PDA

View Full Version : Mustang vs sc?



Metalcorpse
04-01-2015, 09:01 PM
So I was wondering how much modifications would a Supercoupe need to beat a 2010 mustang v8 5spd?

SCarSC
04-01-2015, 09:16 PM
Get the big tank of naws

bowez
04-01-2015, 09:31 PM
3.73s, S-port blower, and supporting inlet mods; or MPX; or Cam/Heads and ported blower. Going need need more fuel too and built transmission.

Very similar to what I have.

35thpartdeux
04-01-2015, 10:12 PM
The 2010 gt only has the 3v 4.6L so it's not as bad as beating a coyote. Whatever it takes to run about a 13.5 sec 1/4 should do it.I would think at minimum injectors, gen 2 S ported blower, good cold air intake with a bigger maf and throttle body with a tune. It might even take heads and cam to get there, but Dalke would know for sure.

davec73
04-01-2015, 10:15 PM
Alot more modifications than anyone has mentioned so far. Imo you would have to be in the 350 to 400 rwhp range to get it done.

35thpartdeux
04-01-2015, 10:45 PM
Alot more modifications than anyone has mentioned so far. Imo you would have to be in the 350 to 400 rwhp range to get it done. the 2010 isn't that fast. It only has 320 HP at the motor I believe and they weigh about 3700 pounds so the SC with 300 wheel HP and some weight shaved off would get it done easily.

davec73
04-01-2015, 10:57 PM
the 2010 isn't that fast. It only has 320 HP at the motor I believe and they weigh about 3700 pounds so the SC with 300 wheel HP and some weight shaved off would get it done easily. none of the previous comments mention anything that will get an sc to even 300 rwhp. It takes heads, cam, at least an s port, fmic, injectors, fuel pump, exhaust and a good tune to put down 300 out of one of these cars. An sc with a few bolt ons is not going to make 300 rwhp. Not to mention my car has tons of things done to lighten it and it still weighs almost 3900 lbs fully dressed.

35thpartdeux
04-01-2015, 11:16 PM
I mentioned all that except for fuel pump,exhaust and fmic/ double ic, which the fuel pump and exhaust I thought was a given. Mine is about 3900 with 0 weight reduction and I've seen 3700 lbs and some change with just mark VIII lca's and a fiberglass hood. My car is easily in the high 13's if not a contender for mid 13's which will beat about 90% of 2010 mustang gt drivers given that most can't pilot the cars to their optimum 1/4 mile times(13.5-13.7).

no164ford
04-02-2015, 01:10 AM
TVS, Whipple, or AR, front mount and supporting drive line.

820
04-02-2015, 04:57 AM
the 2010 isn't that fast. It only has 320 HP at the motor I believe and they weigh about 3700 pounds so the SC with 300 wheel HP and some weight shaved off would get it done easily.

How many five year old mustangs are still factory stock? For the amount of work it takes to make a super coupe quick the same amount put into almost any other car and you would be capable of space travel.

bowez
04-02-2015, 07:07 AM
Dave reread my post.

Also the 2010 only had 315HP BHP.

I listed my basic mods and out run cars in this HP range. IF you get a SC to 300RWHP then your looking at times in the 12s--would mean ~360BHP and we're not even looking at the torque difference between an SC and 4.6.

Stock Mustang yes I doubt it, most likely has appearance mods and a Hot air intake.

820
04-02-2015, 08:04 AM
Dave reread my post.

Also the 2010 only had 315HP BHP.

I listed my basic mods and out run cars in this HP range. IF you get a SC to 300RWHP then your looking at times in the 12s--would mean ~360BHP and we're not even looking at the torque difference between an SC and 4.6.

Stock Mustang yes I doubt it, most likely has appearance mods and a Hot air intake.

I just googled an et calculator. This was for poo and gigles. A 4,000lbs car with 300 rwhp will complete the quarter mile in 13.8 seconds. I guess mid 13s. What time does your car post? Again this was for fun.

