Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 170

F-bodies vs the new stangs

This is a discussion on F-bodies vs the new stangs within the Drag Racing forums, part of the Racing Forums category; ive had no problems with factory, or modded gt mustangs( exhaust, mabey a lite cam) in my factory A4 B4C....

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, Tx
    Age
    27
    Posts
    29

    Black
    2002 Camaro Z28

    ive had no problems with factory, or modded gt mustangs( exhaust, mabey a lite cam) in my factory A4 B4C.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by GatorSS View Post
    I've had several runs vs 2008 GTs, with my slightly modded SS easily winning on straight runs, whether from a standing start or from various starting speeds. When turns were involved, it was even easier to pull away from the GTs. So, IMHO, the new mustanks still are some distance behind the 4th gen. GM F-bodies in the handling department.
    I agree the 4th gen f-bods weigh about 300 lbs. less than the new Mustang GTs. Not sure exactly what the f-bods weigh but the GTs are 3550 lbs. And the GTs have 300 hp not 315.

  3. #23
    Member side2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    md
    Posts
    861

    red
    2000 camaro ss

    mine is 3150 w/ back seats and 1/2 tank (read by needle). i think dry weight of fact t-top car is 3300.
    2000 red ss: >2" drop, koni adjustables 'n 275 s-compounds all way around, giant brakes, dynatech LT's, borla catback (no plate), t56, tubular everything, HARD TOP, caged, "stock" heads 'n a mean cam. -2* front camber.

  4. #24
    Speak the truth jad628's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,307

    Hugger Orange/W stripes
    1999 Z28 M6

    Did the newer Mustangs go with an IRS? My '89 LX 5.0 had a solid axle and made you pay for it whenever a bump was in the road. That is why my '94 T-bird handled so great, IRS. It wasn't even close when compared to a Mustang when the road got twisty. T-bird easily > Mustang for handling. Actually I still believe the T-bird handled better than my Z28 (stock), much better as a matter-of-fact. That's why I thought the new Mustang would handle better...IRS. But does anybody know for sure? I don't care enough to research it.

  5. #25
    Member side2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    md
    Posts
    861

    red
    2000 camaro ss

    unless i've completely stopped paying attention to anything but GM, it's a solid.

  6. #26
    Speak the truth jad628's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,307

    Hugger Orange/W stripes
    1999 Z28 M6

    Quote Originally Posted by side2000 View Post
    unless i've completely stopped paying attention to anything but GM, it's a solid.
    It very well could be. I might be confusing it with a prototype they were developing.

  7. #27
    Member Justin93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    CANFIELD, OHIO
    Age
    31
    Posts
    654

    PEWETER METALIC
    2002 CAMARO Z-28 M-6

    No Mustangs have been IRS for several years now. I believe since 99, However their are swaps available for DR applications to bolt in an 8.8 or 9in easily.

  8. #28
    Speak the truth jad628's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,307

    Hugger Orange/W stripes
    1999 Z28 M6

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin93 View Post
    No Mustangs have been IRS for several years now. I believe since 99, However their are swaps available for DR applications to bolt in an 8.8 or 9in easily.
    Then I wasn't imagining it! The Ford IRS in the T-bird was a good handling set-up when I went aftermarket with shocks/struts and better/wider 17" wheels and tires. it sure seemed like with the demise of the T-bird in '97 that they would use the technology to improve upon the Mustang for an all-around performer.

  9. #29
    The Bandit Wesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,033

    SGM
    1998 Trans Am WS6

    Quote Originally Posted by jad628 View Post
    Did the newer Mustangs go with an IRS? My '89 LX 5.0 had a solid axle and made you pay for it whenever a bump was in the road. That is why my '94 T-bird handled so great, IRS. It wasn't even close when compared to a Mustang when the road got twisty. T-bird easily > Mustang for handling. Actually I still believe the T-bird handled better than my Z28 (stock), much better as a matter-of-fact. That's why I thought the new Mustang would handle better...IRS. But does anybody know for sure? I don't care enough to research it.
    Nope. All S197 (05+) Mustangs are all solid axle, including the GT500. IRS was a consideration during development, and would have allowed Ford to make a RWD Lincoln model to replace the LS. Unfortunately, due to cost and production limitations, the IRS idea was scrapped.

    At least the Mustang has the 8.8" though, which is just about as bulletproof as the Ford 9".

  10. #30
    Member 99'CajunFirehawk157's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    39466 USA
    Age
    56
    Posts
    902

    Bright Red
    99 Firehawk #157 Roadster

    I recently test drove an 08 Bullit because my wife loved the color (dark green) and we were entertaining the idea of a mustang as a fun commuter car, but I have to tell you, and I took it on the interstate and let her rip for several miles and made a few quick passes and lane changes, when I got out it was'nt like "wow this car is as fast as mine" or "wow this car is fast", it was'nt even like "wow", it was just ok. And it was'nt a money thing because I could have wrote them a check on the spot but it just did'nt blow my skirt up, speed or horsepower wise, maybe I am just biased to our cars? Its a nice car don't get me wrong and their was a lot I liked about it but not enough to drive it home.
    And, yes sometimes when I get on mine it does give me that rush...YMMV

  11. #31
    Member side2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    md
    Posts
    861

    red
    2000 camaro ss

    no you aren't biased about our cars, you have "our" cars because you aren't biased! anyone who is honest with themselves and/or others knows the performance superiority of an LS1 f/y body. and that certainly includes the road course. . . . . . . . .

  12. #32
    Speak the truth jad628's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,307

    Hugger Orange/W stripes
    1999 Z28 M6

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Wesman View Post
    Nope. All S197 (05+) Mustangs are all solid axle, including the GT500. IRS was a consideration during development, and would have allowed Ford to make a RWD Lincoln model to replace the LS. Unfortunately, due to cost and production limitations, the IRS idea was scrapped.

