rustang vs ls1
#161
#163
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
1lt I like my 3.90's. I had 4.10's but they never seem to really load the engine hard. I ran out of gear with the 4.10 and had to change to 3.90 to get threw the traps. The 3.90 is much better imop. I may try some 3.73's at some point.
#164
+1 any lower is oriented towards running a number and hangin its tongue out on the back half. And cars that make 300hp or less lol
#165
now? fergetabout it! i want my a/c blasting when i'm in the staging lanes. i don't turn it off for the run....no need. that's why god gave us WOT relays. i want to drive my ride to and from the track. i want to fire up and go, and have heat in the winter, and a/c in the summer. i'm not willing to give up anything to go fast anymore.
that's why i got a mustang. it's pretty much a shoe in that she'll run mid 12's all day, just as i took delivery. if i decide i'm willing to put a tune on her(by some of your guys standards, she'll still be stock), she'll drop into the 11's, and mid-low 11's with drag radials.
that of course is if i were going to drag race her. i will, but not like my 89(which saw gamblers racing tues nights, street race night on fridays, then front street after that, then brackets on saturdays....every week). i'm gonna concentrate on road racing this baby, 'cause she cuts corners like a hot knife in butter.
#166
you mean crate motor>true production motor, don'tcha?
#167
If someone posts another pic of an outdated foxbody Mustang or ugly *** Fairmont I don't know what I'll do. I thought I was in a time warp back in the '80s or something.
And what's all this hating on weight reduction on a F-body? No one seems to complain when you have a tin can'd Mustang running around with a little weak SBF in it running some stupid rear gear just to run a decent number. What gives?
And what's all this hating on weight reduction on a F-body? No one seems to complain when you have a tin can'd Mustang running around with a little weak SBF in it running some stupid rear gear just to run a decent number. What gives?
oops.
#168
our 68 camaro trapped at 130-131 running 10.0's into the 9.9's. that car weighed about 2600# with me in it, and a full fuel cell. it had a truck 454 at the time, with heads that i ported the crap out of. i can't remember the cam it had. that one went through the traps around 6300-6400rpm. 'cause we really had to make it work to go that fast.
#170
You are wrong. I have pics all over tech. Check them out. I drive my car alot. I don't see the purpose in working on it, spending money on it and then not driving it. I'm not some one with a "street legal" car, I don't even like the type of car you speak off. I'm someone with a 110,000k + dd.
and my apology was aimed at you, since it's your car i was making those comments about.
#172
#173
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
well.....with that last statement, you almost got what i was/am referencing. they'll dump that stupid amount into car, and claim it's a daily driver....but in actuality.....go back to my "planet alignment" post. that's generally what they turn out to be. i've dealt with way too many people driving both fords and chevys that're like that. the funny thing is that when i come upon a mopar guy that makes those claims......they truly ARE daily driving their stuff, in pretty much any condition.
and my apology was aimed at you, since it's your car i was making those comments about.
and my apology was aimed at you, since it's your car i was making those comments about.
#174
now that you mentioned speakers.....THAT is one complaint i could raise about my gt. the stereo in it isn't as good as the infinity that came in my 97 dakota. i don't generally bitch about it though, 'cause it's still pretty good. and it doesn't make the car any less fun to drive.