2011 Mustang GT taken out by a "Tuned" 2010 SHO *VIDEO*
06-02-2010 | 10:51 AM
#181
I remember those days and would like to input on it as well when those cars were fresh.
A good running dual cat 350TPI hardtop with cloth in a Camaro or Formula with 323s would be a good race with a 5.0 Mustang 5 speed with 308 gears. I feel that the 90 -92s were a tad faster thanks to the speed density set up. Concerning the 5.0s I felt a 87-88 notch was faster than the newer 5.0s and just about as fast as a 93 Cobra. The 5.0s from 88 and on got slower and slower due to weight and slight motor changes(cam changes,MAF). My 92 Mustang when new went 14.5 at 95 MPH with 308 gears,cloth and a sunroof. I had problems against older ones even with ttops. They could inch away from me. Also had a 1989 Formula 350 dual cat. Stock it went 14.2 at 96 MPH(cloth and ttops). Most runs 14.5 at 95 MPH. I remember again losing to stock TPI 350s in that car when I ran against Camaro hardtops(90-92). I even saw a stock 92 1LE run na 14 flat at 97 MPH(350 tpi)
Side note about 305 TPIs. Automatics had the peanut cam(out of a TBI car). One of those against a newer 5 speed dual cat 90-92 TPI was a slaughter. Lets not mention about the carbed and TBI 305s which were slow. Too many variables with a 3rd gen in terms of power.
I saw plenty of LT1s crack 13s even automatics when new. I always felt the 93s were fastest-even faster than a dual cat LT1(96-97). Your only shot in a stock 5.0 stick with 308 gears was to beat it through third because in 4th it would catch you. Same problem with the 93 Cobra. A Cobra could run neck and neck with an LT1 with just a timing gun and ditching your intake silencer....
A good running dual cat 350TPI hardtop with cloth in a Camaro or Formula with 323s would be a good race with a 5.0 Mustang 5 speed with 308 gears. I feel that the 90 -92s were a tad faster thanks to the speed density set up. Concerning the 5.0s I felt a 87-88 notch was faster than the newer 5.0s and just about as fast as a 93 Cobra. The 5.0s from 88 and on got slower and slower due to weight and slight motor changes(cam changes,MAF). My 92 Mustang when new went 14.5 at 95 MPH with 308 gears,cloth and a sunroof. I had problems against older ones even with ttops. They could inch away from me. Also had a 1989 Formula 350 dual cat. Stock it went 14.2 at 96 MPH(cloth and ttops). Most runs 14.5 at 95 MPH. I remember again losing to stock TPI 350s in that car when I ran against Camaro hardtops(90-92). I even saw a stock 92 1LE run na 14 flat at 97 MPH(350 tpi)
Side note about 305 TPIs. Automatics had the peanut cam(out of a TBI car). One of those against a newer 5 speed dual cat 90-92 TPI was a slaughter. Lets not mention about the carbed and TBI 305s which were slow. Too many variables with a 3rd gen in terms of power.
I saw plenty of LT1s crack 13s even automatics when new. I always felt the 93s were fastest-even faster than a dual cat LT1(96-97). Your only shot in a stock 5.0 stick with 308 gears was to beat it through third because in 4th it would catch you. Same problem with the 93 Cobra. A Cobra could run neck and neck with an LT1 with just a timing gun and ditching your intake silencer....
06-02-2010 | 10:53 AM
#182
Teching In
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Stock? no.
LX coupe 5-speed 3010
LX Hatch 5-speed 3069
GT Hatch 5-speed 3144
LX convertible 5-speed 3231
GT convertible 5-speed 3365
LX coupe AOD 3076
LX Hatch AOD 3135
GT Hatch AOD 3210
LX convertible AOD 3297
GT convertible AOD 3431
Those are base weights with no options(no a/c, power locks windows etc)
LX coupe 5-speed 3010
LX Hatch 5-speed 3069
GT Hatch 5-speed 3144
LX convertible 5-speed 3231
GT convertible 5-speed 3365
LX coupe AOD 3076
LX Hatch AOD 3135
GT Hatch AOD 3210
LX convertible AOD 3297
GT convertible AOD 3431
Those are base weights with no options(no a/c, power locks windows etc)
06-02-2010 | 11:09 AM
#185
Staging Lane
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 65
Likes: 1
From: Snohomish, WA
I remember those days and would like to input on it as well when those cars were fresh.
