RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Well then we agree.

TPI 350 cars were low-mid 14s as well, same as the 5.0, which has been my point all along. But 88blackgt seems to remember history differently than the rest of us.

UltraZLS1

iTrader: (13)

Take off a half second on all counts if you run in negative DA in the middle of winter/mess with the timing/alter the air path and rent the track for yourself all day long.

Its like us going around saying the new camaro could hit 11's...because I dont doubt they could get close if they went that far out of the ordinary...jesus that is ridiculous anyone would even buy into that.

Just those conditions alone would be worth a few tenths LOL

88blackgt

lol ok it wasnt a mediocore driver at sea level w/ a mediocore launch so it didnt happen. Forget all the other 12.9s and 12.8s, they cheated. Factory stock never happened either.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Darksol

Alright, we get it, you like fox body mustangs...so f-ing what?

This thread (originally) had nothing to do with them.

I don't know Pontiac held onto its big thumpers for the mid 70's. 1976 models had 400's and 455's still, although the 455 was only rated to about 200hp and 330 lb/ft. 1977 still rolled with 400's and 403 olds engines...not inspiring but still had bragging rights. The turbo models were something to be forgotten though.

UltraZLS1

iTrader: (13)

Again...this isnt even in the same ballpark as the kind of BS they were trying to pass off in that 13.7.

Middle of winter, rent the track for yourself, advance the timing, remove the air filter.

How in any way shape or form is this even remotely the same as someone having a solid run in the fall with their stock vehicle?

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

IMO, performance was dead at GM from 1975 to 1984. The last Pontiac engine that's worth talking about (in *stock* form) was the '74 SD455. Those other 400s and 455s were paperweights from '75 on. And the Olds 403ci was definitely NOT a performance engine.

Starting in '85, we had the L98/TPI 350 in Corvette and in '86 came the intercooled LC2 turbo 3.8 from Buick. These were the first signs of any return to factory performance at GM, IMO.

I don't think he's ever going to get it.

88blackgt

When did i say that was the norm? You really dont get it. The fox runs quicker times both on average and its "fastest" times are quite a bit faster; is it really that hard? Its just quicker. Period.

PS those runs were in early 87 and was one of the earliest runs for an SD fox.

UltraZLS1

iTrader: (13)

Didnt say you did. I was replying to your smart comment about not counting any ringer times if we didnt count the non stock 13.7 you quoted. I consider a ringer time a really good run in the fall with a good driver. Which in no way has anything to do with what was done in that 13.7. The car wasnt even stock LOL.

And I get it just fine. We were on the subject of fastest times. You brought one up...it turned out to be a bunch of horse ****...I am not missing anything.

And no...I still disagree. They are within a couple tenths on both ends when keeping things fair and stock.

ThisBlood147

Why the hell are you all arguing about stock Foxes and 3rd gens?

Bob Cosby

My low option 88 Coupe 5 speed ran 14.08 @ 98 mph bone stock at Indy Raceway Park in July of 1988. The timing was not advanced, it had the stock air filter and air cleaner. I might have had aftermarket wheels (that was over 20 years ago...memory goes with age) - though nothing that would have made any noticeable difference. I was not much of a driver then. If memory serves, the air was "ok", but it was Indy in July....not Atco in January.

I don't believe in "factory freaks". Freak drivers in very good air at very good tracks occasionally making near-perfect runs? Sure. But not factory freak cars.

IMO, based on my experiences and observations at the time (not from magazines), the quickest of the 5.0s were marginally quicker than the quickest of the 3rd Gen F-bodys (not counting the TTAs, of course). Then again, the quickest 5.0s were manuals, and the quickest F-bodys were A4s, so it was far easier for the driver of the 5.0 to screw up or be mediocre, thus allowing the L98 F-body to take him.

Irunelevens

Thank you Bob, for a truly unbiased account.

88blackgt

Thanks Bob

Its great that a legend like you can come in and relay their experiences

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

No, it's really not hard, it's just that you're wrong. On average, they were damn near the same. The significant difference that you seem to remember was not present.

That's right on par with my "then" good friend's 14.12@ 98mph run in a stock low option/hard top '91 Formula 350 back in the mid-'90s.

I agree. Generally a marginal difference at best between the quickest of each, usually resulting in a near dead heat; that had been my experiance. Not sure where 88blackgt is getting the idea that the "fastest [5.0] times are quite a bit faster" in 100% stock form.

88blackgt

Never said the margin was large stop putting words in my mouth. The fox is quicker on average period. Everyone's definition of stock is different and given what the ls1 community touts as "stock" those factory stock cars were definitly "stock."

Just as it is in 2011, it was the mustang's race to lose.

UltraZLS1

iTrader: (13)

Do you suffer from Alzheimers disease?

Seriously....since your memory seems to betray you...just scroll down the page and take a look...

Here...Ill do it for you

"The fox runs quicker times both on average and its "fastest" times are quite a bit faster; is it really that hard? Its just quicker. Period."

"eh across the board with average driver the notch would win a majority of the time, and the fastest times the notch was several tenths quicker with a good amount hitting 13s."

"i missed where i said that was the norm? i can say it again; the average times were faster and the "out of the norm" times were faster by quite a bit."

And jesus...if you want to drive around a v8 escort with no air condiitoning to have a couple tenth advantage good for you...the notches were seriously hideous.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

You sure about that? .....

Sounds to me like you've maintained all along that the difference is more than "marginal". I think your definition of many things is different from everyone else. To the rest of the world, marginal doesn't mean "quite a bit", or "several tenths".

Thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with that. I've never said that the L98 cars were faster. I've just maintained that the difference is small enough that it's nearly a dead heat and a driver's race. There is no "easy" winner between the two. The same is true for the new 5.0 vs LS3, as stated in this post:

This same situation existed between the L98 and the old 5.0.

Ah, more custom definitions. 100% factory stock is not an opinion, either the car has been altered or not.

Irunelevens

I agree with everything but this statement... I LOVE notchbacks, and plan to own one in the near future. Hopefully very similar to this one

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Personally, I don't "hate" the appearance of the notch, but I think the 5.0 LX hatchback was the best looking of the Fox bodies, followed by the Cobra. GT and notch were my least favorites.

UltraZLS1

iTrader: (13)

Anything can look decent with a nice aftermarket hood and chrome rims against black and tinted windows.

That car looks barely acceptable in that configuration IMO. And thats only because it is my favorite color on a car and I like the rims/hood.

Looks are a personal opinion...but damn...I just dont see it on the notchbacks.

http://www.moddedmustangs.com/forums...5-0-5-spd.html


IF that doesnt say escort...Im not sure what does. I thought a mustang was supposed to look sporty/attractive? maybe Im just not getting it lol.

To each their own I guess...but to me that is probably the worst looking mustang ever made.