KILL:99-03? stang GT 5-speed

[TbirdSC93]

I was very shocked!!!

First time we raced from a light where his lane merged into mine....he starts of normal to see if ill let him go(he new I wasn't) then he guns and I gun it. He could pull ahead enough to pass me.

Next light he asks "you wanna try that again with my A/C off?"
So we go from a fair start and I beat him all the way till I run out of RPMs which is between 90-100(4:10 gears) but the traffic was comming so we had to slow anyways.
I talk to him at the light and he says "I burned to much rubber at the start" (So did I, like always) Im like you wanna try again and hes like "Naw, I live the other way"

Man was I excited!!!! and to make it even better some silly ricer acura was tryin to keep up the whole time!! what a joke!!!

Just thought I'd share because I never thought I'd be able to take a 5speed stang

[1FASTSC]

I burned one in my town as well. I would have thought they would be a lot faster.

[JJanney]

Depends on driver. But Jeremy should be able to trounce them easily. :)

[TbirdSC93]

:D I wish I knew what the guy was thinking when I beat him? You know he wasn't expecting to see my tailights the whole time

[92redsc]

because the 99-03 gt 5 speeds go high 13s stock. i wish i could run high 13s...... any ways, you can only go 100 mph with 4.10 gears?

[TbirdSC93]

my shift kit locks out OD when I'm at full throttle....I have to time it right to let off the throttle to get it to shift into OD without slowing down to much. I'm still getting used to the shift kit and such

[DirtTrackRacer]

Originally posted by 1FASTSC
I burned one in my town as well. I would have thought they would be a lot faster.

Something is a little goofy here. You run 15.19??? I run 14.43 @94.97mph and I own a 98GT auto (175rwhp) which is slow compared to a 99+. A 15.19 1/4mile time won't even beat an automatic 99+GT. 5-speed 99+ GT's can creep into the real low 13's with a good driver.

Adam

[Thomas A]

with a good driver.
That's the key. If he was just sitting there smoking the tires, then a stock SC could beat him. I got my but kicked by a 15.7 car becuase I spun so badly off the line. That was my fault, not the car's.

I'm still getting used to the shift kit and such
Sounds like someone needs a Lentech :D

Thomas

[TbirdSC93]

Theres nothing wrong with what I have....it locks out the AOD at full throttle....most shift kits do...

[DirtTrackRacer]

Originally posted by Thomas A
That's the key. If he was just sitting there smoking the tires, then a stock SC could beat him. I got my but kicked by a 15.7 car becuase I spun so badly off the line. That was my fault, not the car's.


Sounds like someone needs a Lentech :D

Thomas

M/T slicks always help with that whole traction thing..lol. Mine are 28" tall which is WAY to big for the power I have and they still consistently knocked 2-3 tenths off in the 1/4.

BTW Thomas..how is your stuff working out? Sorry I had to bolt that day you came and got it...I had to get to work. Your SC is really sharp too.

Adam

[Thomas A]

Hey, things are going well. Right now everything is still sitting in the basement. I haven't had time to do anything with it yet.

Thomas

[chepdog]

A 99-03 mustang gt 5speed with an excellent driver will do a flat 14 sec, maybe a 13.8 bone stock. I have one and tried many ways, with different people trying to break the 14's, lowest we got was a 13.8 with a long cooldown and 20 pounds of tire pressure. Now it runs 12's witha little help of the (whiner) exhaust, and stock tires by the way. Just my $0.02

[supercharged95]

Originally posted by chepdog
A 99-03 mustang gt 5speed with an excellent driver will do a flat 14 sec, maybe a 13.8 bone stock. I have one and tried many ways, with different people trying to break the 14's, lowest we got was a 13.8 with a long cooldown and 20 pounds of tire pressure. Now it runs 12's witha little help of the (whiner) exhaust, and stock tires by the way. Just my $0.02

I have to agree, from what I've seen so far from all of the 99 and up 5spd GT's the fastest one I've seen in person ran a 14 flat. I haven't heard of any bone stock 5spd GTs breaking the low 13s, but I could be wrong.

