1988 rx7 vs 2001 mustang 3.8
03-06-07, 01:08 PM
#26
That link for 0-60 times say the s4 na and all the na pretty much run 0-60mph in 8.5 stock, i think that might be a little high, because my car is fixed up and i think i run around 6-7 secs 0-60mph but maybe thats because im the same hp if not slightly as the stock turbo 2 s4 
03-06-07, 01:22 PM
#27
s4 N/A 0-60: 7.6s
Maybe 8 seconds with some accessories.
The link seems to gives the 0-60 for an automatic with lots of accessories. Or am I mixed up about the GXL?
The 1999 mustang v6 convertable has a 0-60 of 8.6s. Dunno if the coupe is quicker (convertable may be heavier). The 1999 has 190HP. I think it's the same model as the 2001.
There is a problem with these 0-60 time, though. They often come from car magazines, which might pop the clutch or such to get a better time.
I've barely beaten new mustangs in my S4 N/A: both cars in gear, moving, no clutch popping, mustang has head start on speed because he's trying to pass me and I take a moment to notice. You should have no trouble against the automatic mustang. The one thing I've noticed about american cars is that their 0-60 is never as good as their power to weight might indicate.
It could be from more engine inertia, the automatic tranny, fewer gears, less low-end torque or who knows what.
Maybe 8 seconds with some accessories.
The link seems to gives the 0-60 for an automatic with lots of accessories. Or am I mixed up about the GXL?
The 1999 mustang v6 convertable has a 0-60 of 8.6s. Dunno if the coupe is quicker (convertable may be heavier). The 1999 has 190HP. I think it's the same model as the 2001.
There is a problem with these 0-60 time, though. They often come from car magazines, which might pop the clutch or such to get a better time.
I've barely beaten new mustangs in my S4 N/A: both cars in gear, moving, no clutch popping, mustang has head start on speed because he's trying to pass me and I take a moment to notice
. You should have no trouble against the automatic mustang. The one thing I've noticed about american cars is that their 0-60 is never as good as their power to weight might indicate.It could be from more engine inertia, the automatic tranny, fewer gears, less low-end torque or who knows what.
Last edited by ericgrau; 03-06-07 at 01:43 PM.
03-06-07, 01:34 PM
#28
Taste great, more filling
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane, you ignorant **** - 
What you feel about Mustangs is irrelevant to the question at hand, as is what your brother's modified Eagle Talon can do, as is what your fairly well modified Rx7 can do.
You posted a whole great big page of "I missed the point". But just think to yourself "Hey, no sweat, my fingers are now a little bit stronger!"
The question is "Can a stock NA S4 Rx7 beat a Stock v6 1999 Mustang?" Not "Can a modified RX7 beat a stock v6 Mustang" or "Can a modified Eagle Talon beat a Mustang GT (which until 1999 had about 205 hp, so a STOCK turbo Talon should have beat him), not "Am I butthurt because someone said a Mustang was faster than a stock Rx7 on an Rx7 forum?" the question is Can a stock NA Series 4 RX7 beat a stock 1999 v6 Mustang? Why don't you answer that one for the class?
What you feel about Mustangs is irrelevant to the question at hand, as is what your brother's modified Eagle Talon can do, as is what your fairly well modified Rx7 can do. You posted a whole great big page of "I missed the point". But just think to yourself "Hey, no sweat, my fingers are now a little bit stronger!"
The question is "Can a stock NA S4 Rx7 beat a Stock v6 1999 Mustang?" Not "Can a modified RX7 beat a stock v6 Mustang" or "Can a modified Eagle Talon beat a Mustang GT (which until 1999 had about 205 hp, so a STOCK turbo Talon should have beat him), not "Am I butthurt because someone said a Mustang was faster than a stock Rx7 on an Rx7 forum?" the question is Can a stock NA Series 4 RX7 beat a stock 1999 v6 Mustang? Why don't you answer that one for the class?
Originally Posted by wtfdidusay82
Dude is a stupid piston v6 3.8 litre that only has 190hp, that is weak sorry to say and even with true dual intake and all that crap i think hed be lucky to make 190whp (220hp at flywheel) and even with that i think it would be pretty much an even race , sorry but i think mustangs are a joke.
Cars with even 3.0 that are luxury cars usually make 200+ hp...if u compare that 3.8 to the 3.5 in the nissan 350z, the 350z is smaller and makes 280 hp ... just something to think about.