A good running dual cat 350TPI hardtop with cloth in a Camaro or Formula with 323s would be a good race with a 5.0 Mustang 5 speed with 308 gears. I feel that the 90 -92s were a tad faster thanks to the speed density set up. Concerning the 5.0s I felt a 87-88 notch was faster than the newer 5.0s and just about as fast as a 93 Cobra. The 5.0s from 88 and on got slower and slower due to weight and slight motor changes(cam changes,MAF). My 92 Mustang when new went 14.5 at 95 MPH with 308 gears,cloth and a sunroof. I had problems against older ones even with ttops. They could inch away from me. Also had a 1989 Formula 350 dual cat. Stock it went 14.2 at 96 MPH(cloth and ttops). Most runs 14.5 at 95 MPH. I remember again losing to stock TPI 350s in that car when I ran against Camaro hardtops(90-92). I even saw a stock 92 1LE run na 14 flat at 97 MPH(350 tpi)
Side note about 305 TPIs. Automatics had the peanut cam(out of a TBI car). One of those against a newer 5 speed dual cat 90-92 TPI was a slaughter. Lets not mention about the carbed and TBI 305s which were slow. Too many variables with a 3rd gen in terms of power.
I saw plenty of LT1s crack 13s even automatics when new. I always felt the 93s were fastest-even faster than a dual cat LT1(96-97). Your only shot in a stock 5.0 stick with 308 gears was to beat it through third because in 4th it would catch you. Same problem with the 93 Cobra. A Cobra could run neck and neck with an LT1 with just a timing gun and ditching your intake silencer....
A good running dual cat 350TPI hardtop with cloth in a Camaro or Formula with 323s would be a good race with a 5.0 Mustang 5 speed with 308 gears. I feel that the 90 -92s were a tad faster thanks to the speed density set up. Concerning the 5.0s I felt a 87-88 notch was faster than the newer 5.0s and just about as fast as a 93 Cobra. The 5.0s from 88 and on got slower and slower due to weight and slight motor changes(cam changes,MAF). My 92 Mustang when new went 14.5 at 95 MPH with 308 gears,cloth and a sunroof. I had problems against older ones even with ttops. They could inch away from me. Also had a 1989 Formula 350 dual cat. Stock it went 14.2 at 96 MPH(cloth and ttops). Most runs 14.5 at 95 MPH. I remember again losing to stock TPI 350s in that car when I ran against Camaro hardtops(90-92). I even saw a stock 92 1LE run na 14 flat at 97 MPH(350 tpi)
Side note about 305 TPIs. Automatics had the peanut cam(out of a TBI car). One of those against a newer 5 speed dual cat 90-92 TPI was a slaughter. Lets not mention about the carbed and TBI 305s which were slow. Too many variables with a 3rd gen in terms of power.
I saw plenty of LT1s crack 13s even automatics when new. I always felt the 93s were fastest-even faster than a dual cat LT1(96-97). Your only shot in a stock 5.0 stick with 308 gears was to beat it through third because in 4th it would catch you. Same problem with the 93 Cobra. A Cobra could run neck and neck with an LT1 with just a timing gun and ditching your intake silencer....
The speed density cars were definitely faster btw. Sucky part for us GM owners was that the Mustangs KILLED with a gear change: a totally stock engined, full exhaust, mildly gutted, 4.11 geared, slick equipped 5.0 was a guaranteed high 12's at 100-104mph car. SMOKING times for back then.
Thanks! I'm actually surprised they were even that close to 3000: I remember it was always a big deal if a 5.0 notch owner got his car below that magical number: usually entailed a gutted interior!
06-02-2010 | 11:37 AM
#186
***Repost Police***
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
From: DFW, TX
06-02-2010 | 11:57 AM
#187
TECH Addict
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
From: N. FL
On average yes you are probably right, especially for GT's... Now put a good driver in a 5.0 notchback and watch them run high 13's all day long. The notchbacks and lt1 cars would be a close race with equal drivers and to deny that you would be crazy....
The lt1 had more power yes, but the weight advantage of the notch made it equal.
The lt1 had more power yes, but the weight advantage of the notch made it equal.
The "under 3000" coupe was a 4 popper.
Couple hundred, easy. My 91 hatch weighed in at 3230... My 87 coupe tipped the scale at just over 2700, but I don't remember exactly what it started at... I'm thinking RIGHT AT 3000.
06-02-2010 | 12:11 PM
#188
TECH Addict
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
From: N. FL
Just a little background on my brother, IROCDave: He bought a new 5.7L IROC in '88 (for his girlfriend). From the dealer that he worked as a mechanic at, that his at the time soon-to-be father in law owned.
He was in, at, and around GM and Ford dealers all throughout the late 80s and early 90s. He even co-owned a marina that sold highend offshore cigarette boats, where he ran the service department and did all the high end, 500-1200hp engine installs and upgrades.
He was in the heart of california's big money car and boat racing scenes back in that time frame: He isn't just blowing smoke.