Jacob_Royer
04-02-2015, 08:05 AM
you can actually purchase a 2010Mustang GT for probably less than it would cost you to make your Thunderbird as fast as one

35thpartdeux
04-02-2015, 08:20 AM
you can actually purchase a 2010Mustang GT for probably less than it would cost you to make your Thunderbird as fast as one
Mainly because 2010 gt is the red headed step child of Mustangs with the new body and old power plant that makes nearly 100 less HP, they sat on dealer lots for a long time when they were released. I still enjoy pulling up next to a sports car with my nearly 4,000 pound "luxury" car and smoking them. I still have cheap insurance and decent mileage.

decipha
04-02-2015, 09:53 AM
I've ripped a$$ on them 2010 gt's with only 276rwhp, for what its worth the 2010s only make about 250rwhp with no work done to them

nickleman60
04-02-2015, 11:29 AM
you can actually purchase a 2010Mustang GT for probably less than it would cost you to make your Thunderbird as fast as one

But it would just be another cookie cutter Mustang, I'd rather have something different.....................:)

MadMikeyL
04-02-2015, 01:02 PM
My uncle has a 2010 Mustang GT with 3.73s. He likes the car, but he doesn't drive fast. Also a cousin of mine has an 07 GT with the factory 3.31 rear. I've driven both cars, and while I never ran them down the track, I was very disappointed with the 3V. My SC would easily spank both of them, and honestly my MarkVIII with a 5-speed swap, 3.73s, Cobra intake, and a tune felt about the same as the 07.

820
04-02-2015, 01:44 PM
Motor trend had a 2010 gt with track pack at 4.9 60 ft time and a quarter mile at 13.5. Give it a go and dee what he has. Do this at a track with timing of course, otherwise you will learn very little.

decipha
04-02-2015, 01:53 PM
a stock 3v mustang untuned is very upsetting, pour the timing in her and they pick up very nicely

stock for stock the 3v is still the most efficient stock head for the old modulars

XR7 Dave
04-02-2015, 02:44 PM
An internally stock SC can take a stock '10 GT. You'll need a good blower with about 17psi, a FMIC, supporting fuel mods, an exhaust of some sort, and a tune. Heads and cam and it'll take a Coyote.

Jacob_Royer
04-02-2015, 04:47 PM
Crap that has to be fixed so you don't have issues:

BHJ Balancer $425
ARP Head Studs $100
Head Gasket Set $150
0 Ballance crank pulley $250 (good time to just get a 10% od)
MP Tensioner Springs $90



fuel:

340lph fuel pump $185
Fuel Pump Wiring Kit $30
#60 or #80 Injectors $250/300

Front Mount IC $400 (If you build it yourself)

Blower :

MPX $1500
Abradive Rotor Pack $800
10 rib pulley drive $300 (15% od)
Throttle Body 85mm $250
Maf $150

Stuff For Tuning:

Quarterhorse $225
Wideband $200
Binary Editor $150
Deffinition Files $30

Exhaust:

Ported Manifolds $free (if you do yourself)
Mid Length Headers $400/500
Exhaust System $500/500 (depending on where you have it done)

Heads $1500/2500 (depending on what you get)
Cam $300

Tuning + Dyno Time $400/600 (depending on what you get how long it takes etc)

So far you are looking at 8000$/9000$

Gears + Install $400/500

Transmission:
(manual)
Clutch/Slave $300/500 (depending on what you get)
(Auto)
Converter $400/600 (depending on your needs)
Valve Body $200/300 (depending on what you get)
Performance Rebuild $2000/3000 (also depending on what you get)


All this is if you do most the work yourself (the stuff that most people can do themselves) Plus if you got descent deals on some parts used.

Built Shortblock $3200 +++++ (also depends on what you want)

820
04-02-2015, 06:20 PM
An internally stock SC can take a stock '10 GT. You'll need a good blower with about 17psi, a FMIC, supporting fuel mods, an exhaust of some sort, and a tune. Heads and cam and it'll take a Coyote.

Stock being the optimum word here Dave. Just bolt ons for the mustang will raise the bar quite quickly. A pro charger is considered a bolt on.

bowez
04-02-2015, 07:03 PM
Stock being the optimum word here Dave. Just bolt ons for the mustang will raise the bar quite quickly. A pro charger is considered a bolt on.

So is a MPX :D

XR7 Dave
04-02-2015, 07:07 PM
Stock being the optimum word here Dave. Just bolt ons for the mustang will raise the bar quite quickly. A pro charger is considered a bolt on.

Some people consider heads and cam bolt on too. But I don't think that was the original question.