My brother use to race mustang gts with his eclipse gsx awd turbo and would pull them in 5th gear with a full boat of people in his car (4 people), so these v6 mustangs arent **** at least not to me..to me a v6 in a mustang is like a 1 rotor in a rx7, its just less power than youre suppose to have.
If the thing is stock 190hp, and that makes about 161whp which is about the same as my 1.3 litre 1988 model streetported s4 na (pretty sad when his engine is 3x the size). So basically the mustang will run high 15's stock whereas the stock s4 na will run low to mid 16's stock but if youre fixed up like me you can expect to run mid 14s to low 15's depending on if its tune and how i drive.
The only thing that may make my times not as good is not having a lsd, which I think may not make a difference of more than .1 of a second or so, but im not even sure.
Even if the mustang has 200whp and me with only 160whp , my car still has a better power/weight ratio by .1 according to rx7.com.
Now however if this was a v8 mustang, my opinion would be completely different but v6 is not the model to get when you are buying an american sports car if you want something fast and I dont even like v8 mustangs either but they are an improvement over the v6.
even the v8 1998 mustang gt is only 225 hp stock with a 4.6 litre...which i still consider to be quite weak for the engine size and according to rx7.com acceleration calc would only run a 15.02 1/4 mile which isnt the greatest time considering my rx7 would be an even race with it if it was stock and even if it was fixed up a little i think my rx7 would still be a good race for it in the 1/4 mile if my car was tuned and had max hp assuming 170whp id run about 14.5 or so 1/4 mile and if the mustang had 225whp hed run 14.3 so it would still be really close.
Cars with even 3.0 that are luxury cars usually make 200+ hp...if u compare that 3.8 to the 3.5 in the nissan 350z, the 350z is smaller and makes 280 hp ... just something to think about.
My brother use to race mustang gts with his eclipse gsx awd turbo and would pull them in 5th gear with a full boat of people in his car (4 people), so these v6 mustangs arent **** at least not to me..to me a v6 in a mustang is like a 1 rotor in a rx7, its just less power than youre suppose to have.
If the thing is stock 190hp, and that makes about 161whp which is about the same as my 1.3 litre 1988 model streetported s4 na (pretty sad when his engine is 3x the size). So basically the mustang will run high 15's stock whereas the stock s4 na will run low to mid 16's stock but if youre fixed up like me you can expect to run mid 14s to low 15's depending on if its tune and how i drive.
The only thing that may make my times not as good is not having a lsd, which I think may not make a difference of more than .1 of a second or so, but im not even sure.
Even if the mustang has 200whp and me with only 160whp , my car still has a better power/weight ratio by .1 according to rx7.com.
Now however if this was a v8 mustang, my opinion would be completely different but v6 is not the model to get when you are buying an american sports car if you want something fast and I dont even like v8 mustangs either but they are an improvement over the v6.
even the v8 1998 mustang gt is only 225 hp stock with a 4.6 litre...which i still consider to be quite weak for the engine size and according to rx7.com acceleration calc would only run a 15.02 1/4 mile which isnt the greatest time considering my rx7 would be an even race with it if it was stock and even if it was fixed up a little i think my rx7 would still be a good race for it in the 1/4 mile if my car was tuned and had max hp assuming 170whp id run about 14.5 or so 1/4 mile and if the mustang had 225whp hed run 14.3 so it would still be really close.
03-06-07, 01:52 PM
#29
Taste great, more filling
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you brought up the RX7.com calculator, let's break it down that way
According to Rx7.com's acceleration calculator using 3 shifts and the researched numbers from page one of this thread
1999 Mustang - 193 hp, 3110 lbs = 14.67 1/4 mile
1988 S4 Rx7 - 146hp, 2750 lbs = 15.32 1/4 mile
That's stock numbers, and that's the question that was asked. :P You're right, Mustangs suck in terms of HP per displacement, you're right, they're much heavier - you're right, if you've managed to add almost 40hp at the flywheel to your NA Rx7 (146+34=180xdrivetrain loss of ~10% = 160hp @ wheels) then you might edge a pure stock 1999 Mustang.
But, that's not what they asked. If you're going to jump into a topic in progress without reading the whole thing, you should at LEAST read the first post.
