Lt1 vs 5.0 fox mustang
02-16-2007, 07:32 PM
#41
Fbody.
I'm on my 2nd LT1 car, (first was a 97 4l60e) and I just got into my 96 M6...there was a reason I searched for another! The looks, the power, and the potential power. 5.0s all sound the same, all look like boxes, no curves, no features other than those gigantic pizza sized box headlights.
http://video.ls1tech.com/search/lt1/...0a00ff6b14.htm
http://video.ls1tech.com/search/lt1/...854f040570.htm
http://video.ls1tech.com/search/lt1/...3f6a98f0d3.htm
LT1 FTW
I'm on my 2nd LT1 car, (first was a 97 4l60e) and I just got into my 96 M6...there was a reason I searched for another! The looks, the power, and the potential power. 5.0s all sound the same, all look like boxes, no curves, no features other than those gigantic pizza sized box headlights.
http://video.ls1tech.com/search/lt1/...0a00ff6b14.htm
http://video.ls1tech.com/search/lt1/...854f040570.htm
http://video.ls1tech.com/search/lt1/...3f6a98f0d3.htm
LT1 FTW
02-21-2007, 03:26 PM
#42
On The Tree
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going through the same issue right now. Only problem is, I already own a 95 Trans Am. My options are to either
a) Keep my car
b) Sell it for a black LT1 Camaro or
c) get a fox body
A stock notchback only weighs 3,000- 3,100lbs as opposed to the 3,500- 3,600lb F-body. Mustangs are EVERYWHERE. Everyone has one, so there are heaps of parts readily available to you for dirt cheap, not to mention the cars themselves don't cost much. There's a black 5.0 notchback in the local paper with 90,000 miles on it going for $3,000. They're simple as hell to work on in comparison to our cars too.
Our cars are obviously much better in every way in stock form. They're harder to work on and cost more, but they look better IMO, handle better and get some decent power out of simple bolt ons. I read an article about bolt ons for 5.0's. They got 7 horsepower after adding headers. At ws6.com, they got 14 horsepower from adding short tubes (1 5/8") on a Trans Am. I'd imagine that he'd have gotten more out of 1 3/4 or 1 7/8" longtubes. We have 6 gears, they have 5. Steeper gearing is easier to work with on our cars due to the second overdrive. I'm pretty sure our trannies are stronger too. Oh yeah, and we have t tops
Only a few fox bodies had t tops.
It all comes down to personal preference. If you want to build a fast 1/4 mile car on a budget, I'd say go fox body. Otherwise, I'd recommend you check out a Camaro.
a) Keep my car
b) Sell it for a black LT1 Camaro or
c) get a fox body
A stock notchback only weighs 3,000- 3,100lbs as opposed to the 3,500- 3,600lb F-body. Mustangs are EVERYWHERE. Everyone has one, so there are heaps of parts readily available to you for dirt cheap, not to mention the cars themselves don't cost much. There's a black 5.0 notchback in the local paper with 90,000 miles on it going for $3,000. They're simple as hell to work on in comparison to our cars too.
Our cars are obviously much better in every way in stock form. They're harder to work on and cost more, but they look better IMO, handle better and get some decent power out of simple bolt ons. I read an article about bolt ons for 5.0's. They got 7 horsepower after adding headers. At ws6.com, they got 14 horsepower from adding short tubes (1 5/8") on a Trans Am. I'd imagine that he'd have gotten more out of 1 3/4 or 1 7/8" longtubes. We have 6 gears, they have 5. Steeper gearing is easier to work with on our cars due to the second overdrive. I'm pretty sure our trannies are stronger too. Oh yeah, and we have t tops
Only a few fox bodies had t tops.It all comes down to personal preference. If you want to build a fast 1/4 mile car on a budget, I'd say go fox body. Otherwise, I'd recommend you check out a Camaro.
02-21-2007, 05:18 PM
#43
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Storms of War
I'm going through the same issue right now. Only problem is, I already own a 95 Trans Am. My options are to either
a) Keep my car
b) Sell it for a black LT1 Camaro or
c) get a fox body
A stock notchback only weighs 3,000- 3,100lbs as opposed to the 3,500- 3,600lb F-body. Mustangs are EVERYWHERE. Everyone has one, so there are heaps of parts readily available to you for dirt cheap, not to mention the cars themselves don't cost much. There's a black 5.0 notchback in the local paper with 90,000 miles on it going for $3,000. They're simple as hell to work on in comparison to our cars too.
a) Keep my car
b) Sell it for a black LT1 Camaro or
c) get a fox body
A stock notchback only weighs 3,000- 3,100lbs as opposed to the 3,500- 3,600lb F-body. Mustangs are EVERYWHERE. Everyone has one, so there are heaps of parts readily available to you for dirt cheap, not to mention the cars themselves don't cost much. There's a black 5.0 notchback in the local paper with 90,000 miles on it going for $3,000. They're simple as hell to work on in comparison to our cars too.
