Results 41 to 60 of 346
Thread: 01 ta vs 08 gt
-
05-13-2008, 01:52 PM #41
-
05-13-2008, 05:26 PM #42
It was just the mufflers, not full exhaust. The '99s were advertised to have 320 at the crank. My 275 at the rear wheels was about 323 at the crank. These weren't aftermarket upgrades, they were stock equipment that was supposed to yield 320 hp. The '96-'98 Cobras look good in white. I had a black '96 Cobra. I wanted white. but couldn't find one.
'01 BMW 330ci: Race it in a modified class in BMW CCA Club Racing and NASA endurance races.
'04 Lincoln LS V8 Sport: Stock.
'04 Mustang Cobra coupe (white/gray): Modified.
-
05-13-2008, 05:29 PM #43
-
05-13-2008, 06:13 PM #44
-
05-14-2008, 12:34 AM #45
Why mustangs are still compared to Fbods I don't know. Like the magazines say, Mustangs will still out sell the Camaro and the Camaro will still outperform it in every aspect. Thats just the way it is. The Mustang GT's are not being produced to compete w/ the Camaro, new or old. If Ford wanted to they could. As evidenced by the Mach 1.
96 Imp SS- 12.74@103, 1.74 60' out of fuel
06 AWD TB SS- 12.58@106, 1.76 60'
01 Camaro SS- Totaled
-
05-14-2008, 01:20 AM #46
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- rochester,ny
- Age
- 47
- Posts
- 2,665
pewter- 2001 z28 lingenfelter 383
-
05-14-2008, 04:33 PM #47
From my understanding the Mustang GT and the Fbody were fairly close in performance until the LT1 came along. The gap began to grow.. Then the LS1 came and widened the gap significantly.
Ford knew it could build a 14 second pony car and still make sales because of the rich heritage of the name. To the non-car enthusiast, the GT is a monster of power and more than they will ever need. But for performance geared buyers and "bang for the buck" type car seekers, A low 13 second car is MUCH more appealing.
Now with the 05+ GT they finally broke the Mustang GT into the 13s. But they could care less about competing with the dead Fbody-- they just realize that S2K and 350Z and other cars are getting dangerously close to out performing them on the drag strip. Not to mention cars like the 2 door Altima and family sedan Maxima, and the Mazda 6 Speed are about to put them to shame. And they do in fact still build a pony car, Not a family sedan, or econo-box.
So I agree Mustangs aren't currently built to compete with the Fbody - but they were back in the day.
-
05-14-2008, 07:58 PM #48
I agree with almost everything you've said except that. If you compare an 80's 5.0 to a 350 TPI, yeah, they're kind of close in performance. Most of the 3rd gens you run across aren't 350TPI though, they're 305's, which a 5.0 would beat just about as bad as an LT1 would beat an SN95 5.0. I can't think of any model year in recent history where the Camaro and Mustang where very evenly matched in performance.
-
05-14-2008, 08:21 PM #49
True there were more 305 TPI's on the road but the 5.7L T/A & IROC-Z's still existed, and they were every bit of a match for a 5.0 Mustang. Both cars were very close in performance despite the F-body being limited to an automatic. Here is just one article that shows proof that the L98's were right there with the competition.
http://www.gtasourcepage.com/87GTAHPPTest.html
-
05-14-2008, 09:07 PM #50
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- San Jose
- Posts
- 350
Black- 2003 Mustang Cobra
-
05-14-2008, 09:11 PM #51
-
05-17-2008, 08:01 AM #52
I was speaking strictly about GT.
anyone who knows LS1s or LT1s etc. knows that the SS/ WS6 didn't give an advantage at the drag strip.
So please don't try to say Mach 1 = SS/ WS6- or Cobra = SS/WS6
Mach 1 / Cobra = different engine (more valves).
This dicussion (at least my part of it) is solely about Mustang GTs.
-
05-17-2008, 11:11 AM #53
-
05-18-2008, 07:41 AM #54
-
05-18-2008, 04:46 PM #55
Yes, sorry fellas, I should clarify. Once the LT1 hit the scene, the competition was over. Until the LT1 came along, the GT did rule the roost.
-
05-18-2008, 04:53 PM #56
-
05-18-2008, 04:57 PM #57
-
05-21-2008, 02:46 AM #58
I wasn't here to see it but i'm pretty damn sure the F body has been more powerful than the mustang GT for every year they were both produced (and for the past six years as well)
-
05-21-2008, 04:55 AM #59
I can vouch for that,,,,I just recently sold my 88 Iroc L98,,,,was a mint 50,000 mile car.
I ran this car bone stock and easily ran 14.60's at 94 mph,,,,with an auto and 2.77 gears (ausie 9 bolt.) Stock GT's of the same vintage when they were new ran high 14's as well. I remember like yesterday when these cars first started hitting the streets, I ran a ton of those things.
I did a couple of simple things to the car,,,,,shorty headers and an adjustable fuel pressure regulator,,,,bumped fuel pressure to 48 lbs. (where it ran the best) and the car ran consistent 13.90's spinning at 99 mph, with crappy 2.1 and 2.2 60 foot times.
It had more potential,,,but the darn thing was already going faster than my wifes bone stock 97 6 speed LT1and it took very little to get it there.
I would have loved to try more rear gear in the car, but someone made me a stupid offer and I let it go,,,,I miss that car.
Just to add for comparison,,,as I already mentioned it was a tad quicker than my wifes current LT1 6-speed,,,,,It was damn near running with my bone stock 02 SS camaro as well,,,an automatic car with 3.23 gears,,,,and it's best time when stock was only a 13.70 at 102 mph. When you think about it the tuned port L98 cars weren't too far off the pace,,,,at least mine wasn'tLast edited by Firebirdjones; 05-21-2008 at 05:05 AM.
-
05-21-2008, 07:22 AM #60
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Bookmarks