According to Rx7.com's acceleration calculator using 3 shifts and the researched numbers from page one of this thread
1999 Mustang - 193 hp, 3110 lbs = 14.67 1/4 mile
1988 S4 Rx7 - 146hp, 2750 lbs = 15.32 1/4 mile
That's stock numbers, and that's the question that was asked. :P You're right, Mustangs suck in terms of HP per displacement, you're right, they're much heavier - you're right, if you've managed to add almost 40hp at the flywheel to your NA Rx7 (146+34=180xdrivetrain loss of ~10% = 160hp @ wheels) then you might edge a pure stock 1999 Mustang.
But, that's not what they asked. If you're going to jump into a topic in progress without reading the whole thing, you should at LEAST read the first post.
03-06-07, 04:19 PM
#30
First off , no s4 na weight 2750 but however they do weigh 2624lbs for 1986-1987 models and 2718 for 1988 and the wheel hp for the s4 na would be about 124 and the mustang would be about 161 if it has 190 hp stock weight is 3069 (checked on autotrader).
Wheelhp calculations assuming 15% power loss through drivetrain.
Im not sure if my car would be 2624 or 2718 , i think mine is the later 1987.5 model so it could be 2624 (at least I hope) , then with my weight reduction im 2550lbs.
Also straight from autotrader.com , 1999 mustang v6 has 0-60 time of 7.3 seconds
Given these variables using 2624 lbs weight on the rx7 with 4 shifts each (i think there would be 4 shifts not three)
Rx7 w/2624 lbs- 16.05
w/2718 lbs -16.21
w/2550lbs (weight reduction) - 15.92
Mustang - 15.57
Youll need headers intake and a catback exhaust and youll run at least 170 hp @ the flywheel on your stock port s4 na and youll beat him easily but if you are completey bone stock, id have to say the mustang will take you...even with its weak v6
Wheelhp calculations assuming 15% power loss through drivetrain.
Im not sure if my car would be 2624 or 2718 , i think mine is the later 1987.5 model so it could be 2624 (at least I hope) , then with my weight reduction im 2550lbs.
Also straight from autotrader.com , 1999 mustang v6 has 0-60 time of 7.3 seconds
Given these variables using 2624 lbs weight on the rx7 with 4 shifts each (i think there would be 4 shifts not three)
Rx7 w/2624 lbs- 16.05
w/2718 lbs -16.21
w/2550lbs (weight reduction) - 15.92
Mustang - 15.57
Youll need headers intake and a catback exhaust and youll run at least 170 hp @ the flywheel on your stock port s4 na and youll beat him easily but if you are completey bone stock, id have to say the mustang will take you...even with its weak v6
03-06-07, 04:33 PM
#31
Taste great, more filling
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're drag racing at the power levels a stock Mustang and Rx7 are likely to see, you're going to be an idiot if you shift up to fifth. You're probably finishing the 1/4 at 95mph - which should be high 4th. At least it is in my base Neon.
3 shifts = 1 - 1st to 2nd, 2 - 2nd to 3rd, 3 - 3rd to 4th.
Most wheel hp calculations specify a range of 10%-15% - I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since you said your NA Rx7 makes 160hp at the wheels. If you're using the number of 15% for drivetrain loss, now your reported increase is from 146hp to 191hp at the flywheel.
You're probably finishing the 1/4 at 95mph - which should be high 4th. At least it is in my base Neon. 3 shifts = 1 - 1st to 2nd, 2 - 2nd to 3rd, 3 - 3rd to 4th.
Most wheel hp calculations specify a range of 10%-15% - I was giving you the benefit of the doubt since you said your NA Rx7 makes 160hp at the wheels. If you're using the number of 15% for drivetrain loss, now your reported increase is from 146hp to 191hp at the flywheel.
03-06-07, 06:04 PM
#32
Ok well now i get it , i thought there were 4 shifts because there are four gears but i didnt really look at it that way.
