Raped a 5.0
02-10-2007, 01:56 PM
#41
Originally Posted by 95Snoozer
well he had a horribly matched cam to that head and intake
02-11-2007, 01:40 AM
#42
Originally Posted by kennyxg
X cam with p-heads = no bueno! the cam is too big,I would go with the f-cam.with that combo the car should go 12.7's easily,with slicks of course.Not going to argue about the power issue cause it's will known that these 302's are known for there torque.I have a 90 coupe with a/c stock heads e-cam 373 h-pipe and stock intake. I launched at 5k on the mt's and ran a 13.20 at 101 .My 60ft was a1.73 on stock suspension.Pretty sure I could get a 13.0 maybe 12.90 leaving at 5500 .My car can't be putting more than 250 to the wheels. This was at 3350lbs with driver.
02-11-2007, 01:58 PM
#43
f-cam
Originally Posted by BLKWS.6
Even with an E-cam my combo does not do well. I have seen timeslips from similar cars with better matched cams and it didnt seem to matter much mroe than 1mph or so.
02-11-2007, 02:53 PM
#46
Originally Posted by BLKWS.6
PS. You claimed to have a "5.0" to me that means a car with a 302ci motor (although 305 is 5.0...anyways.). The reason people called the fox-body mustang a 5.0 was in reference to the only thing in the car worth a damn in my opinion (having owned one). So if you do not have a mustang with a 302 or 306. It is NOT! a 5.0 and thus I would have been mislead if I had challenged your claimed 5.0 if I am to belive the insinuation that you made about having more cubes.
I'll even give you a car length.
02-11-2007, 07:58 PM
#47
Launching!
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Odessa Tx. "oilfeild country"
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not an expert on stangs, but ill never believe that a full weight 5.0 dynoing anything shy of 300 hp could (even then) run 12's. Love 5.0's, but these claims are pretty radical. Also, i agree with BLKWS.6's statement that a GT full weight (w/driver) should be (give or take 100lbs) around 3500. Maybe at the lightest 3350. Still nothing that will get 12's under 300hp. Once again im no expert on stangs but ive violated enough 5.0's to have a good idea what they can pack. Not buying the 12sec 245hp 5.0, and 95Snoozer, your an *******.
02-11-2007, 11:48 PM
#49
Originally Posted by SSickLS1
not an expert on stangs, but ill never believe that a full weight 5.0 dynoing anything shy of 300 hp could (even then) run 12's. Love 5.0's, but these claims are pretty radical. Also, i agree with BLKWS.6's statement that a GT full weight (w/driver) should be (give or take 100lbs) around 3500. Maybe at the lightest 3350. Still nothing that will get 12's under 300hp. Once again im no expert on stangs but ive violated enough 5.0's to have a good idea what they can pack. Not buying the 12sec 245hp 5.0, and 95Snoozer, your an *******.
And my GT with full weight and me comes in at 3327lbs.
02-12-2007, 12:03 AM
#50
[QUOTE=SSickLS1]not an expert on stangs, but ill never believe that a full weight 5.0 dynoing anything shy of 300 hp could (even then) run 12's. Love 5.0's, but these claims are pretty radical. Also, i agree with BLKWS.6's statement that a GT full weight (w/driver) should be (give or take 100lbs) around 3500. Maybe at the lightest 3350. Still nothing that will get 12's under 300hp. Once again im no expert on stangs but ive violated enough 5.0's to have a good idea what they can pack. Not buying the 12sec 245hp 5.0, and 95Snoozer, your an *******.[Well tere you go you have lost the arguement before it began, you don't know self admittingly that you don't know squat about 5.0's. Stick to what you know!
02-12-2007, 11:07 AM
#52
Teching In
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BLKWS.6
Even with an E-cam my combo does not do well. I have seen timeslips from similar cars with better matched cams and it didnt seem to matter much mroe than 1mph or so.
Originally Posted by SSickLS1
not an expert on stangs, but ill never believe that a full weight 5.0 dynoing anything shy of 300 hp could (even then) run 12's. Love 5.0's, but these claims are pretty radical. Also, i agree with BLKWS.6's statement that a GT full weight (w/driver) should be (give or take 100lbs) around 3500. Maybe at the lightest 3350. Still nothing that will get 12's under 300hp. Once again im no expert on stangs but ive violated enough 5.0's to have a good idea what they can pack. Not buying the 12sec 245hp 5.0, and 95Snoozer, your an *******.
I went back to Phisk Phantom zrx tires (BFG KDW copies), learned how to drive, removed the front swaybar for good and was running 13.6-7 at 101.
I dropped The SUb/Amps and bottle out of the car and went to 13.4s at 103.5
Then got my first pair of Nittos and a few usless items tht were 5-10 pounds here and there to ditch from the car. smog, dog bone, windshield wiper fluid, etc. I ran 13.12 at 106 on my first pass. I never could get into the 12s on nittos. That remained my best ET.
I bought a pair of M&H slicks for 20 bucks and ran a 12.95 at 104.9 finally. march 04
That summer I switched intakes from gt40 to an RPM (poorly matched to stock heads) in preparation for a set of trick flows and a custom grind I planned for the end of the summer. I was going to run a 125 NW wet plate with the TF heads and rpm intake. The intake hurt the area under the curve, But I picked up a set of prostars with 3.5s up front and 8s in the back with 275 nittos. In 1700 da I went 13.1 at 106.33. With colder air on the old pair of m&h slicks I busted off 8 passes of 12.81-13.0.
Believe it or not, thats how I got there. My roomates through it all were some fellow ls1tech posters If you need verification to help you better sleep at night.
a C5 with 295 hp can run 12s
My car stock curb weight is Equivelant. Add to that "gear"
a C5 dynoing 295 with a set of 3.90s can definitely run 12s.
Last edited by 95Snoozer; 02-12-2007 at 11:21 AM.
02-12-2007, 11:18 AM
#53
Teching In
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 98ls1ttop
i really highly doubt 95 snoozer that you ran a 12.8 with 246 hp i dont care what numbers you show me. i had a 95 boss 5.0...had intake, gears, full exhaust, ignition, drag radials. and i only pulled a 13.89 with it in good air dynoeing at 243 hp. the fact is, the sn 95 cars are the heaviest, slowest mustangs. the damn 94-95 are supposed to run low 15s....yes...15s...stock, slower than the foxbody.
yes stock they are a 15.0 car pretty much. I have a GTS. high 14 car stock. I think back in the day MMFF tested it and put slicks on it and pulled the silncer, jack and spare and ran 14.5 at 94 or something. Woo Hoo that is flying!
They are definitely not hte slowest mustang. slowest 87-newer, yes.
02-13-2007, 12:40 AM
#60
Banned by Request
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kennyxg
Ha Ha ! I guess the time on the watch from your sig gives us your time