[SC UL8R1990]

i have yet to take on a 99+ GT but hopefully when spring hits after all my goodies:D

As for 98 and under..... ive only ran a 96/97 4.6L 5speed. And had him by a car and a half. That was when i was pretty much stock.

man i love picking on stangs:D

[supercharged95]

you're going to want to figure that the 96-98 are some of the slowest stangs ever produced. I dont even think the 5 speeds broke out of the 15s and the autos....well yeah. imo a victory over a 96-98 stang is like beating a 91 civic. I raced some beat 85 5.0 that thought he was the the **** by 5 carlengths, but I didn't really see that as a victory; I saw it more as putting an ignorant car owner in his place.
Just my .02

[SC UL8R1990]

As for 98 and under..... ive only ran a 96/97 4.6L 5speed. And had him by a car and a half. That was when i was pretty much stock.

you're going to want to figure that the 96-98 are some of the slowest stangs ever produced. I dont even think the 5 speeds broke out of the 15s and the autos....well yeah. imo a victory over a 96-98 stang is like beating a 91 civic.

:(

[supercharged95]

oh man- i didn't mean any offense by that statement...sorry:confused:

[SC UL8R1990]

no you mis-understood me, lol, no offense taken at all. lol.

just put the sad face there cause i suck:( :( ;) :D

[supercharged95]

haha okay, well as long as the stang you raced wasn't an automatic vert(which would be like a 17-18 second car) i give you props:D

[SC UL8R1990]

no it wasnt one of those slouches... it was one of those really nice v6's;) ;) ;) :D :D :cool:

[turbospeed]

i raced a 96 auto :D the guy tougth his car was the ***** because his exhaust sounded mean. i was glad to leave a good 2 cars behind me. :D the he asked if it was a v8 i replied not its a v6 :p

[SC UL8R1990]

yea i have to watch out for those darn autos ........in my work van hehehehe:p ;) :D

and with that said , goodnight to all

[Darkside]

Stock 86 to 93 Mustang 5.0's at my elevation run about 16.2's to 16.4's. Beatable with my stock SC. Boy are they shocked when they get beat by a Thunderbird. Anyway, I thought the 94 to 95 5.0's were the slowest because of the heads?:D

[supercharged95]

nope, 95 was the least year of the 5.0 and the 94-95 stangs put out like all of 215 hp..i think. anyways 96-98 stangs sucked so much because of their heads.

[Darkside]

I honestly don't know much about the 96 to 03 Mustangs. Stopped keeping track after 93. Ford changed from forged pistons to cast aluminum pistons in 93 to 95 5.0's so maybe that was a reason for the lower HP ratings?:confused: I think they changed the intake so it would fit under the hood also. You were right about the heads though. My bad.:D

[droptop5.0]

I believe in '99 the GT got good heads. Ford was trying to figure out the new cammer motors when they first came out.
BTW; 92 5.0; 3:73s, 5 spd, flowmasters, off road h-pipe, pullies, cold air kit, electric fan and a good ol' 332,000 mile one quart a month 20 mpg naturally aspirated coolant using smallblock furd!!
= 15.5 1/4 @ 5500 ft, 9.8 1/8th mile.

[BIRDPLUCKER]

HEY DARKSIDE ,DO YOU REMEMBER MY 90 GT? IT RAN 15 FLAT AT THIS ELEVATION!! (5500 FEET) IT WAS STOCK EXCEPT FOR UNDER DRIVES! CARS WITH AUTOS MAY BE THAT SLOW BUT NOT 5 SPEEDS!

[turbospeed]

well i raced several stock 5.0 most 5-speed and have gotten them all in the low end pull on them in 1st and hang on second, i almost always get them for 1 or 1.5 cars , never raced them more than 60-70 so i dont know in the top end.

[supercharged95]

haha well since we're on a foxbody mustang kick, mine ran high 13s/low 14s@98-100mph. It was basically stock(3.55s, pro 5.0, nitto DRs), 188,000 miles,etc. etc.
http://dolemite.dyndns.org/albums/album61/clean4.sized.jpg

[92redsc]

some info is wrong. you can ask any one of he mustang mags and they will give you these numbers or very close. with a good driver, iced intake, and good conditions you can go high 13s with a 99+ GT. the old foxs 86-93 were mid-high 14s. i know a 91 lx convert. went a 14.6 stock at the track the other day. the early sn-95s with the 5.0 were about the same as the old 5.0s with slightly lower timeslips. the price difference doesnt make up for the time difference though. the 96-98 gts with 4.6s were suck. but 15s were not a problem. some 5 speeds will break a 14. the heads were horrible on the 96-98s which they changed in 99 to the PI(power improved) heads. these are all correct times with good conditions. there are exceptons to every rule(or stock time).

