Mustang vs sc?

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)
 
XR7 Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
820 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


MadMikeyL said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
HwyStar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
820 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top