But using windows calculator i donno how u got 191hp, because i got 188.24 hp for 160whp. Because 188.24 x .85 (15% drivetrainloss) = 160.004 hp at wheels
I think the most power id make with safc tune and finished cold air intake is 200 at the flywheel, which would be 170 at the wheels
Knowing i need only 3 shifts my car should definitely run mid to high 14's with 160whp if i can get perfect launch/shifts , although i havent seen any s4 na 1/4 mile slips running 14's i think mine can do it
How i figure my cars power - 146hp stock
Streetport - + 10hp
Header - + 15hp
Catback - + 8hp
Intake - + 5hp (could be losing hp from this tho since intake is inengine bay and not sucking up cold air)
Straight pipe - + 5hp
Removed 5/6 ports - + 1hp
All this together = 190hp
Mods to come -
Safc dyno tune - + 7 hp
Finished intake - + 3 hp
Alltogether 200hp after all mods, 170whp or should be around there
Finished cai
But using windows calculator i donno how u got 191hp, because i got 188.24 hp for 160whp. Because 188.24 x .85 (15% drivetrainloss) = 160.004 hp at wheels
I think the most power id make with safc tune and finished cold air intake is 200 at the flywheel, which would be 170 at the wheels
Knowing i need only 3 shifts my car should definitely run mid to high 14's with 160whp if i can get perfect launch/shifts , although i havent seen any s4 na 1/4 mile slips running 14's i think mine can do it
How i figure my cars power - 146hp stock
Streetport - + 10hp
Header - + 15hp
Catback - + 8hp
Intake - + 5hp (could be losing hp from this tho since intake is inengine bay and not sucking up cold air)
Straight pipe - + 5hp
Removed 5/6 ports - + 1hp
All this together = 190hp
Mods to come -
Safc dyno tune - + 7 hp
Finished intake - + 3 hp
Alltogether 200hp after all mods, 170whp or should be around there
Finished cai
Last edited by wthdidusay82; 03-06-07 at 06:10 PM.
03-06-07, 06:10 PM
#33
Originally Posted by Richter12x2
I'm just speaking the truth - your 20 year old 146hp != 7 year old 195hp.
I love it when people bring up the age when its completely irrelevant to the discussion. So an 87 GNX cant run a faster 1/4 time than an 07 Shelby GT Mustang cuz its 20 years older right? 
Compare the RX7 to a newer lower model import sports coupe, say an RSX, Kouki 240SX, Scion TC, 3000GT, they all run 16s.
Please stop using power to weight ratios, theres a lot more to it then that as previously stated. Use the damn 0-60 database! besides if this is a street race comparing 1/4 times and 0-60s will only get you so far. and wtfdidusay82: you have a lot to learn about piston engines. Bigger displacement doesn't always mean more horsepower, compression, valve train, variable valve timing, etc etc. all have to do with it. Also torque curves, peak power vs. power through the entire powerband...err, go to a mustang forum and read about drag racing lol.
btw another good resource for realistic 1/4 times and traps is dragtimes.com, just a large database of times people have run with certain cars.
03-06-07, 07:14 PM
#36
What's the point??
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pretty close, .2 seconds, with me @ 62 mph, and him @ 63 mph, I had held 2nd out and didn't shift, whereas he did shift to 3rd. This was VS. another manual though, so an auto mustang would be about .4 seconds slower.
03-06-07, 08:07 PM
#38
Working on my car.
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hahaha, my 91 N/A is street ported AND the engine is also blown and i beat an 05 mustang.........it was automatic she pulled on me though but when i got into 3rd gear i passed her at about 65 or 70.........so shouldnt be too hard
03-06-07, 09:04 PM
#39
Taste great, more filling
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'll just have to see what happens when he posts his results. One thing he's got working in his favor is Ford is so all over the place with their Original Equipment, there's no telling what the final drive ratio is - it's not like an Rx7 where you pretty much know you've got a 4.1 rear unless it's a 4.3. With the Mustang you can get anything from 2.73s to 4.11s stock, and I think even higher than that. That's probably why there's such diverse results. My wife's v6 Mustang came with 2.73's - we put a 3.73 set in there and it's a whole different car. The only problem is that the Automatic Transmission is computer controlled. You know what that means - with such a drastically different final drive ratio, the car thinks it's hitting the 112 mph speed limiter at ~85 mph. Until she gets a chip or goes standalone, that's as fast as hers will go now. To make matters worse, hers is a '94, and most of the chips for Mustangs are 96-2004 - something weird apparently about the '94 '95 OBD.
That's okay, she doesn't need to go faster than that anyway. It just sucks every once in a while when I drive her car.
To make matters worse, hers is a '94, and most of the chips for Mustangs are 96-2004 - something weird apparently about the '94 '95 OBD.That's okay, she doesn't need to go faster than that anyway. It just sucks every once in a while when I drive her car.