[silversc90]

When I raced this last season I would usually come up against one or two mustangs a month. Never ran a 94/95, 96/98 are low 15s, and 99/03 run mid 14s to high 13s depending on options. But the slowest cobra I seen run was a 14.1@99.

02 gt my sc
60" 2.294 2.306
1/8 9.841 9.705
mph 73.58 74.05

88 gt my sc
60" 1.917 2.378
1/8 8.840 9.782
mph 77.75 73.95

93 gt my sc
60" 2.302 2.199
1/8 9.634 9.607
mph 75.44 73.79

96 gt my sc
60" 2.246 2.213
1/8 9.954 9.862
1/4 15.384 15.310
mph90.79 90.80

[white95stang]

i got a kill with the 89 vs a 96 gt from a 40 roll put 3 cars on him ...pretty funny thats why 4.6 are junk.


but havent had a chance to run into an sc with my stang.

[TbirdSC93]

the 96-98 4.6 is junk, the 99-up isnt....almost 2 completely different cars....some stated it best once....

"beating an auto 96-98 gt is like beating a civic"

a 99 up gt 5speed can run 14 flat

[white95stang]

nope still junk too 14.90 s doesnt impress me and waht are you saying about civics.................j/k

[TbirdSC93]

It doesnt have to impress you....the 5.0 was no quicker out the factory tho.

Im still proud of killing that 99-up gt being that it wasnt very close...

I tried to race 96-98 the other nite and I woulda trounced it....I think he new because he ran a red light just so he wouldnt have to face me

[white95stang]

nor does 207 rwhp .........seen it on the dyno


03 cobra on the other hand made every bit of 390 at the wheels.

[TbirdSC93]

what made 207 rwhp on the dyno?

[white95stang]

a 2001 gt auto with exhaust

[TbirdSC93]

Lost over 60 horse on the way to the wheels???? Im a little unsure of that

[white95stang]

ah yes pretty sure come over to the shop ii show you his dyno sheets he ended up with 214 rwhp when they tuned it a little, why you defend them anyways your car is better.............congrats on the kill.


for some FYI my 95 gt went 14.45 with a drop in k&n and 14 degrees of timing on eagle f1's....................i may not know my sc's but i know my mustangs.

[TbirdSC93]

I like mustangs...all of em...dont see whats wrong with the 4.6 execpt from 96-98. Just hard to believe that a car can lose that much power from the drivetrain....

[92redsc]

going to have to disagree, seeing how i am a mustang fanatic. um 99 and up gt 5 speeds run a 14.9? hahahaha you (or who ever ran) must suck at drag racing. my friend with only a k&n got a 14 flat. the magazines that the workers drag for a living are getting 13.9s and even a bit lower with a stock 99 up gt. 4.6s suck ehh? thats why i just read a of a guy with a factory stock block and stock cylinder heads run a 8.77 on radials (not slicks bud) with around 1,100 horse. oh and by the way that was a 2 valve single cam version (gt not cobra). dont believe?january 04 issue of MM&FF. i would love to see a 5.0 put out 1100 horse on a stock block and heads. and what does a bone stock 5.0 run? i saw a test in car and driver of a 91 convert 5 speed run a best of 14.6. while they arnt the best drag racers, i would say no better that a 14.4 right? so over a half of a second faster stock doesnt impress you from 21 less C.Is? well you can be unimpressed while im flying by you in a new GT saying bye to that 5.0. and dont get me wrong either, i love 5.0s but you just cant diss that strong pulling 4.6. and dyno numbers are just that, numbers. who cares as long as its fast.

[silversc90]

You forgot to add that car in mm&ff was driven every day, it was the only car the guy had.

We all can agree the mustang isnt as fast as it is thought to be by the general public. But what shocks me is how fords car that sells for being performance oriented (mustang gt) is almost a full second behind a z28.

[TbirdSC93]

Since when does a factory z28 outrun a factory GT by a full second? try a half second at the most with good drivers in both cars....Ford continues to sell them because they dont have any competition in that market? what other rwd v8 can you buy for about 25k?

[silversc90]

Almost a second like what was said earlier a mustang gt with a good driver pulls 13.9. Now if you can get your hands on the latest issue of carcraft they have a lincoln tech article where a 99 z28 with an automatic trans runs a 13.4, the 6 speeds cannot be slower. The z28 fell out of gm's lineup becuase the market segment that drove them could not afford them.

Dont get me wrong I favor fords over anything its just I get a littled concerned when I see new mustangs lineup against a new z28.

Another rwd that is available is the new gto.