    At least the Mustang has the 8.8" though, which is just about as bulletproof as the Ford 9".
    Crap!!! Mental note: After you have typed a long reply make absolutely sure that your palm doesn't inadvertently hit the ESC button as you reach for your coffee. The post goes bye-bye....permanently.

  13. #33
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by blackmetal View Post
    I agree the 4th gen f-bods weigh about 300 lbs. less than the new Mustang GTs. Not sure exactly what the f-bods weigh but the GTs are 3550 lbs. And the GTs have 300 hp not 315.
    Our cars aren't that light. I've had both of mine on the scale,,both of our verts and a T-top.
    The 97 convertable came in at 3,550 lbs. My 02 SS convertable weighs 3,620 lbs. and our current SS T-top weighs 3,560 lbs.
    They are all pretty damn close and represent what 90% of all fully optioned 4th gens weigh that have had no attempt at weight reduction. Even a few of my buddies had their's on the the scales and a couple of them were even heavier than my junk.

    If you are seeing 4th gens tip the scales at only 3,100 to 3,200 lbs. then they have had some serious weight reduction going on,,,,or it's a bare bones car with no options what so ever, and those are few and far between.

  14. #34
    LS1 chosen son lemons12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    tennessee
    Posts
    2,010

    TA-White, Camaro-Black
    Track-TA98A4 DD-98z28M6

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    Our cars aren't that light. I've had both of mine on the scale,,both of our verts and a T-top.
    The 97 convertable came in at 3,550 lbs. My 02 SS convertable weighs 3,620 lbs. and our current SS T-top weighs 3,560 lbs.
    They are all pretty damn close and represent what 90% of all fully optioned 4th gens weigh that have had no attempt at weight reduction. Even a few of my buddies had their's on the the scales and a couple of them were even heavier than my junk.

    If you are seeing 4th gens tip the scales at only 3,100 to 3,200 lbs. then they have had some serious weight reduction going on,,,,or it's a bare bones car with no options what so ever, and those are few and far between.
    3200 race weight!


    no 4th gen fbody is 3100 or 3200lbs stock... period. more like 3350-3400 being the VERY lightest..

  15. #35
    Member side2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    md
    Posts
    861

    red
    2000 camaro ss

    Quote Originally Posted by lemons12 View Post
    3200 race weight!


    no 4th gen fbody is 3100 or 3200lbs stock... period. more like 3350-3400 being the VERY lightest..
    agreed. i've read 3300 dry weight in more than one place. my buddy's iron block ss is in the 33's w/ tubes replacin fact k member and a arms.

  16. #36
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by side2000 View Post
    agreed. i've read 3300 dry weight in more than one place. my buddy's iron block ss is in the 33's w/ tubes replacin fact k member and a arms.
    Dry weight does not realistically reflect what you see on the street though,,,or the track for that matter. I've seen tons of them on the scale,,,and if they haven't been tinkered with they easily tip 3,500 or more lbs. Seen a few hit over 3,700 even.

    Hell even the 1st gens,,,which are the lightest of the bunch,,,,are lucky to be as light as you mention,,,and thats with a small block. Even a bare bones no option 1st gen with a small block still tips the scales at 3,3xx or so.

  17. #37
    Member side2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    md
    Posts
    861

    red
    2000 camaro ss

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    Dry weight does not realistically reflect what you see on the street though,,,or the track for that matter. I've seen tons of them on the scale,,,and if they haven't been tinkered with they easily tip 3,500 or more lbs. Seen a few hit over 3,700 even.

    Hell even the 1st gens,,,which are the lightest of the bunch,,,,are lucky to be as light as you mention,,,and thats with a small block. Even a bare bones no option 1st gen with a small block still tips the scales at 3,3xx or so.
    i understand the difference between dry and whats on street. shoulda said that. . . .there is a good amount of poundage that can be taken off of these cars just by upgradin parts.

  18. #38
    Slow'er'Ass Mr. Luos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Thornton, CO
    Posts
    23,785

    Red Tint Jewelcoat
    2008 Trailblazer SS

    Quote Originally Posted by side2000 View Post
    mine is 3150 w/ back seats and 1/2 tank (read by needle). i think dry weight of fact t-top car is 3300.
    Mine is 3590 minus driver. 1/4 tank.
    And that is on drag wheels.


  19. #39
    Member side2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    md
    Posts
    861

    red
    2000 camaro ss

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Luos View Post
    Mine is 3590 minus driver. 1/4 tank.
    And that is on drag wheels.

    i didnt say what else i was missin'...and wont.....but i will say i got tubular everything, light brakes, and some other stuff here 'n ther elike flywheel.

  20. #40
    Slow'er'Ass Mr. Luos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Thornton, CO
    Posts
    23,785

    Red Tint Jewelcoat
    2008 Trailblazer SS

    Doesn't help that I have a Moser 9" and iron block though.

    If I remember...it was 3450 with a 1/4 tank stock.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. its also still fun to kill 6 banger stangs lol
    By Speedy_Gonzales in forum Kill Stories
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 10:46 AM
  2. Any of you guys know fox body stangs?
    By EnjoiJoe in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 04:23 PM
  3. Two New Stangs...Slain>>> by Po-Po
    By Crimson Sin in forum Kill Stories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-19-2008, 06:51 PM
  4. Why So Many Stangs...............?
    By matthewaqui in forum Domestics and Foreigns
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-30-2008, 02:29 PM
  5. Why are Stangs so much slower?
    By H8machine in forum Domestics and Foreigns
    Replies: 270
    Last Post: 09-11-2006, 06:31 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
  •