 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / February 2007Ping: Patrick
Questions: At the drags yesterday I kept a close eye on two newer GT's. One automatic, one 5 speed. Both appeared stock, but I did not see under the hoods. Both ran low 16's. (We're at 3075 feet elevation.) If you had a newer GT, and you just floored it in drive, shouldn't it run better than 16's? I can understand someone not knowing how to drive a stick, but an auto?? What are the magazines quoting for 1/4 mile times? Can these engines (4.6 3 valve) really make 300 horsepower as delivered? Al > Questions: At the drags yesterday I kept a close eye on two newer GT's. One > automatic, one 5 speed. Both appeared stock, but I did not see under the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are the magazines quoting for 1/4 mile times? Can these engines (4.6 3 > valve) really make 300 horsepower as delivered? I'm not Patrick but from all the dyno runs I have seen for the 3 valve engines show they produce a solid 300 hp. In fact, they may be slightly under rated and seem to respond nicely (20-30 rwhp increase) to a few tuning tweaks. IMO, ET's at the drag strip aren't necessarily good indicator of HP under the hood. Most drivers aren't that good, make errors, tires don't hook up, track conditions are bad etc. and these things greatly affect times. Trap speed can be a better indication of horsepower than ET. If they are trapping high numbers then the horsepower is there and something else is causing the high ETs. > Questions: At the drags yesterday I kept a close eye on two newer GT's. One > automatic, one 5 speed. Both appeared stock, but I did not see under the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are the magazines quoting for 1/4 mile times? Can these engines (4.6 3 > valve) really make 300 horsepower as delivered? Al, You must have either the slowest 3-valve GTs and/or the worst drivers of these cars in the country. These cars are easy low-14 second pieces (at sea level). In your area (3K feet of elevation), if these guys can't cut a sub 15, they should trade them in for Kias. What are there trap speeds? Patrick > > Questions: At the drags yesterday I kept a close eye on two newer GT's. One > > automatic, one 5 speed. Both appeared stock, but I did not see under the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Patrick Don't really remember. I'll watch next race. Been watching them for a long time. Don't see any stockers running 14's here. Al > <NoOptio...@aol.com> wrote in message > > > Questions: At the drags yesterday I kept a close eye on two newer GT's. > One [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > are the magazines quoting for 1/4 mile times? Can these engines (4.6 3 > > > valve) really make 300 horsepower as delivered? > > Al, > > You must have either the slowest 3-valve GTs and/or the worst drivers > > of these cars in the country. > > These cars are easy low-14 second pieces (at sea level). In your area > > (3K feet of elevation), if these guys can't cut a sub 15, they should > > trade them in for Kias. > > What are there trap speeds? > Don't really remember. I'll watch next race. Been watching them for a long > time. Don't see any stockers running 14's here. They have 300 net = about 250-260 RW and they weigh about 3,400-3,500 pounds. They should be running as hard or harder than a '96-'97 Cobra but get a better hook due to better weight distro. Patrick > Al >><NoOptio...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Patrick Long time no see, Patrick. Been a while since I cruised RAMFM. In any event - just for historical purposes, my '97 Cobra ran 13.8 @ 100.7 with about a 2.0 60' time (I know I'm not the world's best driver) with Nitto 555DRs and a Tri-ax - otherwise stock car/weight. Track elevation there was 1250'. It's pretty sad if these guy in new GTs can't even break into the 15's. Traction control (or lack thereof) a factor? On the miserable street tires the car came with (not the originals) I was in the high 14's / low 15's if I remember right, as I couldn't hook to save my life. How's everything been? JS > Long time no see, Patrick. Been a while since I cruised RAMFM. Hey, JS! > In any event - just for historical purposes, my '97 Cobra ran 13.8 @ > 100.7 with about a 2.0 60' time (I know I'm not the world's best driver) > with Nitto 555DRs and a Tri-ax - otherwise stock car/weight. Track > elevation there was 1250'. It's pretty sad if these guy in new GTs > can't even break into the 15's. Traction control (or lack thereof) a > factor? I know! It's sad. Perhaps the traction control being left on is it, but I can't imagine the performance being affected that much. I do know these cars rock. I enjoyed the hell out of my '05 test drive! > On the miserable street tires the car came with (not the originals) I > was in the high 14's / low 15's if I remember right, as I couldn't hook > to save my life. But the mph was there, as it should be with these cars. At sea level, they should be trapping over 100 mph. > How's everything been? Good!. My '93 keeps humming along. It's now at 125K miles. I need about another 100 horses, but I am not going to mess with it until it needs to be freshened. Then it'll either be a stout new crate motor or I'll get something new(er). An '05 GTO, Hemi car, 3-valve GT and a WRX head the list, but who knows... oh, and can't wait to see/drive the new Camaro! Do you still have your '97? Patrick >>Long time no see, Patrick. Been a while since I cruised RAMFM. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > know these cars rock. I enjoyed the hell out of my '05 test > drive! I haven't had any seat time behind the '05's, though I'd love to. Glad to hear you got to give one a rip! I'm thinking maybe traction control was turned off and the drivers couldn't handle the car. Maybe they'd be better leaving it on? >>On the miserable street tires the car came with (not the originals) I >>was in the high 14's / low 15's if I remember right, as I couldn't hook >>to save my life. > > But the mph was there, as it should be with these cars. At sea level, > they should be trapping over 100 mph. Agreed. If my '97 Snake can trap over 100 mph at just about 1/4 mile above sea level, these cars should be running much, much harder than the times show. >>How's everything been? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > WRX head the list, but who knows... oh, and can't wait to see/drive > the new Camaro! Yours is a '93 Cobra, right? Glad to hear it's still running strong. I'd love to have a '93 Cobra to go along with the '97 - always was a sucker for a Fox. I know the feeling of needing a bit more power... my daily toy is a '95 Eclipse GSX with 158k on it... it's noisy (famous Chrysler 4-cylinder lifter click), but still quick. Just needs a bit more balls. Another 100hp would be great! My friend's building a 600hp turbo/nitrous Talon... so it makes me wish I had just a bit more. A few months ago I saw the prototype Camaro - wasn't impressed with the styling. I thought Ford hit the mark with the Mustang but GM missed it a bit with the Camaro. I think it'll be a fun car to drive, but I'm not huge on the styling. Whatever you buy, I'm sure you'll have a good time test driving all of them. > Do you still have your '97? Yeah, but I didn't take it with me when I moved to NY. It's back in PA, safe in a garage. I miss it - last time I took it for a spin was in June. I'll probably be back in PA in a few years' time, then it's time for Mustang fun again. JS > Patrick |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.