Manual Mustang GT chewed me out.

J

J3FF

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
705
Reaction score
0
Location
Lexington
So I was on the the highway today and I came to a red light and a red mustang pulled up next to me. It sounded so mean too, it had an exhaust I know that for sure and the guy after the race told me some various stuff he had under the hood. It looked tight as hell too...American Racing rims, billet grille, functional hood scoop, tinted windows and Magnaflow exhuast with tips. Well I thought I'd see how bad this monster would beat me and it turns out he didn't beat me as bad as I thought. He got that huge ass lead like the manual would get and about 85 the pulling away stopped and we stayed an even distance apart, about 4 to 5 and a half cars. I was just thinking about what would happen if we did a rolling race? It was a loss, but it was a good run.
 
Some of the 00-03 mustangs are not really fast. One of the years they come with 264 HP

I was at a interstate onramp once. And one pulled up next to me, I knew he was gonna try to beat me to the merge lane. So when the light changed green we went, and I actually won.

The mustang was a V8 and it was convertable. So it was pretty heavy I'm sure. Also, he had the outside turnlane and I had the inside lane. So I had a few advantages. Maybe he just gave up? I dunno. Either way, I made it to the merge lane in front =]
 
This was an 04 Coupe V8, It was pretty fun, I dont care to lose, I mean I'll still try sometimes.
 
I've raced tons of mustangs.

A stock 94-97 GT stang should be beatable with minimal modifications.

A mid-late 80s early 90s stock stang will beat an LS out of the whole and ESPECIALLY from a roll almost everytime. When I race my buddy from a 30 mph roll in 1st gear at 4000 rpms its over before I can even blink. Those foxbodies pull so hard and the other styles are just as quick, except for the convs...an LSV8 may take one of those from a dig.

I did beat my buddies' foxbody a couple times in the 1/4 from a dig when my tunes/car was running good but he was having problems hooking up.

On the highway it isn't a race either with any foxbody stang (except for some convs). I was racing an Impala SS on the highway at about 130mph and my buddy in his '89 foxbody came by us like we were standing still at about 155+. Top end any foxbody should win. But like I said...the mid 90s stangs suck...and I dont really know much about the newer ones...althought most aren't as fast as people think.

Honestly, I've never really raced a 00+ mustang...
 
i raced plenty 94-98 GT mustangs and i can pretty much "rape" them with my stock LS, but i never raced a 99+ im guessing they should beat us since they got lil more HP and alot more TORQUE and they are about 400 pounds lighter.. and if its a stick....
 
Stay away from Florida if you are driving that fast on public highways...
 
2002_LS_V8 said:
i raced plenty 94-98 GT mustangs and i can pretty much "rape" them with my stock LS, but i never raced a 99+ im guessing they should beat us since they got lil more HP and alot more TORQUE and they are about 400 pounds lighter.. and if its a stick....
Click to expand...

94? Isnt 94 the last year of the 5.0? The first new body style, but it still had the 5.0. Or was that the 93?
 
i think its 93 but i dont know much about them, isent the new bodystyle 4.6 L?
 
With as much torque and hp with most manual mustangs it really depends on the driver.

My buddy has a 89 GT "wannabe Cobra" just a 5.0 with full top/bottom cobra intake, headers, exhaust, advanced timing, and a bunch of other little tricks and I beat him from a dig 3/4 times because he was trying to stage his launch at 5000rpms and as a result spun just long enough for the LS to get into to its "powerband" after 3000rpms in 2nd gear. With Torrie's tunes my shifts were strong enough to keep me ahead of him for at least a 1/4 mile...full mile would have been different...never had the room to find out.

When he launches good...its over...I get beat by at least 2 - 2 1/2 cars.

And BTW..I believe the 5.0 came stock from 1979 through 1993...correct me if I'm wrong.
 
i just asked a friend and he said in 94 is the last time they had 5.0 in the mustang ;)
 
Technically in the 80s they weren't even 5.0s. They were 4.9Ls...

The last 5.0 L engine was produced at Cleveland Engine Plant #1 in December 2000, as part of a build ahead to supply Ford of Australia. They installed their last 5.0 L engine in a new vehicle in August 2002.

