rustang vs ls1
01-27-2012, 08:53 PM
#21
01-27-2012, 09:03 PM
#22
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got the connectors and some other minor suspension stuff but havent had a chance to get it to the track. The guy that built it thinks it should go 11.70's with traction (thats all he does it build mustangs and race them) but I cant confirm that at all. Just a quick little street car, certainly no race car. Its not 5 pages because nobody is talking **** yet 
the 89 in the link in my sig was launching at 6k rpm, and hooking like a bastard, running 12.2'sm with nothing else done to the suspension.
if you want her to handle better too, look through the scrap yards for a 87 or newer front k-member, with its suspension. that was the first year of them changing the geometry of the front suspension to improve its handling..and it worked wonders.
people discount the fox bodied mustangs, but those that do, simply do not know them. they were well built, fairly light, handled good for what they were, and were stupidly fast too. if most of the guys here are honest, they'll recall that from 79 till 94 the common camaros couldn't touch the common mustangs. then ford dropped the ball, while chevy picked it up, and ran with it.
01-27-2012, 09:05 PM
#23
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: manning sc
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the connectors will help massively. the next most important is the rear lower control arms. after them, absolutely install the quad shocks. those things alone with drag radials will let you launch that baby harder than you've imagined.
the 89 in the link in my sig was launching at 6k rpm, and hooking like a bastard, running 12.2'sm with nothing else done to the suspension.
if you want her to handle better too, look through the scrap yards for a 87 or newer front k-member, with its suspension. that was the first year of them changing the geometry of the front suspension to improve its handling..and it worked wonders.
people discount the fox bodied mustangs, but those that do, simply do not know them. they were well built, fairly light, handled good for what they were, and were stupidly fast too. if most of the guys here are honest, they'll recall that from 79 till 94 the common camaros couldn't touch the common mustangs. then ford dropped the ball, while chevy picked it up, and ran with it.
the 89 in the link in my sig was launching at 6k rpm, and hooking like a bastard, running 12.2'sm with nothing else done to the suspension.
if you want her to handle better too, look through the scrap yards for a 87 or newer front k-member, with its suspension. that was the first year of them changing the geometry of the front suspension to improve its handling..and it worked wonders.
people discount the fox bodied mustangs, but those that do, simply do not know them. they were well built, fairly light, handled good for what they were, and were stupidly fast too. if most of the guys here are honest, they'll recall that from 79 till 94 the common camaros couldn't touch the common mustangs. then ford dropped the ball, while chevy picked it up, and ran with it.
01-27-2012, 09:06 PM
#24
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: manning sc
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-27-2012, 09:10 PM
#26
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOLOLOL
yea i know........i'm sure someone up there in the office thought it was a good idea to fatten, raise the price, shrink the engine, and lower the horsepower......that same someone hopefully is rotting in hell, if for no other reason than being uncontrollably stupid.
01-27-2012, 09:12 PM
#28
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it'll be fun watching kids try to figure out what the hell just hammered em into the weeds.
01-27-2012, 09:25 PM
#29
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: manning sc
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-27-2012, 09:26 PM
#30
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: manning sc
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-27-2012, 09:55 PM
#32
Tell them it's from the "futura". I would have left the bench seat though. It adds to the granny car factor.
Last edited by Blown383LS1; 01-27-2012 at 10:02 PM.
01-27-2012, 10:02 PM
#33
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-27-2012, 10:09 PM
#35
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they were lighter than the gt's by about 500 pounds.
when i first got the drivetrain installed, i borrowed a friends dealer tag, and took it around the block. it got a lot of "what the hell is that" stares.
it's parked outside at my shop right now. i may sell the camaro in my sig, and use that money to finish this car off. if i do finish it, i'll be removing the glasspacks, and putting some decent mufflers on it........i'm too friggin old to listen to that much noise when i'm driving.
01-27-2012, 10:45 PM
#38
Thought you were contemplating on gettin a fairlane? I was going to mod my firebird but got my wife to letting me get the fairlane. Don't know if I should spend money on heads or buy a turbo kit for it.
01-27-2012, 10:53 PM
#39
Banned
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I respect their speed and potential, but the Foxbody Mustangs are some of the ugliest Mustangs they ever made. Their look is just repulsive. The guy who traded his Foxbody in for a Cobra was smart. The 2003-2004 Cobras are some of the best looking and best equipped Mustangs ever built.
