2011 Mustang GT taken out by a "Tuned" 2010 SHO *VIDEO*
06-02-2010, 04:48 PM
#201
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-02-2010, 05:22 PM
#202
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah the corral is still up haha. I go on there occasionally. Did the 87 and 91 have the exact same options? What was the weight difference?
06-02-2010, 09:34 PM
#205
9 Second Club
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Lake Tahoe, CA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idonno guys... I raced at least 1 day a week back then and when the 93 Z hit the streets, I was seeing 14.4's as a good run for quite some time. I honestly think many people here and elsewhere simply don't remember those days, most often because they'd never been to a drag strip yet...
Seriously, the 93Z was no 13 second car under normal conditions, at least not where I raced.
Seriously, the 93Z was no 13 second car under normal conditions, at least not where I raced.
It was heavier than the 93 5.0 by a good amount, had a TERRIBLE rear end suspension setup(in stock form) which really hurt launches and didn't make much more hp. Rated at 275, it didn't put that much to the ground by any means. Of course, the 93 Mustang only put about 187 down, but it also put about 300 lb-ft of torque down, helping move that lighter car.
The LT1 was the faster car period.
06-02-2010, 10:00 PM
#207
9 Second Club
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Lake Tahoe, CA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Again, completely misguided information.
06-02-2010, 11:36 PM
#209
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anybody said that... there was an argument made that a well-driven notchback 5spd would be close. And it would, but should still be a victory for the LT1.
06-03-2010, 12:08 AM
#210
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-03-2010, 12:27 AM
#211
TECH Addict
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sunniest city on Earth
Posts: 2,624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anybody said that... there was an argument made that a well-driven notchback 5spd would be close. And it would, but should still be a victory for the LT1.
nobody said they were equal but look at those trap speeds, youre talking maybe 1mph difference between the 2
06-03-2010, 01:48 AM
#212
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Review the entire acceleration times too... And try to make heads or tails of the differences to different speeds... If shifting makes that many changes, it just goes to show how crappy M/T drivers are. Then again, I hold NO stock in M/T overall... They've never gotten the times other tests have shown through most magazines, let alone real owners. A 1.2 second diff to 80mph in the test shown, but only a .4 ET and 1.4mph difference on the 1/4, with neither car reaching 100mph... Judging by that, you'd think the Mustang was about to rip past the Z, but anyone who was around then knows that up top, the Mustang had no chance of survival, due to a combination of the transmission and rear gearing, and hp.
06-03-2010, 06:55 AM
#214
Any healthy LT1 6-speed in the hands of a good driver will go bottom 14's EASY. I've seen that done dozens of times. This is old news. Even new it was nothing unusual to go 14-flats in a stocker, like this one here:
6-speed LT1's average 245-250rwhp, considerably more than your average stock 5.0 at 190-ish. And while LT1's were a bit heavier they also reached peak torque at just 2400-rpms.
The LT1 was the faster car period.
6-speed LT1's average 245-250rwhp, considerably more than your average stock 5.0 at 190-ish. And while LT1's were a bit heavier they also reached peak torque at just 2400-rpms.
The LT1 was the faster car period.
My dad's friend had a 90lx. He pulled the spare tire and jack and did a gear swap only from the 2.73s to 3.73s. He said the car ran high 12s and low 13s all day.
The GT and LX 5.0 from 1990-93 I thought was 225hp, and 300 torque bone stock? I thought that's why the LT1 got a 10 hP jump later on. I know an LX was a good 400+ pounds lighter than an LT1.
wow, this certainly brings back memories.
Man, I do feel old, lol.
edit: spelling fix
Last edited by wickedwarlock; 06-03-2010 at 07:12 AM.