1FSTBRD
04-02-2015, 07:39 PM
I know it's easy to get carried away with the mods and pursuit of horsepower (i'm getting a dual exhaust setup in two days; have my ported supercharger/ plenum thread going on here, double intercooler/ fan, many other things on the go, etc), but really, I think that the cool thing about the SC's is not necessarily that they're the fastest car out there; it's that they're a somewhat sporty sedan that love to build up torque and give a surprisingly good seat of the pants feel, from a V6 that is 2 to 2 1/2 decades old. They're sleepers that are unique that nobody really knows about, because you wouldn't expect them to be performance based. It always makes for interesting conversation, I find.

820
04-02-2015, 09:09 PM
Some people consider heads and cam bolt on too. But I don't think that was the original question.

LOL!! Ok heads are a bolt on, but a cam is an internal mod. hehehehehe!!!! What was the original question?

plethaus
04-02-2015, 09:52 PM
The thing about the 2010 GTs is that the 3V was pretty well dialed in by that point, and even though the Coyotes were a huge leap forward, the 4.6 is no slouch. It would definitely take a healthy SC to take one down, and like someone already said.. good luck finding a stock 2010 GT. I'm not even sure I would feel safe racing one in my (coming soon) SC. The Mustang has the hook up advantage too with live axle.

HwyStar
04-02-2015, 11:36 PM
I have heard some 3v make power, but I don't think it's a match for the 4v B head in your Mark VIII . With what you got you should pound a 2010 GT and give a Coyote hell. I didn't have a problem knocking them off with my Mark VIII without the bottle open. Kind of disappointing really. I like a good race. Mark VIIIs are tough.

My XR7 isn't radical, and I'm confident I could beat a Coyote if we were both on street tires. Take it to the track both cars with ET Streets on them, I'm not so sure.....



My uncle has a 2010 Mustang GT with 3.73s. He likes the car, but he doesn't drive fast. Also a cousin of mine has an 07 GT with the factory 3.31 rear. I've driven both cars, and while I never ran them down the track, I was very disappointed with the 3V. My SC would easily spank both of them, and honestly my MarkVIII with a 5-speed swap, 3.73s, Cobra intake, and a tune felt about the same as the 07.

Jacob_Royer
04-03-2015, 04:16 AM
An auto 3v is pretty weak! My buddy has one and when my n.a. 32v cobra
was bone stock it would hurt it pretty badly

1FSTBRD
04-03-2015, 10:50 AM
It depends on what people do to the cars, because the 4.6--even in the 99-04's (a fair bit faster than the 5.0 in 94-95 and the 4.6 in 96-98), even though they're putting down 222 rwhp and 250-260 rwtq, they're still a much lighter car in 99-04 trim (3250-3400 lbs, depending on trim/ options) and are a 5.6-6 second 0-60 and high 13's to low 14's, depending on whether it's auto versus manual (or convertible) and who's driving the car.

A 2010 could do some pretty hard damage to many a car in a race. You'd have to be in 12.5-13.5 second 1/4 mile territory to beat a modified one. For example, 2011+ V6 Mustangs are getting a 5.0-5.8 second 0-60 (depending on tune/ mods/ driver), and some are in the high 12 second range with some good tuning and some good driving. I've looked on YouTube on some 1/4 mile times and 0-60 times for various Mustangs since mine came out 16 years ago, and I sigh a little bit.....especially with their excellent gas mileage. :( :D But an SC with some blower upgrades/ gears/ tune/ good exhaust could at least give most modern performance oriented cars a good run for their money. The newer Mustangs, Camaros and Challengers are all heavy--nearly 4000 lbs, which evens the score significantly in terms of weight.

In comparison, my '99 3.8 Mustang auto with mods (4.10 gearing, Auburn 7.5 lsd, MAC catback, ported/ polished upper/ lower intakes, Bama tune, 315 Nitto FR555's etc) is a small bit faster than my auto SC in mostly stock form (K&N panel filter, double intercooler w/ fan, grip-Continental ExtremeContacts, no gear changes), as the Mustang is about 6.7-6.9 seconds in a 0-60 and the SC is about 7.1-7.2. The Mustang in those years used some decent weight saving stuff (hood, trunk, window side valances are all plastic/ fibreglass composites) and mine is about 3300 lbs with me in it), and believe it or not, the shifts in my auto Stang chirp my Nitto's on the shifts. This is a video that I shot of the car last year with vastly inferior winter tires instead of the Nitto's, but it gives you an idea of the capabilities of the car with a stock cam/ heads, but with a good tune, 4.10's/ lsd and there's almost no traction through 1st gear. There's also 200,000 kms on the stock cam/ heads/ pistons/ bottom end. It's no dragon slayer, but it's surprisingly aggressive for a 16 year old pushrod truck oriented engine that one wouldn't expect to be fast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqZWzWSGCo8

