but i doubt even that... those stangs are 340 at the crank right? so what happend, did he drop the wrong gear, just not in his powerband... something isnt right... or am i just underestimating the lt1? at any rate i was thrilled lol... guy was cool about it too, gave me the thumbs up and went on his way. so... any ideas what may have happend

**Midnight02** · 06-28-2007, 06:52 PM

I wouldn't count yourself out against a newer automatic Mustang on the highway. You both should be pushing around 300ish at the wheels.

**BLKCLOUD** · 06-28-2007, 08:44 PM

05-07 Mustang GTs come with 300 HP stock, and put down ~270 RWHP. With an intake and exhaust, you probably have about the same.

**NemesisZ06** · 06-29-2007, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD

05-07 Mustang GTs come with 300 HP stock, and put down ~270 RWHP. With an intake and exhaust, you probably have about the same.

And I believe you are a couple hundred pounds lighter also.

**00ssSLP** · 06-29-2007, 04:41 PM

Good kill

**Rikki_SeVeN** · 06-29-2007, 05:23 PM

great kill man... and the numbers don't like...3550LBS for the Stang... makes it heavy and i've heard of them dynoing at 250whp stock... so no surprise there... you probably edge him out on good old GM Aerodynamics!!...

again... GREAT KILL

**ls1blackbeauty98** · 06-30-2007, 11:05 AM

nice kill
the new mustangs do not impress me at all, it doesnt surprise me u had a car on him

**N20LT4** · 06-30-2007, 01:05 PM

It's really no suprise @ all. Anyone who really knows the 2-valves and how they run overall knows that the top end on them SUCKS, big time. All of single-cammers were like that. They wen't with 3-valve heads in '05 to fix that problem, but apparently didn't help by much. From a stop light he'd probably take you (remember I said probably), but it's you all the way on the highway. I've seen them range from 250-270 rear-wheel, with 260-ish being average for the most 5-spds.

**dlmeadows** · 07-06-2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by N20LT4

It's really no suprise @ all. Anyone who really knows the 2-valves and how they run overall knows that the top end on them SUCKS, big time. All of single-cammers were like that. They wen't with 3-valve heads in '05 to fix that problem, but apparently didn't help by much. From a stop light he'd probably take you (remember I said probably), but it's you all the way on the highway. I've seen them range from 250-270 rear-wheel, with 260-ish being average for the most 5-spds.

I don't think you would have to really worry about one from a light, the best i have seen one run in my area through the eighth is a 9.23 and he had intake and exhaust, not very impressive to me. Maybe people here just can't drive lol

**RJWZ28** · 07-07-2007, 05:30 AM

Uh, a 1993 LT1 6-speed weighs about 3470, and the auto is about 3520, and the 1997 weighs a little bit more, so it wasn't the weight. LT1s are just torque monsters at the low end of the rpm band. And nobody in that race had 300 at the wheels, no offense to anybody intended.

**MaxPlusTen** · 07-07-2007, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by RJWZ28

Uh, a 1993 LT1 6-speed weighs about 3470, and the auto is about 3520, and the 1997 weighs a little bit more, so it wasn't the weight. LT1s are just torque monsters at the low end of the rpm band. And nobody in that race had 300 at the wheels, no offense to anybody intended.

I never said i did, i said maybe maaaaaaybe if i was lucky i was putting that to the wheels

**RJWZ28** · 07-07-2007, 09:48 PM

Oh no, you didn't say that, Midnight02 did. And a Mustang (or any car, for that matter) with 300 horsepower isn't putting 270 horses to the wheels, especially an automatic (torque converters= lost power); I'd say more like 235-240.

**Anthracis** · 07-08-2007, 03:18 PM

Either way, Tango Down!

Good Kill!

**MaxPlusTen** · 07-08-2007, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by RJWZ28

Oh no, you didn't say that, Midnight02 did. And a Mustang (or any car, for that matter) with 300 horsepower isn't putting 270 horses to the wheels, especially an automatic (torque converters= lost power); I'd say more like 235-240.

oh, got ya lol, I didnt see that post... yea im guessing around 250-260 at the rear... Soon its not gonna matter... motor swap, rear swap, and tranny build are right around the corner as soon as it gets cold again... im still deciding on what motor im doing (all i know is ls based crate) but im getting a strange 12 bolt and building the 4L60E....

**mrr23** · 07-08-2007, 07:41 PM

aerodynamics play a role at those speeds. mustangs have the huge billboard front end.

**pocheasy** · 07-09-2007, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by MaxPlusTen

any ideas what may have happend

exactly what should of happened. LSx guys are always saying LT1's vs the new stangs is a drivers race, but i havnt seen that happen yet, my buddies stock bird pulled on a new one and then i blew his doors off ..once i finally got him to agree to race for shits and giggles

**TrickStang37** · 07-14-2007, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by mrr23

aerodynamics play a role at those speeds. mustangs have the huge billboard front end.

i agree.both cars were putting down about the same power (funny i just saw a stock 07' Mustang put 265HP to the wheels today on Spike TV) and that would explain why it was so close till the end,when you started pulling. People forget how big a role aerodynamics play. Even at only 111MPH in the 1/4 my old fox body was losing about 2MPH (should have run 113MPH with the power it was making compare to the weight) more than an F-Body would run due to shitty aerodynamics.

**N20LT4** · 07-14-2007, 08:27 PM

As far as S197 Mustang ('05 & up) vs. LT1, it sort of a tricky one. Now i'm an LTx guy myself, die hard infact, but an '05 or newer GT, 5-speed manual, running 100% at it's best, with the "right" driver, should be able to outrun a bone-stock Z28 of equivelant. I've seen it done, and it made sense. Here comes the BUT -- it depends on the cars and the drivers. New Mustang owners will try to make it seem like their cars are light years ahead of LT1's -- when infact, they are not. Some Mustang GT guys are running 13.5 @ 103.?; while other guys are pulling 14.0's @ 101. So it just depends. At worse case scenario (for the F-body), an LT1 is only a few bolt-ons and a tune away from running that brand new '07 GT. And did I mention the LT1 is now 15 years old? I frequent Force Fed Performance in Sacramento, California, where a good friend of mine has ran it for 14 years, and see the S197's averageing in the 260 range. The highest i've seen is 267 from an '06 M5.

**SnakeEatr** · 07-14-2007, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by RJWZ28

Uh, a 1993 LT1 6-speed weighs about 3470, and the auto is about 3520, and the 1997 weighs a little bit more, so it wasn't the weight. LT1s are just torque monsters at the low end of the rpm band. And nobody in that race had 300 at the wheels, no offense to anybody intended.

lets see your dyno slips to prove this! Wait, you dont have any. My bad.

**RJWZ28** · 07-15-2007, 03:44 PM

What do want me to prove with dyno slips? That a mildly modified 285 horsepower car won't put down 300 horsepower to the wheels or that an LT1 has a lot of torque down low?