It is ignorant to go into battle without knowing or respecting your enemy:D

[TbirdSC93]

oh...I know my enemys most of the time...I just know a full second or almost is streching it a lil bit

[6pak2go]

The 4.6'sare hit and miss to me. I've heard stories about stock 99+ Gt's going mid 13's but I have never seen it. My buddy has an 01 Cobra and has never went 13's in it. He's gone consistant 14.0-14.1 at 99-100mph. We triedevery combination of launch and shift points on that car and it doesnt seem to matter. It doesnt even matter if it was 85 or 60 out. I like to call it the Slobra. I'm sure he was pretty mad to pay $30 grand and still see my beat up SC roll on him :)

Brandon

[silversc90]

Those cobra's came out of the factory low on power for some reason. They had a recall on them, for some exhuast and other things. They are one of the reasons the 03 came into existence and why there is no 02 cobra.

[white95stang]

i see you guys still carrying on about this mysterious 4.6


I ve raced many a 4.6 mustangs and seen overe 30 mustangs on the rollers in a weekend..and I took one thing with me dyno numbers arent important take it to the track and well let those numbers talk.


8.77 on radials were talkin a 325-50 -15 drag radials wat bigger traction patch than my slicks.
i run 12.07 on drag radials 1.73 60 ft


big daddys 5.0 drag radilal car is faster than that and doesnt need 1100 hp..

my car might been a half sec slower but i had 215 hp rated motor to 260 4.6 not bad i dont think


but anyways there isnt 4.6 na car that will be going by me any time soon.

[TbirdSC93]

give the 4.6 more time to develop aftermarket wise and well se how true your statement holds up in say 1 year when the stang comes out

[silversc90]

Yeah those motors are very potent just need some more development.

And my earlier post is wrong it was the 2000 cobra that was never in production.

8's are gonna be nothing for mildly modified 4.6's. Theres guys runnin 9's with 03 cobras and a few boltons. No major engine work. Untouched rearends too.

[white95stang]

well if it comes to that point i just slap on a 150 shot and see if it can run 10's 03 cobras are in diffent catergory im talking 2v 4.6 to 2v 5.0

but ill race anyone anytime....money talks

[92redsc]

did i ever tell you about that 2v 4.6 thats runing 8s on a stock block and heads and its running radials? the 4.6s are very good motors, just wait till 05 ;)

[Matt SC ESC]

Wait a sec. Which 4.6 block, do you consider a "good" motor.

Romeo's, are piles of dog doodoo. I can't tell you how many i've seen that have literally melted (autosport performance, escondido, CA). I don't know if i can say much for the cleveland 4.6's either. oh well, i don't own one, so what do i care?

[DirtTrackRacer]

Your going to have different numbers whoever you talk to. And when you say "stock" does that mean no bolt on's? Or does it mean I can't even adjust the air pressure. To me "stock" means that I am not adding any bolt on power parts. My 98 auto (175rwhp) ran 14.90 with ONLY 4:10's.(has 125,000 on it too) 98's were rated 225 not 215 like 96,97 (more agressive factory tune). 96 to present 4.6's are all the same, 99-00 are Windsors, the rest are Romeo. The 99-newer are only better because of there intake/heads. A 99-newer 5-speed Mustang can run DEEP into the 13's with NO bolt ons. I have no shift kit, no trick parts, I run aftermarket exhaust, stock exhaust manifolds, 4:10s and pullies and run 14.43....which I would put up against ANY auto Bird with the same parts. If an Auto Bird is beating a 99up 5 speed I would write it down..cause you might not see it again. As for the part about beating a 96-98 Stang, is like beating a Civic, I think the guy who wrote that was running 14.7?? Well, my auto 98 runs 14.43...so I guess you have been beat by a Civic??:D
Your cars are a lot heavier, its not the same. Dyno #'s don't mean anything....would you think my 175rwhp would run mid 14's in an auto? I have a dyno sheet and a stack of timeslips. Street racing isn't real racing anyway...a rollin start is pretty much bogus..you would be much better racing a Mustang from a dead stop anyway. Much better chance of getting them off the line. I think the SC's are awesome cars ( I had a 91 5-sp) but they are not going to beat a Mustang part for part or car for car or year for year etc (94's95's would be your best bet)..no how no way. Not in like environments and such. Not saying they can't be fast...but its simple power to weight ratio.... every 100lbs of weight is about 1/10 in the 1/4 mile so your starting from almost 3/4 of a second from the get go. Just simple math.

Adam