He was in, at, and around GM and Ford dealers all throughout the late 80s and early 90s. He even co-owned a marina that sold highend offshore cigarette boats, where he ran the service department and did all the high end, 500-1200hp engine installs and upgrades.
He was in the heart of california's big money car and boat racing scenes back in that time frame: He isn't just blowing smoke.
Oh yeah, I also worked at one of Sacramento's biggest Ford dealers from spring '88 to entering boot camp in the fall of '89: Women bought 3/4ths of the 6 cylinder cars, and maybe 25% of the V8's. At least 50% of the soon to be 6 cylinder owning females test drove a 5.0 but chose the 6 instead. Whats that tell ya?
As for the LT1: my good friend in the navy was one of the first guys in washington state to get ahold of a LT1: an auto, since the 6spds were delayed because the vettes were sucking all them up. Bone stock we hunted down and destroyed -with my 225lbs sitting next to him- dozens and dozens of various year 5.0's.
06-02-2010 | 12:47 PM
#189
Staging Lane
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 65
Likes: 1
From: Snohomish, WA
Thanks for the update, but I gotta tell ya, I won't be spending much time wondering why a guy who's really into high dollar boat racing(as an owner of a race shop) is ALSO working as a technician at a Chevy dealer... THAT'S JUST ME!
he went up the ranks fast when he married into that family. It's a long story, but true. it's also his story. Though I will throw in that that girlfriend of his also made it to the Miss USA finals representing Cali while they were dating- and was a parapaplegic. And that well connected, supposedly rich father in law was a scam artist who ended up ruining everyone around him and making international news. Like I said, his story is a long one.
That they were more conscious of their spending and didn't want or feel a need for GT power when the less expensive V6 looked the same... OH BUT WAIT... Ford didn't OFFER any V6 Mustang in 1988...OR '89... I think your brother AND YOU are blowin' smoke...
I'll bet it was the 4L60E...
he went up the ranks fast when he married into that family. It's a long story, but true. it's also his story. Though I will throw in that that girlfriend of his also made it to the Miss USA finals representing Cali while they were dating- and was a parapaplegic. And that well connected, supposedly rich father in law was a scam artist who ended up ruining everyone around him and making international news. Like I said, his story is a long one.
That they were more conscious of their spending and didn't want or feel a need for GT power when the less expensive V6 looked the same... OH BUT WAIT... Ford didn't OFFER any V6 Mustang in 1988...OR '89... I think your brother AND YOU are blowin' smoke...
I'll bet it was the 4L60E...
Far as transmissions: I believe that was also when GM changed over from the 700R4 to the 4L60. ?? I know the 4L60E didnt come out till much later.
Why you gotta be a hater?? Is it so hard to think that other people were living a better life than you back then? Let it go man, it's a big F*in world out there. Drop mommies tit and go live your own life.
06-02-2010 | 01:00 PM
#190
I disgree with the Mustang weights listed above big time. The 87-89s were lighter than the 91-93s big time. 91s and up had airbags,bigger wheels,mass air flow etc.... Also if you got one with a leather,all power or and a sunroof the weight went up as well. Also a speed density 5.0 with the same mods would wax a MAF car with stock heads,cam. It happened to me many many times. Why do you think they down rated the car in 93? It lost power and it was a ploy to make the SN95 look faster which was the exact opposite.
06-02-2010 | 01:07 PM
#191
TECH Addict
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
From: N. FL
Crap, you are right: only GM offered a 6 cylinder- they also offered a TBI 305 in there base model cars.
Far as transmissions: I believe that was also when GM changed over from the 700R4 to the 4L60. ?? I know the 4L60E didnt come out till much later.
Why you gotta be a hater?? Is it so hard to think that other people were living a better life than you back then? Let it go man, it's a big F*in world out there. Drop mommies tit and go live your own life.
Far as transmissions: I believe that was also when GM changed over from the 700R4 to the 4L60. ?? I know the 4L60E didnt come out till much later.
Why you gotta be a hater?? Is it so hard to think that other people were living a better life than you back then? Let it go man, it's a big F*in world out there. Drop mommies tit and go live your own life.
What makes you think, or better still, what would make me think you were living a better life, working at a dealership? Or that I would care, considering it was over 20yrs ago and, still being here, life couldn't have been THAT bad for either of us? I've worked at dealerships... Not too much to brag about. When you joined the service, I was already a veteran... Big deal... You STILL don't seem to know what you're talking about, nor does your brother.
06-02-2010 | 01:19 PM
#192
Teching In
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
I disgree with the Mustang weights listed above big time. The 87-89s were lighter than the 91-93s big time. 91s and up had airbags,bigger wheels,mass air flow etc.... Also if you got one with a leather,all power or and a sunroof the weight went up as well. Also a speed density 5.0 with the same mods would wax a MAF car with stock heads,cam. It happened to me many many times. Why do you think they down rated the car in 93? It lost power and it was a ploy to make the SN95 look faster which was the exact opposite.
