2ndGen.rocket

this kid i know has a 96 mustang GT. it has flowmaster headers and a catback on it. we were driving the other day on a 4 lane road, and we punched it at the same time in 2nd gear. i went all the way to 4th and he really didnt pull on me at all. he said he was full throttle, so does this make any sense, or is there something wrong with his car? my mods are below

Snrub

iTrader: (1)

I would say no. At stock GT of that year should be fairly even with a stock TII. He's not stock and you shouldn't be as fast as a stock TII. His mods aren't that different from yours. However, if you're hanging with him, who cares what "should" happen.

zelgadiss-san

the 4.6 L GT (94-00 or 01 I believe) was weak, however the top speed for the GT and N/A FC (88-91) aren't that far apart, I think the GT is like 10 mph higher. a TII shouldn't have any problem taking one, let alone a modified (however little) one.

pp13bnos

iTrader: (1)

Egads...the stangs around my parts must be alot faster or something.

My buddys 01 GT runs low 14s@98 stock. But then again, i've seen green drivers only be able to get them into the low 15s@95. But the mph is still way higher than 99% of the n/a..including mine.

Also guys...he has a 86 n/a Rx-7.

My guess is that there is something wrong with his car.

CJ

Snrub

iTrader: (1)

The '01 is a lot faster than the '96.

Roy James

I would say yeah, thats about right. 94s were fast, still had the 5.0 in them, 95-99 i think had the SOHC 4.6 which were pretty lame, esp the first years. I think.. hell i dont know what the hell im talking about

dre_2ooo

I have beaten a few mid 90's stang GTs. OF course your car will hang with/beat them. DUH!

It's the older torque monster foxbodies (5.0) to watch out for. The new 99+ ones will run 14.0. Stick to mid-90's and you'll keep up/ahead

Ni5mo180SX

Yea I raced a mid 90's GT. My only mods at the time were open 6 ports, removed air pump/emissions systems. We both punched it halfway through first and we were dead even till 3rd when he pulled on me about 1/4 car.

zelgadiss-san

the 94's didn't have 5.0s, the 93 was the last year of those until they returned last year.

Roy James

Um.. no. 1993 was the last year for the 5.0 Fox Body Mustang. In 1994 they introduced the SN95 Body style with the the same ol' 5.0 in it, in 1995 they slaped in the slack SOHC 4.6. 99+ they used a DOHC 4.6 i believe... ill research and come back to it...

Roy James

Opps, they had SOHC the whole time, its only the Cobras and i think some other SVT vehicles that had the DOHC. My mistake, still... the new mustangs have 4.6, not the old push rod grandfather 5.0.

http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/gtcoupe/

suprfast7

alright the 94-95 was the new body style stang with the 5.0 the 96 and up changed to the 4.6 DOHC 2003 cobra supercharged 4.6.
94-95 stang 240 HP 96-up 220 besides the cobra 310 HP 03' high 300 HP I am pretty sure of this use to want a z28 or 5.0
until I found my 7

2ndGen.rocket

well i wasnt pulling on him, and we didnt go from a dead stop. we both punched it in 2nd gear, and i was definitely keeping up with him, he didnt seem to be gaining any on me at all.

Barwick

the older (previous generation) mustangs are DOGS stock. Maybe not the Cobra, I don't know much about them, but the GT and ESPECIALLY the V6 (that sucker is slower ALL AROUND than my '92 Civic EX).

The newer ones, eh, they're quicker than the old ones, but for a 4.6L engine, they're really not all THAT great. I mean crap, Acura puts out 260 hp on a 3.2L V6..

deadRX7Conv

1. Stick with what you know. Ton of Mustang BS in this thread.
2. Driver skill, driver skill, driver skill!!! If dummy Mustang owner is revving that torquey V8, then of course you will pull away. If he short shifted, he would easily beat you. Yes, I have driven them all and they quit early in the rev band. The 1999+ rev more.
3. I like the guess that "something is wrong with the car". Most Mustang owners that I have met have no clue on how to drive. That is usually what is wrong and then I might consider something mechanical.
4. Unless your running a T2, don't race 'em(unless you're sure that the owner can't drive his car).
5. The V6 aren't as slow as you think. I have seen high 14's with lightly modified 3.8's. The pre-1999 v6's need more work(change lightly modded to highly modded) to hit 14's. How fast is your NA in the 1320?
6. I have never driven a "dog" V8 Mustang. The only dogs that I can remember is the nonturbo 2.3 Mustang.
7. The Mustang aftermarket support kills the support that the RX7 has. I am still waiting for a supercharger kit for my NA.

Mustang info:
http://home.pon.net/hunnicutt/history_94_02.htm

wpgrexx

i hate mustangs, okay that said i am probably biased, but a freind had a 83 5.0 with the big glass hatch, that car was fast 100kmph in first, but it was modded. i drove a 96 mustang 4.6 convertable, it sucked, i tried racing other stangs and got bitched, especially by the 80's early 90's 5.0. i have also driven a 98 3.8 convertable and it was slow as ****, caravan's could hang with it. i raced the 3.8 with my rex and it was a joke. though they were convertables so they are heavy as ****. that probably didn't clear anything up

00RX7

I raced a 95 GT ,from a roll and from a dead stop! Both times same result. Either he didn't know how to drive or it was just a turd. I blew his doors off and he swares that I spayed him. His car was pretty modified,and my T2 is also very modified. He even had a automatic. I told him he needed to buy a rotary. ha

scathcart

Well, duh. The AOD-E is a horrible trans. The auto cars are notoriously weak. Not a good rep of typical mustang power.

The 5.0 is not a SOHC. A SOHC refers to a single cam over the valves, meaning one cam per cylinder head and dual cams per engine. The 5.0 is a cam-in-block design, with a single cam. A DOHC engine has 4 cams, two per head.

The 96-98 heads were horribly weak. they flowed like ****, and made better paperweights than anything else. As well, the 94-up mustangs had much more fat to them than the fox bodies, about an extra 200 lbs.

However, the 4.6L is a very venerable engine. I doubt an N/A could beat one with exahust.

Irrigated_Onion

I wouldn't be suprised at all if those mods he used on a GXL were enough to keep up with the described Mustang. That is a pretty quick car. Just needs a mild port job.

FC3AZ

The 96-98 GT's are the weak ones. The 99-02's are pretty strong. Low 14's with a decent driver. They also have a lot more ***** on the top end compared to the 96-98's because of new heads. You won't walk away from a 99 and up that easily.

Dyre

My friends 96 GT made 464rwhp non-intercooled on stock cams w/ ported heads. They do have potential. But stock, they are pretty lame.

FC3AZ

yes, with ported heads. Just a heads+cams swap with a 99+ GT can gain you somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-60rhwp.

I am talkin about a 96-98 GT by the way, before someone gets on here and says "Rotary's dont have heads! blah blah blah" hahaha

dre_2ooo

Do it.

kristopher_d

Most of it is the driver. I beat more than one TII in my '96 V6 stang. She's dead now, and I've beat more than one SN95 GT in my stock S4 N/A. The SN95's have similar power and weight to the S4 7's. The 7 has a better ration, no two ways about it, not to mention a better gear ratio in second. My stang lost a lot of pull as soon as I grabbed 3rd. Won't say the same for my 7.

dre_2ooo

Nevermind what I said. NA FC's are only good for beating non-Vtec SOHC Civic DX's. You'd be lucky to keep up with a neon