Ran up against another '11 5.0
12-30-2010, 10:09 PM
#242
It had 3.27s (which other 94-98 cars did not come with), and low options. I also knew when to shift it. And like I said, it had a K&N, X-pipe, and turndowns, and I also took the ~15lb dogbone dampener off the rear diff. So it was maybe 50-60lbs lighter than factory stock. I ran it at the local 1/8 mile track the first summer I bought it, and it ran consistent 9.3-9.4 @ 75mph. Which in-itself is good for a 14s timeslip. But that night was also when I discovered the coolant leak from the intake manifold thermostat housing, which was running into one of my spark plug holes and causing an intermittent misfire. So with a bit more practice and a healthy, car... 14.5-14.6 @ 95mph, like I said. Other bone stock cars have run 14.7-14.8.
12-30-2010, 10:17 PM
#243
11 Second Club
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: E-town raceway
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It had 3.27s (which other 94-98 cars did not come with), and low options. I also knew when to shift it. And like I said, it had a K&N, X-pipe, and turndowns, and I also took the ~15lb dogbone dampener off the rear diff. So it was maybe 50-60lbs lighter than factory stock. I ran it at the local 1/8 mile track the first summer I bought it, and it ran consistent 9.3-9.4 @ 75mph. Which in-itself is good for a 14s timeslip. But that night was also when I discovered the coolant leak from the intake manifold thermostat housing, which was running into one of my spark plug holes and causing an intermittent misfire. So with a bit more practice and a healthy, car... 14.5-14.6 @ 95mph, like I said. Other bone stock cars have run 14.7-14.8.
Im pretty sure the gear ratios for 96-98 were 2.73, 3.08, and 3.27.
12-30-2010, 11:22 PM
#244
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen sources that said 3.27s weren't available till late '98, and I've seen sources that said they were available '96-'98. I just know that mine had 3.27s. And I also know that magazine times aren't the end-all-be-all, and that car owners routinely get better times than magazines.
12-30-2010, 11:40 PM
#245
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did a quick search to make sure I wasn't losing my mind... people on allfordmustangs.com are saying the same thing as me.
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...-mile-ets.html
Originally Posted by Quick4.6
My near stock (MAC catted h-pipe, K&N) '98 GT with a 5 speed ran consistent 14.5s at 96.xx. This was in good weather with low density altitude.
12-31-2010, 08:09 AM
#246
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Peoria Illinois
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did a quick search to make sure I wasn't losing my mind... people on allfordmustangs.com are saying the same thing as me.
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...-mile-ets.html
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...-mile-ets.html
12-31-2010, 09:15 AM
#247
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-31-2010, 09:55 AM
#248
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what I was getting at was that two valve GTs weren't fast/quick in their day. Hell GTPs were giving them a run for it in 97 
. Their competition (Lt1 in pre-97/ ls1 in post 97) always beat them by a considerable margin when comparing like-years-not by a tick or two either. That's why I asked the guys here about ets; the fact is that an average well driven lt1 would run a flat or very low 14-the comparable mustang of those years would not. A well driven average ls1 would run a 13.4-13.6, the comparalbe 2 valve GT of those years would not, and would not even average that with the 3valve incidentally. I was running these cars back in the day as a man in his twenties, not as a child 16 years old. I know what I remember and I don't remember any two valves ever being competion for fbodys stock for stock, ever! Dead thread!
. Their competition (Lt1 in pre-97/ ls1 in post 97) always beat them by a considerable margin when comparing like-years-not by a tick or two either. That's why I asked the guys here about ets; the fact is that an average well driven lt1 would run a flat or very low 14-the comparable mustang of those years would not. A well driven average ls1 would run a 13.4-13.6, the comparalbe 2 valve GT of those years would not, and would not even average that with the 3valve incidentally. I was running these cars back in the day as a man in his twenties, not as a child 16 years old. I know what I remember and I don't remember any two valves ever being competion for fbodys stock for stock, ever! Dead thread!
12-31-2010, 10:07 AM
#249
Teching In
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what I was getting at was that two valve GTs weren't fast/quick in their day. Hell GTPs were giving them a run for it in 97 . Their competition (Lt1 in pre-97/ ls1 in post 97) always beat them by a considerable margin when comparing like-years-not by a tick or two either. That's why I asked the guys here about ets; the fact is that an average well driven lt1 would run a flat or very low 14-the comparable mustang of those years would not. A well driven average ls1 would run a 13.4-13.6, the comparalbe 2 valve GT of those years would not, and would not even average that with the 3valve incidentally. I was running these cars back in the day as a man in his twenties, not as a child 16 years old. I know what I remember and I don't remember any two valves ever being competion for fbodys stock for stock, ever! Dead thread!
. Their competition (Lt1 in pre-97/ ls1 in post 97) always beat them by a considerable margin when comparing like-years-not by a tick or two either. That's why I asked the guys here about ets; the fact is that an average well driven lt1 would run a flat or very low 14-the comparable mustang of those years would not. A well driven average ls1 would run a 13.4-13.6, the comparalbe 2 valve GT of those years would not, and would not even average that with the 3valve incidentally. I was running these cars back in the day as a man in his twenties, not as a child 16 years old. I know what I remember and I don't remember any two valves ever being competion for fbodys stock for stock, ever! Dead thread! Their competition for '99 was the LS1 Z28 in which we all know wasn't even worth talking about.