06-02-2010 | 01:36 PM
#193
87-89s were lighter. When Ford deleted the middle arm rest in early 1990 cars it was due to the air bag weight increase. Look it up.
89s were tad heavier due to them having MAF on them(harness,meter etc..)
Weigh a turbine or LX ten hole rim. Weigh it against 16" factory rim.
Trunk carpeting was heavier on the newer cars as well as spare tire cover. 93s had wiper motor covers and some other little odd ball stuff added on them.
89s were tad heavier due to them having MAF on them(harness,meter etc..)
Weigh a turbine or LX ten hole rim. Weigh it against 16" factory rim.
Trunk carpeting was heavier on the newer cars as well as spare tire cover. 93s had wiper motor covers and some other little odd ball stuff added on them.
06-02-2010 | 01:45 PM
#194
TECH Addict
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
From: N. FL
Idonno if the info could be easily found, but there's really very little doubt, an 87 or 88(non-CA) 5.0 will weigh less than a 91-93. Not only did the older ones not have mass air equipment, or the airbag and it's deployment equipment, but the new 16" wheels were heavier than the old 15's. I've owned an 87 and a 91. The 87 weighed less from the start.
I'd bet they weigh them completely dry, in base form and... back then, they seemed to label all Mustangs with their 4cyl. weight.
That said, I don't think it stood a chance to make one much quicker than the other. I bet the overall difference is about 100 lb from one to the other, and at most(depending on version), 200.
And I must say, I'm officially getting real kick outta this thread!
I'd bet they weigh them completely dry, in base form and... back then, they seemed to label all Mustangs with their 4cyl. weight.
That said, I don't think it stood a chance to make one much quicker than the other. I bet the overall difference is about 100 lb from one to the other, and at most(depending on version), 200.
And I must say, I'm officially getting real kick outta this thread!
06-02-2010 | 01:55 PM
#195
Teching In
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Idonno if the info could be easily found, but there's really very little doubt, an 87 or 88(non-CA) 5.0 will weigh less than a 91-93. Not only did the older ones not have mass air equipment, or the airbag and it's deployment equipment, but the new 16" wheels were heavier than the old 15's. I've owned an 87 and a 91. The 87 weighed less from the start.
I'd bet they weigh them completely dry, in base form and... back then, they seemed to label all Mustangs with their 4cyl. weight.
That said, I don't think it stood a chance to make one much quicker than the other. I bet the overall difference is about 100 lb from one to the other, and at most(depending on version), 200.
And I must say, I'm officially getting real kick outta this thread!
I'd bet they weigh them completely dry, in base form and... back then, they seemed to label all Mustangs with their 4cyl. weight.
That said, I don't think it stood a chance to make one much quicker than the other. I bet the overall difference is about 100 lb from one to the other, and at most(depending on version), 200.
And I must say, I'm officially getting real kick outta this thread!
You're just assuming and going off hearsay. I thought the same as you but it's not true. Those are curb weights with full fluids too not completely dry.
06-02-2010 | 02:26 PM
#197
TECH Addict
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
From: N. FL
Is the corral still up? Haven't been there in prolly 10yrs or more.
06-02-2010 | 03:01 PM
#198
Corral blows. Been on there since 96. Last couple of years it blows.
My 92 LX hatch with sunroof ,all options(sans the optional power seat and automatic) and factory keyless alarm weighed 3,298 pounds a week after buying brand new
Keyless alarm on a foxbody!!!
Same day weighed my friend's 88 ttopd 5 speed LX hatch with power everything. 3,308 pounds. That car should have been at least 50 pounds heavier. I also forgot that older 5.0 have the older style 4 cylinder seats where the GT/Hatch LXs have the way heavier sport seats. Weigh the seats(though 89s got them and for some weird reason a lot of 5.0 notches had 4 banger seats even the newer ones)
BTW my 308 geared car lost to his 273 geared car by a bunch.
My 92 LX hatch with sunroof ,all options(sans the optional power seat and automatic) and factory keyless alarm weighed 3,298 pounds a week after buying brand new
Keyless alarm on a foxbody!!!
Same day weighed my friend's 88 ttopd 5 speed LX hatch with power everything. 3,308 pounds. That car should have been at least 50 pounds heavier. I also forgot that older 5.0 have the older style 4 cylinder seats where the GT/Hatch LXs have the way heavier sport seats. Weigh the seats(though 89s got them and for some weird reason a lot of 5.0 notches had 4 banger seats even the newer ones)
BTW my 308 geared car lost to his 273 geared car by a bunch.
06-02-2010 | 03:42 PM
#200