I gravitated towards the SC to find out more about 3.8 Ford power and ended up loving the SC, so by default, I became the "3.8 performance" guy......two cars, still no V8's, ha ha. The split port 3.8 is a great engine--it runs forever and is capable of some decent performance, and on a Mustang forum that i'm on, some guys are running (built) Procharged, turbo'd and twin turbo'd 3.8's with good success of anywhere from 375-550 rwhp and building power at 6000+ rpms. The blocks and 4R70W transmissions in those cars are built to take heavy punishment. So even a Procharged/ turbo'd 99-04 V6 with the stock 4R70W is likely going to give you trouble and a wicked fight.

Metalcorpse
04-03-2015, 07:57 PM
Thanks for the responses guys. I actually found out the car I'm thinking of is an 06. But I would imagine it's not any better than a '10

35thpartdeux
04-03-2015, 08:35 PM
The 06 is heavier and has 15 less HP stock so have fun walking on it.

HwyStar
04-03-2015, 09:23 PM
I like the look of that year body style, but I was bummed about how heavy it was and the Cd was higher than the New Edge Mustang. I can't remember the numbers but I was shocked. Looking at both cars you would have thought the 05-10 cars would have the lower Cd. Besides, I'm partial to the New Edge most of all, and the 79-83 4 headlight Fox is real close.

1FSTBRD
04-03-2015, 11:37 PM
I like the look of that year body style, but I was bummed about how heavy it was and the Cd was higher than the New Edge Mustang. I can't remember the numbers but I was shocked. Looking at both cars you would have thought the 05-10 cars would have the lower Cd. Besides, I'm partial to the New Edge most of all, and the 79-83 4 headlight Fox is real close.

That's cool that you like the New Edge SN95's......they had some good ideas there that seemed to be abandoned for 2005, like you say, a higher drag coefficient and a heavier car. I like the body style of the 2005 too, but with the retro thing, they seemed to kind of be permanently resigned to looking backwards in terms of their designing.

David Neibert
04-04-2015, 08:56 AM
I just googled an et calculator. This was for poo and gigles. A 4,000lbs car with 300 rwhp will complete the quarter mile in 13.8 seconds. I guess mid 13s. What time does your car post? Again this was for fun.

SC with 300 rwhp typically runs high 12s with nothing more than some drag tires.

David

820
04-04-2015, 04:48 PM
SC with 300 rwhp typically runs high 12s with nothing more than some drag tires.

David

What does that t bird weigh?

SCarSC
04-04-2015, 04:50 PM
i guess it depends on what options you had but around 3600 lbs i think.

SCarSC
04-04-2015, 04:51 PM
http://www.sccoa.com/forums/showthread.php?134638-SC-shootout-weight-data&highlight=scale

820
04-04-2015, 04:52 PM
i guess it depends on what options you had but around 3600 lbs i think.

My sons 90 automatic weighed 4,080 with him setting in it.

820
04-04-2015, 04:55 PM
There are no times posted with race weights.

35thpartdeux
04-04-2015, 09:05 PM
The et calculators don't work for all cars because cars like the SC make way more torque than a normal engine. They base the et on the assumption of a typical motor that make close to a balance of HP and torque. A 300 HP SC typically makes 370ish torque. My SC is probably around 3900 with the tools I carry in it.

35thpartdeux
04-04-2015, 09:06 PM
Double post

1FSTBRD
04-04-2015, 10:07 PM
The et calculators don't work for all cars because cars like the SC make way more torque than a normal engine. They base the et on the assumption of a typical motor that make close to a balance of HP and torque. A 300 HP SC typically makes 370ish torque. .

For sure. Plus, the torque peak being as crazy low in the rpms as it is, it throws things out of whack a little bit. Most powerplants have a more balanced power spectrum.

820
04-04-2015, 10:31 PM
Torque does work, horsepower wins races. What are the OP's mods and what are the mustang mods?

Metalcorpse
04-05-2015, 12:56 AM
both cars are bone stock. my first modifications will be CAI, IC fan, headers and those shiny lightweight pulleys. for now its getting the car to run cooler and free up the engine's parasitic drag.

SCarSC
04-05-2015, 07:24 AM
My sons 90 automatic weighed 4,080 with him setting in it.

so did you already know this or just go out and weigh it?