For 1994, the Mustang underwent its first major redesign in 15 years. The new design, code named "SN-95" by Ford, was still based on the "Fox" platform, but featured dramatically new styling by Patrick Schiavone that incorporated some stylistic throwbacks to earlier Mustangs. The car remained rear-wheel drive. It greatly revived the popularity of the brand. The base model came with a 3.8 L V6 engine rated at 145 hp (108 kW) while the GT featured the "5.0" 4.9 L V8, which now utilized the 5.0L Thunderbird intake manifold.

In 1996, Mustang fans were expecting the 5.8 L (351 in³) V8 to make its return to the regular production. However, this is not what they got. The 5.0 GT engine was replaced by a 215 hp (160 kW) 4.6 L SOHC "Modular" V8 engine.

So technically the 5.0 302 was an available stock option from 1975 until 1996 when it was replaced by the 4.6L...

So yea..crying birch was right and yea...most of the above was copy/pasted from wikipedia...i just had to find out...;)

I thought it was interesting to find out that it is technically a 4.9L and not a 5.0

Here is question...when and why did auto makers switch from labeling an engine by its cubic inch (302) to its displacements (5.0L)???

Was this change triggered by the popular "5.0"?? It seems any car pre-1975 has an engine characterized by its cub inch and post-1975 its labeled by its displacement...
 
StinkinLinkinLS01 said:
Technically in the 80s they weren't even 5.0s. They were 4.9Ls...
Click to expand...

They didn't get any bigger in the 90s...302 ci = 4948cc. It's technically not 5 liters but 2 cc is not much at all and it sounds a whole lot better...
 
yea ur right...technically it rounds down to 4.9L but like you said...5.0 sounds a lot better. So is that why automotive makers started labeling engines sizes by the displacement and not the cubic inch?

Did the 5.0 mustang start it all?
 
StinkinLinkinLS01 said:
yea ur right...technically it rounds down to 4.9L but like you said...5.0 sounds a lot better. So is that why automotive makers started labeling engines sizes by the displacement and not the cubic inch?

Did the 5.0 mustang start it all?
Click to expand...

Well, cubic inches and liters are both measures of displacement...it's just one is English units and the other is SI (or metric). I honestly have no clue when the general switch was made to defining engine displacement in liters.
 
StinkinLinkinLS01 said:
yea ur right...technically it rounds down to 4.9L but like you said...5.0 sounds a lot better. So is that why automotive makers started labeling engines sizes by the displacement and not the cubic inch?

Did the 5.0 mustang start it all?
Click to expand...

Nope...waaaay before that. There was actually mid-sixties Ford Galaxie badged as a 7 Liter

Here's another quote from Wikipedia:

With the oil shocks of the 1970s, American firms started selling cars with smaller engines. The Chevrolet Vega was initially touted as having an engine of 1998 "cc" (cubic centimetres), given in metric because it equates to 122 cubic inches, which would have been considered laughable to declare in the American market. This also differs from the European convention of two significant figures, which was in the U.S. European car models usually have a number of three digits. In this instance, the numbers are considered trademarks. These two factors in the world marketplace contributed to American cars now getting labelled in the European manner. Engines like that of the Vega would now be called 2.0 (being litres).
 
:D :D :D :D :D Bravo! If I only I had looked...very interesting bit of information. I wonder how many mechanics remember that from shop class?:D
 
To add more info:

The 87-93 were fuel injected and then they introduced shortly there after Mass Air Intake after and roller cam help up the HP anty, when the roller CAM came in I kind of forgot. :confused: I want to say the 87 block was roller block.....

The 5.0 kept improving between 87-93.... some where between 88-89 they converted to Mass Air and this help with the bolt on explosion.

Probally more than you wanted to know... But I love Mustangs... or anything Ford. :D
 
Mac98SHO said:
To add more info:

The 87-93 were fuel injected and then they introduced shortly there after Mass Air Intake after and roller cam help up the HP anty, when the roller CAM came in I kind of forgot. :confused: I want to say the 87 block was roller block.....

The 5.0 kept improving between 87-93.... some where between 88-89 they converted to Mass Air and this help with the bolt on explosion.

Probally more than you wanted to know... But I love Mustangs... or anything Ford. :D
Click to expand...

86 was the first year for fuel injection.

The 86-88 used a speed density or "hot wire" sensor, the 89 and up were Mass Air.

I'm pretty sure that roller lifters were from 85 on.
 
Okay off by one year on the fuelly..still think the roller block was 87 on up but if I am wrong....oh well would not be the first time... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 78 (members: 0, guests: 78)
Back
Top