Trans Am vs Mustang....who will win this race??

[lt1maro]

Maybe I should race him in my wife's car first.....2000 Impala LS....3800

It would be close.

[azkkn]

Even if he dead hooks out of the hole, you will still run him down. Those 5.0's were straight dogs. I took a head/smallcam/bolt on 5.0 to beat my car by a few inches. He also had 3.73 gears too. But the aftermarket fo those things are huge. So watch out if he plans on putting any money into that thing.

If he dead hooks out of the hole, and doesnt have a tremac tranny, you will be giving him a ride home. ive had my share of mustangs, and that stock 5 speed and slicks or even cheater slicks at the track will soon take its toll.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

a 94 5.0 with a catback, cai and gears will run low 14's? I bought the wrong car. If those little mods knocked off 2-2.5 seconds, I def. got the wrong car.

16 seconds is like Honda civic teritory. In 1985 bone stock 5.0 Mustangs with 2.73 gears were running low 14s. I can't see why a 260hp 2002 would be 2 seconds slower.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

1994 Ford Mustang GT 0-60, 6.7 1/4 mile et, 15.1

with that many miles he isn't getting a time close to that. I have seen 4.6L 5 speed mustangs with that body style that run high 15's low 16's, with at least a catback.

raro - a 1994 Mustang GT isn't even CLOSE to 15 second territory. I don't know where you got that from.

It should run a low 14 and trap mid 90s BONE STOCK... It's only 225 HP, yes, but 315 TQ, and it weighs less.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

I'm gonna say that in this race, he'll get the jump out of the hole, but you will unquestionably pass him quickly and win this race... I think Jeff is right... by half a second.

It won't be terribly close... but he won't run a 15 either.

[raroZ28]

raro - a 1994 Mustang GT isn't even CLOSE to 15 second territory. I don't know where you got that from.

It should run a low 14 and trap mid 90s BONE STOCK... It's only 225 HP, yes, but 315 TQ, and it weighs less.

I got it from this page.
http://www.ssmoparmuscle.com/speedcomp.htm

I have never read or heard of a stock 94 mustang running a low 14. That's what a lot of LT1 camaro's are running in stock form. My friend has a 96 cobra with like 90 some thousand on the clock and I walked him in stock form. His car has a flowmaster on it. When he caught up to me, all he could say is, this car's got nothin'.

There is also a kid that comes through my car wash in a 4.6L purple GT with a 5 speed. He came to the wash with his E/T on his winshield 15.7, I kid you not. He has a flowmaster, I know this for sure. What is under the hood, I don't know. You think a Stock 94 GT can run a low 14...? I highly doubt it. Under perfect conditions it might break into 14's, but not stock, no way. If I'm wrong I'll be suprised, but I'm just goint by what I see. I have to see an actual 1/4 mile e/t from a stock 94 gt. I could be wrong though... When all I had on my Conquest was exhaust and upped boost, I would walk them all day.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

The 94 and 95 still had 5.0 motors in them. They are faster than the 96-98 4.6 2 valve Mustangs. The 4.6 head sucks. I'm actually going to help my neighbor design a new one for his race shop. The 4 valve Cobras had a lot of flow problems too. The were not well done. The 5.0 motor was like 30 ft pound of torque more than the 4.6 even though they were rated at the same horse power. The 5.0 motor also has way more bottom end than the 4.6 motor. You'll find that the 5.0 Mustangs are strong up to about 30 then they fall flat. That is why I put a cam in mine. The 5.0 motors are bullet proof though. The 4.6 motors are not. The 4 valve 4.6 head was fixed in 2003. My neighbor is getting over 320 CFM per cylinder out of them compared to about 260 cfm out of a 2 valve head. I need to ask them what they are getting out of LT1 and LS1 heads. They don't do as many of them. They don't need work as bad as the 4.6 motors do.

There is something wrong with a Mustang that can't break into the 14s. It might have a hard time in Colorado though.

When I was at my neighbors shop Saturday they were building a 427 cid LS1 motor for a guy with a Corvette. drool drool

[raroZ28]

The 94 and 95 still had 5.0 motors in them. They are faster than the 96-98 4.6 2 valve Mustangs. The 4.6 head sucks. I'm actually going to help my neighbor design a new one for his race shop. The 4 valve Cobras had a lot of flow problems too. The were not well done. The 5.0 motor was like 30 ft pound of torque more than the 4.6 even though they were rated at the same horse power. The 5.0 motor also has way more bottom end than the 4.6 motor. You'll find that the 5.0 Mustangs are strong up to about 30 then they fall flat. That is why I put a cam in mine. The 5.0 motors are bullet proof though. The 4.6 motors are not. The 4 valve 4.6 head was fixed in 2003. My neighbor is getting over 320 CFM per cylinder out of them compared to about 260 cfm out of a 2 valve head. I need to ask them what they are getting out of LT1 and LS1 heads. They don't do as many of them. They don't need work as bad as the 4.6 motors do.

There is something wrong with a Mustang that can't break into the 14s. It might have a hard time in Colorado though.