Everyone has one, they are everywhere.
Number two reason, its a mustang
02-21-2007, 05:29 PM
#44
I like the Fox platform, I have had 3.
They are a good bit lighter than a F body
Stock for stock they are equal(with the right driver in the stang)
It is MUCH easier to work on.
No opti crap
Aftermarket base is HUGE
Used go-fast parts are plentiful
Short wheelbase and a factory 4 link are easy to get hooked up
You can pull the engine from the top with no brain damage
You can make them VERY light
A 351 windsor bolts right in the car.
So what if everyone has them, just makes parts that more plentiful and cheap
My 89 LX(in 1991) with 3.73 gears, off road pipe and pullies went 13.60@101 on straight radial tires.
GT-40 iron heads, ported stock intake, 4.10 gears,cam, stock bottom end, full weight daily driver 12.70@107
Dollar for dollar the stang is cheaper.
David
They are a good bit lighter than a F body
Stock for stock they are equal(with the right driver in the stang)
It is MUCH easier to work on.
No opti crap
Aftermarket base is HUGE
Used go-fast parts are plentiful
Short wheelbase and a factory 4 link are easy to get hooked up
You can pull the engine from the top with no brain damage
You can make them VERY light
A 351 windsor bolts right in the car.
So what if everyone has them, just makes parts that more plentiful and cheap
My 89 LX(in 1991) with 3.73 gears, off road pipe and pullies went 13.60@101 on straight radial tires.
GT-40 iron heads, ported stock intake, 4.10 gears,cam, stock bottom end, full weight daily driver 12.70@107
Dollar for dollar the stang is cheaper.
David
02-21-2007, 05:39 PM
#45
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (32)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FASTFATBOY
I like the Fox platform, I have had 3.
They are a good bit lighter than a F body
Stock for stock they are equal(with the right driver in the stang)
...
My 89 LX(in 1991) with 3.73 gears, off road pipe and pullies went 13.60@101 on straight radial tires.
GT-40 iron heads, ported stock intake, 4.10 gears,cam, stock bottom end, full weight daily driver 12.70@107
David
They are a good bit lighter than a F body
Stock for stock they are equal(with the right driver in the stang)
...
My 89 LX(in 1991) with 3.73 gears, off road pipe and pullies went 13.60@101 on straight radial tires.
GT-40 iron heads, ported stock intake, 4.10 gears,cam, stock bottom end, full weight daily driver 12.70@107
David
But.. they do not compare stock vs stock with lt1s. No way in hell the stang can keep up with the lt1. Even with some bolt ons on the stang, it won't beat the lt1.
No offense, but that car you have is SLoooooow. I bet my car can match that 12.7 right now.
02-21-2007, 09:18 PM
#46
Originally Posted by Ralls
Like I said, the 5.0 is awesome aftermarket and fast when you lighten em up. I'm looking to get one by the end of this year for a project.
But.. they do not compare stock vs stock with lt1s. No way in hell the stang can keep up with the lt1. Even with some bolt ons on the stang, it won't beat the lt1.
No offense, but that car you have is SLoooooow. I bet my car can match that 12.7 right now.
But.. they do not compare stock vs stock with lt1s. No way in hell the stang can keep up with the lt1. Even with some bolt ons on the stang, it won't beat the lt1.
No offense, but that car you have is SLoooooow. I bet my car can match that 12.7 right now.
Dude, that was in 1994
And in 1992/3 I didnt get beat by ONE LT1 car when my ole LX had gears/pullies/exhaust and ran 13.60's, I would go out hunting them up 
and BEG for races! The majority were scared to race...no brag, just fact.A stock coupe LX with the right driver WILL run 13.90's. I have seen it done.
My stock 88 hatch LX with nothing but pullies and a shortbelt went 13.79(with 200,000 miles on it)
David
Last edited by FASTFATBOY; 02-21-2007 at 09:23 PM.