12-31-2010, 10:22 AM
#250
TECH Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know five people with 2v 2001 and 2002 gt's and the fastest one with full exhaust no cats 3.73 gears dr's preditor tune plenum k&n filter and I think throttle body still has hit only at best 13.6 with a 1.8 60'. The altitude is low at Cecil to and thats not beating a ls1
12-31-2010, 10:23 AM
#251
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 2valve dudes compare their cars to the LT1 because they were dead even with them. I never owned a 2 valve GT but i owned an LT1 and i compared the car to the 2valve because they were generally the same speed and were good competition for eachother. I didnt compare the LS1 vs the LT1 so much because the LS1 was too fast and out of the league of the LT1, much like LS1 owners dont really like to talk about the 03 Cobras.
12-31-2010, 10:32 AM
#252
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see how it's the same 
No one is comparing ls1 to lt1, or comparing ls1 to terminator (since they wouldn't have been out yet). I personally was comparing two valves to their GM rivals (of the same years preferably-otherwise what's the point I guess?). I mean GM didn't have anything in '03 (Ford was a little late with the mach and termi imo, but whatever). When I had my lt1, I compared it to what was out and available at the time (which was not a PI version).
No one is comparing ls1 to lt1, or comparing ls1 to terminator (since they wouldn't have been out yet). I personally was comparing two valves to their GM rivals (of the same years preferably-otherwise what's the point I guess?). I mean GM didn't have anything in '03 (Ford was a little late with the mach and termi imo, but whatever). When I had my lt1, I compared it to what was out and available at the time (which was not a PI version).
12-31-2010, 10:36 AM
#253
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see how it's the same No one is comparing ls1 to lt1, or comparing ls1 to terminator (since they wouldn't have been out yet). I personally was comparing two valves to their GM rivals (of the same years preferably-otherwise what's the point I guess?). I mean GM didn't have anything in '03 (Ford was a little late with the mach and termi imo, but whatever). When I had my lt1, I compared it to what was out and available at the time (which was not a PI version).
No one is comparing ls1 to lt1, or comparing ls1 to terminator (since they wouldn't have been out yet). I personally was comparing two valves to their GM rivals (of the same years preferably-otherwise what's the point I guess?). I mean GM didn't have anything in '03 (Ford was a little late with the mach and termi imo, but whatever). When I had my lt1, I compared it to what was out and available at the time (which was not a PI version).
12-31-2010, 10:38 AM
#254
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see how it's the same No one is comparing ls1 to lt1, or comparing ls1 to terminator (since they wouldn't have been out yet). I personally was comparing two valves to their GM rivals (of the same years preferably-otherwise what's the point I guess?). I mean GM didn't have anything in '03 (Ford was a little late with the mach and termi imo, but whatever). When I had my lt1, I compared it to what was out and available at the time (which was not a PI version).
No one is comparing ls1 to lt1, or comparing ls1 to terminator (since they wouldn't have been out yet). I personally was comparing two valves to their GM rivals (of the same years preferably-otherwise what's the point I guess?). I mean GM didn't have anything in '03 (Ford was a little late with the mach and termi imo, but whatever). When I had my lt1, I compared it to what was out and available at the time (which was not a PI version).
12-31-2010, 11:05 AM
#256
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dont use that excuse, termis were made and sold at the same time as LS1's were still on the lots.Just like theres been 2011 Mustangs out for pretty much the whole year while 2011 camaros are just coming out. 2012 Mustangs are actually gonna start production soon, so trying to use the whole "compare same year" schtick isnt really comparing with whats actually out.
12-31-2010, 11:06 AM
#257
Teching In
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 2valve dudes compare their cars to the LT1 because they were dead even with them. I never owned a 2 valve GT but i owned an LT1 and i compared the car to the 2valve because they were generally the same speed and were good competition for eachother. I didnt compare the LS1 vs the LT1 so much because the LS1 was too fast and out of the league of the LT1, much like LS1 owners dont really like to talk about the 03 Cobras.
I don't see how it's the same No one is comparing ls1 to lt1, or comparing ls1 to terminator (since they wouldn't have been out yet). I personally was comparing two valves to their GM rivals (of the same years preferably-otherwise what's the point I guess?). I mean GM didn't have anything in '03 (Ford was a little late with the mach and termi imo, but whatever). When I had my lt1, I compared it to what was out and available at the time (which was not a PI version).
No one is comparing ls1 to lt1, or comparing ls1 to terminator (since they wouldn't have been out yet). I personally was comparing two valves to their GM rivals (of the same years preferably-otherwise what's the point I guess?). I mean GM didn't have anything in '03 (Ford was a little late with the mach and termi imo, but whatever). When I had my lt1, I compared it to what was out and available at the time (which was not a PI version). Technically your LT1 was in direct competition with the 96-98 GT no matter how slow the Ford was. And fwiw the '96-97 SS outperformed the 96/97 Cobra in all aspects of the game.
lol Just kiddin' man. 
12-31-2010, 11:15 AM
#259
Well finally ford did something right and GM is falling back since they want to make the new Camaro a huge pig. Why not just give it to them? Poor ford guys! They finally have something to look up to. And yeah the termi was out before, but honestly I've seen more 5.0's out in the street now then I have termi's.
12-31-2010, 11:16 AM
#260
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's using excuses here? I think you brought up the first few didn't you? I mean really, why would I need to lol? I made my point and you can't dispute that or those facts soo....? Now what? Don't turn it into a termi/ls1 convo, that wasn't what I meant dude. Of course termis were faster, but GM gave up first didn't they? Nice failed attempt at redirection. I don't need excuses to claim fact my friend, now don't get your panties in a knot over the truth now
Well finally ford did something right and GM is falling back since they want to make the new Camaro a huge pig. Why not just give it to them? Poor ford guys! They finally have something to look up to. And yeah the termi was out before, but honestly I've seen more 5.0's out in the street now then I have termi's.
Last edited by MauriSSio; 12-31-2010 at 11:23 AM.