smoked a 5.0 on my 323 ???
May-3rd-2003, 09:24 PM
#32
aLL mOtoR 1.8 dohc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: bay area, california
Posts: 357
im not even about to 
with u ! read the rest of the post.... i didn't say my car can beat a mustang its just that the guy i raced can't drive or maybe he messed up driveing it or prolly had a fucked up motor.
with u ! read the rest of the post.... i didn't say my car can beat a mustang its just that the guy i raced can't drive or maybe he messed up driveing it or prolly had a fucked up motor.
ima just chill !
May-6th-2003, 10:53 AM
#35
half import half domestic
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 184
i know if im racing a four cyl. or 8. I've been drag racing since i was 17. stang always smokes my *** but not the 95-98 4.6 liter GT mustang. there is no way a stock stang in that year will smoke my four banger single over head vtec civic hatch that pumps out 127 hp!!![/B]
PLEASE TELL ME YOU'RE KIDDING
May-7th-2003, 08:08 AM
#37
half import half domestic
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 184
So you mean to tell me that a 1995-98 Mustang GT with 215hp and 285ft lbs of torque with a 5.0L engine and a standard LSD CANNOT smoke your civic hatchback even with V-TEC engine that's only pumping out 127hp and a whopping 106ft lbs of torque?
Is that what you're saying?????
Is that what you're saying?????
May-7th-2003, 10:48 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Tulsa, OK.
Posts: 106
I could hop in any good running Coupe 5spd 95-98 GT and run nothing slower than 15.5. A stock Civic hatch with the 127hp and 106lbs will run a what? About a 16.5 at best! and more then likely it will be in the high 16's to low 17's. Hell a 160hp 2000 Civic SI has problems with even the slowest Auto Convt GTs.
May-7th-2003, 07:33 PM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Posts: 175
Why are you guys so ignorant? Why is it so hard to believe that a fast version of a slow car, can beat a slow version of a fast car? I've beaten a late 80s 5.0 HORRIBLEY! Lets take these things into consideration.
Read the "Post your 1/4mile times" thread. Look at the variation in times. We've got people doing high 15s to high 17s. I PERSONALLY have drivin a 17.2 best in a 91 Protege GT(of my ex girlfriend, who made me fall in love with the car). But even during THAT day at the track, I ranged from that 17.2 to a horrible, bogged down 18.2.
In my current 93 GT, with 185/60/14s, I was running betwen 16.3 and 16.8 during my first track day. Now it's supposed to be the EXACT same drivetrain, so why such variance? BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE CAR IS DIFFERENT. Lets face it, building automobiles is an imperfect process, you can't expect them to build hundreds of thousands, and not have some built better than others.
I also took my car to the track with my 205/40/17s, and managed a best of 16.9. Mind you, that was on 40 Psi, with no other 'track-day' mods. I just wanted to see what I was running, as if I was street racing.
Now lets assume that the 5.0 I raced, was one of those said, "bad copies". There was him and two passengers, which added at least 300lbs. Now lets say he was in need of a tune-up, badly. Also, the guy WAS a crappy driver. Is it so hard to believe that my car, which runs 16.9 in optimal conditions(with 17s, as I was in that race) had a good run and beat him? If we can get over a second and a half range in 1/4 mile times, is it so hard to believe that Mustangs might also have such a variance? I'd have to say even more, because of lower manufacturing standards. So if his car ran a 15.5 BRAND NEW, why should it still do the same 18 years later if the car wasn't taken care of?
So when 1ofdfew323 says he beat at 5.0, I totally believe him. I also don't believe you could make a 5.0 do 11s with 2Gs. Remember, a lighter car, takes WAY LESS horsepower to make go fast. If a Mustang tips in at 3200 lbs and has a GENEROUSLY rated 225hp from the factory, than it has 14.2 lbs/hp. if he adds 10hp, it drops it to 13.6lbs/hp.
If 1ofdfew323 has a 125hp motor in his 2200 lb car, it gives him 17.6lbs/hp. Adding 10hp drops that to 16.3lbs/hp. Torque? Who gives a rats' ***. That's where this little thing called DRIVING SKILL comes into play. Ya ok, if both cars were traveling at 30mph down the street in 3rd, and both tromped on it, it would be no contest for the Stang. But torque has nothing to do with it when you're racing. When I race, I hold it at 4500rpm while feathering the clutch, letting it out all the way when I know I'm fully hooked-up. Big deal..so I use up some clutch....the sooner I'll have to place an order for a better one
So next time someone tells you they beat a 'fast' car with their 'slow' car....believe it! I do....
Read the "Post your 1/4mile times" thread. Look at the variation in times. We've got people doing high 15s to high 17s. I PERSONALLY have drivin a 17.2 best in a 91 Protege GT(of my ex girlfriend, who made me fall in love with the car). But even during THAT day at the track, I ranged from that 17.2 to a horrible, bogged down 18.2.
In my current 93 GT, with 185/60/14s, I was running betwen 16.3 and 16.8 during my first track day. Now it's supposed to be the EXACT same drivetrain, so why such variance? BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE CAR IS DIFFERENT. Lets face it, building automobiles is an imperfect process, you can't expect them to build hundreds of thousands, and not have some built better than others.
I also took my car to the track with my 205/40/17s, and managed a best of 16.9. Mind you, that was on 40 Psi, with no other 'track-day' mods. I just wanted to see what I was running, as if I was street racing.