02-22-2007, 10:11 AM
#47
Staging Lane
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FASTFATBOY
Dude, that was in 1994 And in 1992/3 I didnt get beat by ONE LT1 car when my ole LX had gears/pullies/exhaust and ran 13.60's, I would go out hunting them up and BEG for races! The majority were scared to race...no brag, just fact.
A stock coupe LX with the right driver WILL run 13.90's. I have seen it done.
My stock 88 hatch LX with nothing but pullies and a shortbelt went 13.79(with 200,000 miles on it)
David
And in 1992/3 I didnt get beat by ONE LT1 car when my ole LX had gears/pullies/exhaust and ran 13.60's, I would go out hunting them up and BEG for races! The majority were scared to race...no brag, just fact.A stock coupe LX with the right driver WILL run 13.90's. I have seen it done.
My stock 88 hatch LX with nothing but pullies and a shortbelt went 13.79(with 200,000 miles on it)
David
02-22-2007, 12:26 PM
#48
TECH Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
91-93 stangs 225hp
94-95 stangs 215 hp
I've owned both never seen one run 13 anything stock, not saying it can't happen but I've never seen it. The right driver? ok maybe. Put just about anyone in the LT1 and your almost guaranteed high 13's. Big difference in my book.
About the only thing I like over the LT1 vs the stang is the fact that its easy to work on and parts are plentiful.
94-95 stangs 215 hp
I've owned both never seen one run 13 anything stock, not saying it can't happen but I've never seen it. The right driver? ok maybe. Put just about anyone in the LT1 and your almost guaranteed high 13's. Big difference in my book.
About the only thing I like over the LT1 vs the stang is the fact that its easy to work on and parts are plentiful.
02-22-2007, 05:59 PM
#49
Originally Posted by Something
Dont the fox-bodies have about 220 hp? I mean I aint calling BS as you obviously know more about them then I do, but with only 220 hp and not over 270ish lb/ft (I belive, but correct me if I'm wrong), even at 3100lbs, I dont see them running 13's. I was under the impression that a full, or close to bolt-on fox body run's low 14's, maybe high 13's with a tire.
225 hp, 300 ft lb of tq
Bolt on stangs have run 12.90's(stripper coupes) with 4.10 gears and slicks. Look up Bob Cosby on the net, he comes on here every now and then.He was one of the first to do it.
I have run, broke, built MANY a stang....not only my own but for others.
The 87/88 coupe was the fastest of all Fox bodies in stock form, would go 13's showroom stock with the driver mod, Evan Smith did it NO problem, I have also done it.
I have the old magazines SOMEWHERE
David
02-22-2007, 06:00 PM
#50
Originally Posted by Lethal Z
91-93 stangs 225hp
94-95 stangs 215 hp
I've owned both never seen one run 13 anything stock, not saying it can't happen but I've never seen it. The right driver? ok maybe. Put just about anyone in the LT1 and your almost guaranteed high 13's. Big difference in my book.
About the only thing I like over the LT1 vs the stang is the fact that its easy to work on and parts are plentiful.
94-95 stangs 215 hp
I've owned both never seen one run 13 anything stock, not saying it can't happen but I've never seen it. The right driver? ok maybe. Put just about anyone in the LT1 and your almost guaranteed high 13's. Big difference in my book.
About the only thing I like over the LT1 vs the stang is the fact that its easy to work on and parts are plentiful.
I have never seen a showroom stock LT1 Fbody run in the 13's, Evan Smith took a 96 SS into the 13's I think.
David
02-22-2007, 06:05 PM
#51
Originally Posted by FASTFATBOY
225 hp, 300 ft lb of tq
Bolt on stangs have run 12.90's(stripper coupes) with 4.10 gears and slicks. Look up Bob Cosby on the net, he comes on here every now and then.He was one of the first to do it.
I have run, broke, built MANY a stang....not only my own but for others.
The 87/88 coupe was the fastest of all Fox bodies in stock form, would go 13's showroom stock with the driver mod, Evan Smith did it NO problem, I have also done it.
I have the old magazines SOMEWHERE
David
Bolt on stangs have run 12.90's(stripper coupes) with 4.10 gears and slicks. Look up Bob Cosby on the net, he comes on here every now and then.He was one of the first to do it.
I have run, broke, built MANY a stang....not only my own but for others.
The 87/88 coupe was the fastest of all Fox bodies in stock form, would go 13's showroom stock with the driver mod, Evan Smith did it NO problem, I have also done it.
I have the old magazines SOMEWHERE
David
Drive mod is nice is those cars.......
Rember they have to be in mint shape with a good driver, and a decent tire most of them are tired and getting slow