When I was at my neighbors shop Saturday they were building a 427 cid LS1 motor for a guy with a Corvette. drool drool

Ahh, I had no idea the 4.6 was slower. That had a lot to do with what I said. I thought for sure a 96 would beat a 94. Seeing how slow the 96's were, I assumed that the further back you went in model years, the slower. My bad

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I got it from this page.
http://www.ssmoparmuscle.com/speedcomp.htm

I have never read or heard of a stock 94 mustang running a low 14. That's what a lot of LT1 camaro's are running in stock form. My friend has a 96 cobra with like 90 some thousand on the clock and I walked him in stock form. His car has a flowmaster on it. When he caught up to me, all he could say is, this car's got nothin'.

There is also a kid that comes through my car wash in a 4.6L purple GT with a 5 speed. He came to the wash with his E/T on his winshield 15.7, I kid you not. He has a flowmaster, I know this for sure. What is under the hood, I don't know. You think a Stock 94 GT can run a low 14...? I highly doubt it. Under perfect conditions it might break into 14's, but not stock, no way. If I'm wrong I'll be suprised, but I'm just goint by what I see. I have to see an actual 1/4 mile e/t from a stock 94 gt. I could be wrong though... When all I had on my Conquest was exhaust and upped boost, I would walk them all day.

WOW that list looks as biased as CBS news.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Ahh, I had no idea the 4.6 was slower. That had a lot to do with what I said. I thought for sure a 96 would beat a 94. Seeing how slow the 96's were, I assumed that the further back you went in model years, the slower. My bad

Hey no problem. That is one of the reasons I even considered a Camaro. I had been a die hard Ford fan for 20 years before I bought the Camaro. The 96s really fell short.

[Craig 94 TA GT]

Hey Jeff, I am almost certain your Mustang was a factory freak...I'm still trying to figure out everything, but up until now, I thought the early '80s Stangs were 15 second cars My friend has an '84 GT HO 5 spd (175 hp only). Now I thought this thing was a factory freak...he used to beat every Fox Body out there (doing unwise street racing)....roughly 0-100. In all honestly, I never saw him lose to a stock/near stock stang. He would also take out the '94-'95 models. In 1999, we finally took out cars to the track, and the best time he got as a 15.7 with a 2.3 60'. His traction wasn't there, but I don't see how he could have made up a full 1.5 seconds. I also raced several '82'-'93 stock Mustangs...and their best ET were also mid to very low 15s. (I still have their time slips). My other friend had an '89 Mustang that had a best 0-60 run of 6.3 seconds. That was with many bolt-ons. Don't get me wrong, I believe what you're saying, but I've had Ford friends who bought all kinds of '84-'93 Mustangs, and could even get into the 14s

[Jeff_in_Atl]

http://www.ssmoparmuscle.com/speedcomp.htm

I'm sitting here looking down this list and I'm surprised about several things. The one that jumps out and grabs me the most is
2003 Ford SVT Mustang Cobra 4.6 12.90
I thought they were a mid 13 car.
1993 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.9 14.50
1994 Ford Mustang Cobra 6.9 15.30
As far as I remember the engine was unchanged in the Cobra from 93 to 94. How could it loose a whole second on the 0-60 time and .8 in the quarter.
1974 Ford Mustang II Auto 15.6 19.40 LMAO!!!

Here's another one.
1967 Dodge Charger - 426 Hemi Auto 6.4 14.20
1968 Dodge Charger - 426 Hemi Auto 4.8 13.50
I think the 67 was a solid cam motor and the 68 must have been hydraulic. I thought that wasn't until 1970 though.

1990 Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 4.4 12.80
1992 Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 5.6 13.90
What happened in 92???

1983 Lamborghini Jalpa 7.3 15.40 Bad year. Ouch

[TraceZ]

I'm really confused. I thought those mustangs were really fast, specially if they have the flame decals in the windows and the huge "BOSS" stickers.

Maybe you havent raced any with the stickers yet??

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Hey Jeff, I am almost certain your Mustang was a factory freak...I'm still trying to figure out everything, but up until now, I thought the early '80s Stangs were 15 second cars My friend has an '84 GT HO 5 spd (175 hp only). Now I thought this thing was a factory freak...he used to beat every Fox Body out there (doing unwise street racing)....roughly 0-100. In all honestly, I never saw him lose to a stock/near stock stang. He would also take out the '94-'95 models. In 1999, we finally took out cars to the track, and the best time he got as a 15.7 with a 2.3 60'. His traction wasn't there, but I don't see how he could have made up a full 1.5 seconds. I also raced several '82'-'93 stock Mustangs...and their best ET were also mid to very low 15s. (I still have their time slips). My other friend had an '89 Mustang that had a best 0-60 run of 6.3 seconds. That was with many bolt-ons. Don't get me wrong, I believe what you're saying, but I've had Ford friends who bought all kinds of '84-'93 Mustangs, and could even get into the 14s

It was pretty freaky.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

I'm really confused. I thought those mustangs were really fast, specially if they have the flame decals in the windows and the huge "BOSS" stickers.

Maybe you havent raced any with the stickers yet??

Especially those high output V6 cars like the picture. LOL