04 GTO A4 vs civic/2v gt
08-14-2011, 06:11 PM
#41
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: South MS
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I meant to say not by much from a roll. My truck actually runs pretty good from about a 30 roll. It takes a mid to low 14 sec car to get away from it. From 30 to 100 a low 14 sec Mustang might get me by 2 cars. I guess it's hard to 6000lb moving.
If you had a n/a 2v that trapped 110 then you had more done than your saying. I don't think I've ever seen a 2v break 100 n/a. Hell 4v cars are doin good to get to 105 with basic ****.
If you had a n/a 2v that trapped 110 then you had more done than your saying. I don't think I've ever seen a 2v break 100 n/a. Hell 4v cars are doin good to get to 105 with basic ****.
Not this **** again 
08-15-2011, 11:17 AM
#42
9 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: cleveland,mississppi
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea this guys 2v was not very strong. I want to run my other friends 03 gt he ran a 13.3 with boltons. I think he will beat me from a dig though.
08-15-2011, 11:41 AM
#44
9 Second Club
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: cleveland,mississppi
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea this guys 2v was not very strong. I want to run my other friends 03 gt he ran a 13.3 with boltons. I think he will beat me from a dig though.
08-15-2011, 11:55 AM
#45
TECH Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hes either lying about his times or it being stock. I run at Cecil which has a very low d/a and have tons of friends with 2v mustangs. The fastest one had full exhaust no cats stock gears k&n drag radials maybe a plenum and was running high 13.6's. With 4.10's hes would have been hanging with some of the mediocre stock f body's.
08-15-2011, 02:26 PM
#47
LOL its his sisters car and he ran it for the hell of it so I know its stock, or atleast they hadnt modded. A previous owner might have done something but it sounded/drove/looked stock. Noone could believe it went that fast but it did. I dont remember the trap but it was pretty low.
08-15-2011, 02:47 PM
#48
On slicks?
That or the timing equipment was fucked up. If I thought I saw a completely stock 2v run a low 13 I would place it into that part of my brain that says I thought I saw bigfoot ******* the loch ness monster.
Last edited by thunderstruck507; 08-15-2011 at 02:58 PM.
08-15-2011, 05:25 PM
#49
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11's out of a bolt-on 2v is VERY rare. A "number of times" is stretching it a bit. I can only remember 1 or 2 guys that have squeezed into the 11.9x range. I'm talking "true" bolt-on cars w/ stock cams, heads, bore etc.
Normally it takes cams, intake, full bolt ons, and a good drivetrain/suspension/weight setup to run that number.
EDIT: I see you were referring to cam/bolt-ons. Even then 11's are far and few between.
Normally it takes cams, intake, full bolt ons, and a good drivetrain/suspension/weight setup to run that number.
EDIT: I see you were referring to cam/bolt-ons. Even then 11's are far and few between.
The fastest ever record stock 2V was 13.7, and some people have a hard enough time believing that one. 13.3 is more CAI/plenum/LT/full exhaust/tune territory.
08-15-2011, 05:56 PM
#50
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the Mustang GT, in its 260HP and 300 lb/ft of torque form records a fastest time of only 13.7 in stock form????
Damn, I knew the Camaro had them outmatched but I didn't know the Mustang was THAT much slower!
Damn, I knew the Camaro had them outmatched but I didn't know the Mustang was THAT much slower!
08-16-2011, 10:31 AM
#52
Not saying the car didn't run and 13.3 didn't show up on the board/slip but I would question both the car and the equipment.
I have a few slips saying my car trapped triple digits in the 1/8th. Weird **** happens.
08-16-2011, 07:15 PM
#53
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find that very believable, I just remember that guy here who always tried to convince everyone that 13.7 was the record and 13.8-13.9 was "average"
Not saying the car didn't run and 13.3 didn't show up on the board/slip but I would question both the car and the equipment.
I have a few slips saying my car trapped triple digits in the 1/8th. Weird **** happens.
Not saying the car didn't run and 13.3 didn't show up on the board/slip but I would question both the car and the equipment.
I have a few slips saying my car trapped triple digits in the 1/8th. Weird **** happens.
08-16-2011, 08:31 PM
#58
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2009 Mustang GT had 300HP, the 2010 Mustang GT had 315HP, and the 2011 Mustang V6 has 305HP.
I bet that has really made the older Mustang's values drop. Sorta like the new 312HP Camaro, it is rated at more HP than my '01 Z28, but I know I have more HP and a lot more torque than that pig, so my car can still smash one of those.
I bet that has really made the older Mustang's values drop. Sorta like the new 312HP Camaro, it is rated at more HP than my '01 Z28, but I know I have more HP and a lot more torque than that pig, so my car can still smash one of those.