03-06-07, 09:19 PM
#41
I used to walk V6's all the time in my Honda Prelude. It ran in the low 15's range. Interstate runs I could pull a V6 like it was standing still from 70-120 range. So Id imagine an n/a fc could tag along or maybe even pull on a V6, depending on the race
03-06-07, 10:11 PM
#42
Taste great, more filling
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KhanArtisT
lol, ignorance at its best I love it when people bring up the age when its completely irrelevant to the discussion. So an 87 GNX cant run a faster 1/4 time than an 07 Shelby GT Mustang cuz its 20 years older right?
I love it when people bring up the age when its completely irrelevant to the discussion. So an 87 GNX cant run a faster 1/4 time than an 07 Shelby GT Mustang cuz its 20 years older right? The only thing age factors in is that cars become less efficient due to their age, but not solely due to age - it's using age as a rough estimator of mileage. Want me to break it down for you? Let's see if I can lead you down the right path so you can draw your own conclusions.
Did you know the seals on a rotary engine are essentially "wear" items? That means that as miles go on, and the little cast iron scrapey thing on the edge of every rotor does it's little scrapey thing, and as they get smaller and more worn, and the springs go in and out eleventy-billion times, they seal less and less don't they? Less and less sealing, slower and slower spring action - what do you think happens to compression?
I'm not saying a car can't be faster just because it's older - you'd have to be an idiot to think that. Really. Who would honestly think that an 07 Kia could beat, say a 1970 Chevelle SS at the dragstrip?
What I'm saying is that after 20 years, unless everything is factory original, you're not getting the compression you got when the car was new. So stock 142hp 20 years ago != stock 142 hp 5 years ago, are you still with me? Let alone stock 142 hp 20 years ago vs 190 hp 7 years ago.
As time goes by and miles add up, you start sliding down off the stock figure. A bone stock 1988 year model Mazda Rx7 in 1987/88 may have made 142 hp - a stock 1988 year model Mazda Rx7 in 2007 probably makes closer to 130 hp.
Yeah yeah, you're going to say "What if it's rebuilt?" You're still not going to stock compression unless you're using brand new rotors, irons, housings, springs, and seals everytime. Which at last pricing would put you at around $3500+ for a rebuild.
So go ahead, keep talking out of your ***.
03-06-07, 10:23 PM
#44
Taste great, more filling
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KhanArtisT
112mph HAHAHA. **** what I said then, by all means race him
Most cars in the United States are electronically limited to 112 mph, not because they can't go any faster (hers actually did 112 with about 2500rpms left to go before redline) but because the car came with H speed rated tires, and they don't trust the average driver not to outdrive their tires' speed rating. Next time you hear about a car with an electronic speed limiter, look at what tires they come from the factory with.
That's why you have to be careful - as has been pointed out many, many times in this thread, in the Ford Mustang world, a v6 isn't just a v6. From 1994 to 1998 the 3.8L v6 only made 145 hp, so you could easily dust a v6 in a stock Rx7. The older the better. When the body style changed from the curvy style to the square style from 1999 to 2004 the engine changed, too, to ~190 for the same 3.8L v6.
Now the 2005+ Mustang is a 3.9L and it's ~215 hp. But guess what? They intentionally limited it to make it "worth the money" to upgrade to a GT, so there's a lot of potential in there from bolt-on modifications.
In this particular situation we won't know until they race - but dude, c'mon - he's your brother - he's going to give you **** regardless, you might as well go for it. Whether you win or lose it won't be by a lot. If you did a true quarter, I'd bet that he'd win - but by less than a car and a half.
03-06-07, 10:28 PM
#45
Taste great, more filling
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FCKing1995
what would new rotors have to do with factory compression? so using a used rotor wont get you as good of compression as a new rotor? 
I'm not saying don't use them for a rebuild, because the gain from using new ones again is definitely not worth the cost. But it can't REALLY surprise you that used parts aren't as good as new ones, can it?
03-06-07, 10:35 PM
#46
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bechuga
well i received a 1988 rx7 when i was 13, it was a project car (this was 2 years ago) last month my brother got a 2001 mustang, both cars are stock, my rx7 is 5 speed and the mustang is automatic which would win in a race?
my moms saturn SL2 with an Ecotec beat my friends 1996 V6 mustang. The 2001 has a few more hp, but ultimately they are pigs. Fat and slow. You should beat him
And if you dont you can use the ricer excuse that you could "beat him in the twisties."