Now lets assume that the 5.0 I raced, was one of those said, "bad copies". There was him and two passengers, which added at least 300lbs. Now lets say he was in need of a tune-up, badly. Also, the guy WAS a crappy driver. Is it so hard to believe that my car, which runs 16.9 in optimal conditions(with 17s, as I was in that race) had a good run and beat him? If we can get over a second and a half range in 1/4 mile times, is it so hard to believe that Mustangs might also have such a variance? I'd have to say even more, because of lower manufacturing standards. So if his car ran a 15.5 BRAND NEW, why should it still do the same 18 years later if the car wasn't taken care of?
So when 1ofdfew323 says he beat at 5.0, I totally believe him. I also don't believe you could make a 5.0 do 11s with 2Gs. Remember, a lighter car, takes WAY LESS horsepower to make go fast. If a Mustang tips in at 3200 lbs and has a GENEROUSLY rated 225hp from the factory, than it has 14.2 lbs/hp. if he adds 10hp, it drops it to 13.6lbs/hp.
If 1ofdfew323 has a 125hp motor in his 2200 lb car, it gives him 17.6lbs/hp. Adding 10hp drops that to 16.3lbs/hp. Torque? Who gives a rats' ***. That's where this little thing called DRIVING SKILL comes into play. Ya ok, if both cars were traveling at 30mph down the street in 3rd, and both tromped on it, it would be no contest for the Stang. But torque has nothing to do with it when you're racing. When I race, I hold it at 4500rpm while feathering the clutch, letting it out all the way when I know I'm fully hooked-up. Big deal..so I use up some clutch....the sooner I'll have to place an order for a better one
So next time someone tells you they beat a 'fast' car with their 'slow' car....believe it! I do....
May-7th-2003, 07:38 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Posts: 175
Originally posted by project626
So you mean to tell me that a 1995-98 Mustang GT with 215hp and 285ft lbs of torque with a 5.0L engine and a standard LSD CANNOT smoke your civic hatchback even with V-TEC engine that's only pumping out 127hp and a whopping 106ft lbs of torque?
Is that what you're saying?????
So you mean to tell me that a 1995-98 Mustang GT with 215hp and 285ft lbs of torque with a 5.0L engine and a standard LSD CANNOT smoke your civic hatchback even with V-TEC engine that's only pumping out 127hp and a whopping 106ft lbs of torque?
Is that what you're saying?????
May-8th-2003, 08:03 AM
#41
half import half domestic
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 184
I'm really not understand this situation here There is nothing ignorant about believing that a stock mustang GT can out run a stock civic with a 127hp engine. Regardless of the weight. Can YOU understand the Stang has nearly 100 extra horses in it?
I'll tell you what. If I had a choice between the two....I'll take the Stang. No offense to Hondas cause I have a 2000 Accord 5sp. which I love. But the bottom line is I don't see a 127hp civic (even with a V-TEC engine) with 106 ft. lbs of torque pissing on a Mustang GT that comes STOCK with 215hp and 285 ft lbs of torque
May-9th-2003, 01:33 AM
#42
aLL mOtoR 1.8 dohc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: bay area, california
Posts: 357
damn we still aint done with this????
i had a 92 2,018 lbs cx chassis civic hatch w/ 8 lbs rims,
headers, intake, wires, no a/c, no p/s, gsr injectors, 8,600 rpm redline, dx tranny, stage 3 ACt clutch, 9lbs flywheel, all my sway bars has been removed, carpet removed, rearseats was removed, no spare tire, all i have is 2 front seats motor and the chassis w/ all this i was running 14.8 1/4 mile street tires all motor
and stock internals !
i had a 92 2,018 lbs cx chassis civic hatch w/ 8 lbs rims,
headers, intake, wires, no a/c, no p/s, gsr injectors, 8,600 rpm redline, dx tranny, stage 3 ACt clutch, 9lbs flywheel, all my sway bars has been removed, carpet removed, rearseats was removed, no spare tire, all i have is 2 front seats motor and the chassis w/ all this i was running 14.8 1/4 mile street tires all motor
and stock internals !
May-9th-2003, 01:36 AM
#43
aLL mOtoR 1.8 dohc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: bay area, california
Posts: 357
i didn't know if any of u guys with believe me about my story but thats wut happen. and y the hell would i say **** like that online to think that im cool i smoke a V8 ? please! i know wut i smoke and wut not. thanks for believing on my story tho gen1gt and good luck on ur project. peace!
May-9th-2003, 10:56 AM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Tulsa, OK.
Posts: 106
Ok, I will believe you! I guess a 15 year old GT in really bad tune could lose to you! Ok.....There .......I said it.....Happy now.
On and to the person that said the old 5.0s weighed 3200 lbs. The old 5.0 LX's could be had stock (depending on options) as light as 2750lbs.
And yes for less then 2K I could have it running 11's. There are about a thousand different sights that have its spelled out to the T what it takes and how much it will cost you.
On and to the person that said the old 5.0s weighed 3200 lbs. The old 5.0 LX's could be had stock (depending on options) as light as 2750lbs.
And yes for less then 2K I could have it running 11's. There are about a thousand different sights that have its spelled out to the T what it takes and how much it will cost you.
May-9th-2003, 11:46 AM
#45
Moderator/ Pocket Tuner
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Tampa,Fl
Posts: 4,150
ok here is one I couldnt believe but it happened....I have a 00 1.6L protege,only cold air and exhaust as mods....I was running hard and a Dodge Avenger pulls up on me revving...so I said screw and tried him...I pulled on him hard...waited for him to catch up,then pulled again...he was getting very mad and you could hear his car revving hard,so i know he was trying....I really thought an Avenger would smoke me!! Only thing i can think is that it may have been one of the 4 banger Automatics and the Avenger's are quite heavy....but a kill is a kill!!...oh well,at least this one is real,lol!!