There are no times posted with race weights.

meh...im sure there is something posted out there...i know that mercutio/will is more of a road course time attack guy than drag racing though.

David Neibert
04-05-2015, 08:13 AM
What does that t bird weigh?

In race trim right around 3800# and with me driving about 4050#.

David

Mercutio
04-05-2015, 08:19 AM
There are no times posted with race weights.

If you're talking about the weights from the Shootout, we weighed the cars in the parking lot the day before the drag race. Not everyone who weighed their cars raced. Many who weighed their cars made significant changes before racing (installing new wheels, etc). Some (like me) didn't run on drag tires. So if people who weighed their cars wanted to list their ETs, they could, but the data wouldn't mean all that much.

820
04-05-2015, 09:28 AM
so did you already know this or just go out and weigh it?



meh...im sure there is something posted out there...i know that mercutio/will is more of a road course time attack guy than drag racing though.

We weighed his car back in the day,(2000) when he had his car and would race it every week after school. He would post mid 14s. My son prolly weighed 130 lbs., so the car was 3950. We believe that the car made around 240 rwhp. I seen curb weight listed for an 06 mustang gt between 35-3700 lbs. This is from car and driver. Like I said earlier, the calculator was just for grins, some of the better ones can be very close to real world numbers. They do not however allow for weather or tire slippage. Also turbo chargers will skew the numbers.

35thpartdeux
04-05-2015, 12:58 PM
both cars are bone stock. my first modifications will be CAI, IC fan, headers and those shiny lightweight pulleys. for now its getting the car to run cooler and free up the engine's parasitic drag. I would skip the headers and just drop your exhaust off of the stock exhaust manifolds and port the collectors out. The stock manifolds flow really well once you grind off the "hump" in the collector. I believe the 94-95 passenger side flows better than early models though. This will save you a few hundred dollars on something that will gain very little performance.

1FSTBRD
04-05-2015, 01:20 PM
In race trim right around 3800# and with me driving about 4050#.

David

I'm 170 lbs....a fairly lighter guy. Forget about removing rear seats and air conditioning and spare tire and whatnot, i'm surprised that some guys haven't gone to Jenny Craig in search of better ET's. :D

ganuolfthegrey
04-05-2015, 05:44 PM
mine is 3740 with out me in it. car weighed stock around 4,000.
sc's built right will have no problem with the stang. know anything with a 5.0 meaning 2011 or newer is another story.

1FSTBRD
04-05-2015, 11:07 PM
mine is 3740 with out me in it. car weighed stock around 4,000.
sc's built right will have no problem with the stang. know anything with a 5.0 meaning 2011 or newer is another story.

Agreed on the newer 5.0's. The V6's got upped to 305 hp in 2011, but the only signifiers (externally, that I know of) is that the V6 had got dual exhaust, because I believe that the taillights had changed with the same body style in 2013/2014. 2010 with single exhaust is the 4.0 engine, I believe, which was a carryover year like the 94-95 5.0's were in the SN95 design before the 4.6 came along.

That's a good way to know the competition.....any newer 3.7 Mustang with a dual exhaust (the quickest way to tell the guaranteed 305 hp years, if the 2010 doesn't have an aftermarket dual, that is) is going to be tough to beat, too.

David Neibert
04-06-2015, 01:12 PM
I'm 170 lbs....a fairly lighter guy. Forget about removing rear seats and air conditioning and spare tire and whatnot, i'm surprised that some guys haven't gone to Jenny Craig in search of better ET's. :D

I'm working on it :o

I quit smoking in early January and have been dieting and exercising to lose weight and be more healthy. It's a slow and difficult process, but I'm sticking with it.

David

820
04-06-2015, 01:32 PM
I'm working on it :o

I quit smoking in early January and have been dieting and exercising to lose weight and be more healthy. It's a slow and difficult process, but I'm sticking with it.

David

Go to a diabetic diet.watch the carbs. 60 grams of a carb three meals and two 15 gram snacks. I am diabetic and know this will work, but to be safe consult your doctor David.it is similar to an Atkins diet.

ganuolfthegrey
04-06-2015, 07:58 PM
david if you need help hit me up. I went from 396 to 201. this isn't my first time either.

David Neibert
04-07-2015, 08:36 AM
david if you need help hit me up. I went from 396 to 201. this isn't my first time either.

Jason,

That's very impressive...Great Job !

David