|
Post by MercuryMan on Feb 2, 2006 19:01:53 GMT -4
Just as a side note: I have a stock shortblock 1994 roller 5.0 HO from a stang in my 63 Merc. I did a 600 Holley carb conversion, hooker super comps, stock HO cam, 1.7rr's and removed the t-bump from the exhaust ports on the stock E7 heads....That's it. It made 208RWHP/286.5ftlbs through my C4 and a stock 8" rearend on the chassis dyno. On 14x5 rims, 205/70/14 tires and a peg leg diff it ran 14.4 @ 95mph at a 3400lb race weight with the driver - that's a verified scaled weight. It had severe traction issues and a busted diff at the 1320 mark on my one and only run that day.
I took it back again the following year, with a narrowed 9" diff installed, 14x8 rear wheels, 235/60/14 tires and a peg leg diff. This time it ran a 14.69 @ 94.5mph at a 3500lb race weight with traction issues again. My car is longer and not near as drag friendly as a stang...If a mostly stock 5.0 can push my car to that time then I don't see why a stang wouldn't dip into the 13 second zone.......Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by 347tony on Feb 2, 2006 21:05:16 GMT -4
it's always great to see somebody on the same page mercury man. drop that 3500 to 2900 and loose most of the traction issues and what do you get, ummmm a mustang that runs 13.50s .
|
|
|
Post by stangmann on Feb 8, 2006 3:58:04 GMT -4
im one of the biggest mustang fans around, we have a 98 gt vert and ive got a fox, and the best i could pull was a 14.7 from my fox stock..well mostly. but i do feel if i removed weight (even had spare tire and jack in) and put on some smaller wheels, 17x9s were on, and got traction, ive3 got slicks on 10 holers for this season.. plus had her cooler, i will run say a 14.20, and i have over 220km on the motor..so theres no doubt to me a notchback 5.0 would run a solid 13 with a bit of tuning.
edit: 347 tony what kind of 60 foot times and mph did ur guys 13.50's come with??
|
|
|
Post by 347tony on Feb 8, 2006 13:36:04 GMT -4
yes me to and i've got a notchback here that did run 13.51@ 101.8mph and my buddys hatchback with 210.000kms went 13.54@100mph mind you these cars did both have t5s and streetslicks. but both were stock motors 14degrees timing headlite removed with a ram air tube mounted to the tb via the elbow, no nitrous no power adders whatsoever. and i suspect you'll see a few more posts from other guys i know that have also ran 50s and 60s. with a stock mustang.
|
|
|
Post by 347tony on Feb 8, 2006 13:38:16 GMT -4
thats with 1.8/ 1.9 60 foots .high 1.8 low 1.9
|
|
|
Post by 78SS on Feb 8, 2006 22:17:40 GMT -4
Not to start the thread a pounding again, but who here has anything to say about anybody's build? If he wanted to put a cummins diesel in his car - who are we to judge.
Stock mustangs weren't that quick, neither were Camaro's, Dusters, anything from the good ol' days. It takes work, money, smarts to get em moving. If you had of taken a stock LX 5 speed with 5 km on the clock off the showroom floor - they ran high/mid14's. In perspective, that made them quick - my monte might have gotten a 15.7 with the 5.0 sbc.
Point in fact - there's another Mustang gone Chevy at every track in the maritimes and it does pretty well running pro and S/pro (on the same day) with a warmed over chevy. Just ask Kandy.
|
|
|
Post by craig on Feb 9, 2006 0:57:28 GMT -4
Not to start the thread a pounding again, but who here has anything to say about anybody's build? If he wanted to put a cummins diesel in his car - who are we to judge. Kind of funny you mention that. Just last week I was sitting around and my mind started to wonder (as it often does ;D ) and was wondering if anyone had tried putting a new Duramax (or any new turbo diesel really) into a car for racing. It'd sure as hell be different and with all the tuning upgrades available for them you could really make a lighter car fly. I mean if you can get a 7000lb or so truck doing 12's, just imagine the same set up in a 3000lb car. Just some food for thought ;D
|
|
|
Post by 347tony on Feb 9, 2006 9:14:18 GMT -4
don't matter if theres 1km on the clock! street slicks short belt pipe for ram air and 2.73 gears in a notch back and it runs in the 13s, i'm afraid you have been misinformed if you think this isn't the case. so i guess your gonna have to warm over that 175hp 350 to keep up with a STOCK 302 as i stated before. ps, 225hp & 300ftlbs torque. the math is pretty easy.
|
|
Kent
Full Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by Kent on Feb 9, 2006 10:55:25 GMT -4
I don't have any thing to say about the Mustangs, but in reply to what road rage was wondering about the diesels running in race cars, a guy in the states has a rail car with a rebuild 5.9 Cummins burning Bio-diesel, running high 7 sec 1/4 mile time. I believe the site is cumminsracing.com.
|
|
|
Post by 78SS on Feb 9, 2006 18:22:22 GMT -4
Well Gees, I guess my old Lemans must have been a 12s beast, cause with 2.29's a single track and a stock 77 350 (crap open chamber heads) used to blow the doors off stock fox's for fun. The 305 had 180HP stock - I'd say the 350 had a wee bit more.
The Mustang had it's advantage in weight - My car probably gives up 600lbs to one. You can definately build a more punchy 350 for less $$ than a 302 to achieve similar power - so why not build a more powerfull motor for less and drop it in a lighter car?
If the 302 is all that - why are ford boys running 351's? I mean the way you say it - with a paperclip and a few elastics - you should be able to build 400hp no problem.
|
|