BC
03-06-07, 10:35 PM
#47
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, i raced a guy from my work who has a 2001 auto v6 stang with a AEM cold air intake, and flowmaster dual exhaust, with my 1990 gtu with just a cone and we were even until 4th gear then he started to pull, then we had to slow down but i knew he wud have gotten farther ahead but not by much
03-06-07, 10:49 PM
#48
Originally Posted by Richter12x2
Have you ever rebuilt one before? Did you ever check the apex seal grooves and see what happens after 100,000 miles or better? The sides of the rotor are also wear plated just like the rotor housings, although realistically they shouldn't be contact areas.
I'm not saying don't use them for a rebuild, because the gain from using new ones again is definitely not worth the cost. But it can't REALLY surprise you that used parts aren't as good as new ones, can it?
I'm not saying don't use them for a rebuild, because the gain from using new ones again is definitely not worth the cost. But it can't REALLY surprise you that used parts aren't as good as new ones, can it?
03-06-07, 10:50 PM
#49
Well I guess if I ever get an safc and get my car dyno tested we'll see what kind of numbers you get a on used housings for a streetported n/a now wont we ? Because my car still has only 3000 miles on the fresh rebuild so far and it was built with used rotors/rotor housings with 146,000 miles on them and it had the grooving on the rotor housings , Kevin Landers pointed this out to me right after completely disassembling the shortblock right in front of me in 10 minutes.
Surely you may lose some compression, but the lower compression will not make the engine last any less because you have brand new apex seals, surely you can get new housings if you want to make the best compression possible but the price of a set of brand new housings is about $900 + shipping so you decide if its worth it ?
For someone planning on fixing up there car that $900 could have been put into mods that bring power higher than having the brand new $900 housings did. Sure I think housings are nice but very expensive , sure I would buy them if I had the money but we arent all rich enough to afford new housings.
Now if you went and replaced the rotors too ? Just forget it the price is going out the roof just in parts, you might as well just get race rotors from racingbeat if you can afford new stock rotors.
Now this is off topic, but if any mustang id like to race the older foxbody 5.0 gt , i think those would be fun to race with a fixed up n/a. Anyone run one ?
I just check the 1990 gt weighed 2827lbs pretty light, but the 1988 model weighed 3248lbs both 225 hp/300tq stock. The lighter one would definitely beat my n/a but the heavier won would be alot of fun to try beating
Haha im just reading more info and the 1996 mustang gt is only 215 hp 3077 lbs stock and it runs around the same powerweight ratio and 1/4 mile about 14.8. hahahahaha 4.6 litre and my na is almost as much power with less than 1/3 of the displacement. Oh and if they have an automatic, count on a 15.1 or so hahahaha crappy v8 pos.
Surely you may lose some compression, but the lower compression will not make the engine last any less because you have brand new apex seals, surely you can get new housings if you want to make the best compression possible but the price of a set of brand new housings is about $900 + shipping so you decide if its worth it ?
For someone planning on fixing up there car that $900 could have been put into mods that bring power higher than having the brand new $900 housings did. Sure I think housings are nice but very expensive , sure I would buy them if I had the money but we arent all rich enough to afford new housings.
Now if you went and replaced the rotors too ? Just forget it the price is going out the roof just in parts, you might as well just get race rotors from racingbeat if you can afford new stock rotors.
Now this is off topic, but if any mustang id like to race the older foxbody 5.0 gt , i think those would be fun to race with a fixed up n/a. Anyone run one ?
I just check the 1990 gt weighed 2827lbs pretty light, but the 1988 model weighed 3248lbs both 225 hp/300tq stock. The lighter one would definitely beat my n/a but the heavier won would be alot of fun to try beating
Haha im just reading more info and the 1996 mustang gt is only 215 hp 3077 lbs stock and it runs around the same powerweight ratio and 1/4 mile about 14.8. hahahahaha 4.6 litre and my na is almost as much power with less than 1/3 of the displacement. Oh and if they have an automatic, count on a 15.1 or so hahahaha crappy v8 pos.
Last edited by wthdidusay82; 03-06-07 at 11:11 PM.
