thi is a little thing i got going with my bro ... just got my new mustang ... havent done ne thing to it ... and he has his old eagle all stock ... which would win ...

shit forgot to mention ... its an eagle talon .... 1998 TSi Turbo AWB

its just not fair :biggrin2: .... lol its ok ... when i put in my turbo charger ... intercooler and the rest of my mods buy the end of the summer ... i'll be do9ing about 11 secs
high tens if i get it dyno tuned.

and imma make the back seats removable and since its a convertable imma put the special body kit to cover all the shit up ... gonna reduce the weight .... carbon fibre hood ... and carbon fibre bumpers ... putting in air ride ... lowering it ... and sum other shit ... 20 grand worth of mods ... im gonna beat nething him and his stupid eagle can put out ... i better ... i dont wanna loose my new car :bloated:

ez

Peter

Originally posted by extreem_boi
its just not fair :biggrin2: .... lol its ok ... when i put in my turbo charger ... intercooler and the rest of my mods buy the end of the summer ... i'll be do9ing about 11 secs
high tens if i get it dyno tuned.

and imma make the back seats removable and since its a convertable imma put the special body kit to cover all the shit up ... gonna reduce the weight .... carbon fibre hood ... and carbon fibre bumpers ... putting in air ride ... lowering it ... and sum other shit ... 20 grand worth of mods ... im gonna beat nething him and his stupid eagle can put out ... i better ... i dont wanna loose my new car :bloated:

ez

Peter
please check out ricer racing excuses (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/t111782.html)

the tsi would win stock vs. stock. that's almost like racing a wrx.

lol ... are u insulting me .... dont worry the mods will put it over the top ... expecting around 600 hp ....

love the flag ... ukrainian pride !!!!!!!!!!:bigthumb: :loser: :iceslolan :dogpile:

for me, i dont have car, altho my CAR thing says the Eclipse GSX, i didnt want to do it, but o well. I go all out for the 1998 Tsi Turbo AWD. but if u gonna mod ur Mustang THAT much, i dunno if its gonna hit 11s, if yo bro modifies that DSM like u, wit out all the show car stuff, i think he will beat u wit the AWD.

lucky thing hes broke :dogpile: .... the turbocharger kit is gonna cost me about 9 grand american .... ive been guarenteed atleast 11 seconds or im not paying... they said itll prob be mid 10s .... so high cause of the weight .... still really loaded down

alright stock GSX and TSi's aren't too quick. they are a high 14 second car. so you should have no problems beating him. however, those cars with just bolt ons will run low 13's. esp the first gens. beware of the old wedges

Stock for stock you'll smoke him no problem.
Include an engine rebuild along with the cost of your turbo, along with a driveline rebuild, custom exhaust setup, and a valvetrain upgrade. If the turbo kit alone is going to cost you $9000, I wouldn't be surprised if you eclipse your $20k mark. All that to run 11s or high 10s? Trust me when I say there are better, easier, and more cost efficient ways to do the same. But then again, nothing else can match the novelty of a turbo V8.
Oh, and you WILL be getting it dyno-tuned, that's a no brainer. You wouldn't be able to drive it otherwise, I'm sure.

Originally posted by extreem_boi
its just not fair :biggrin2: .... lol its ok ... when i put in my turbo charger ... intercooler and the rest of my mods buy the end of the summer ... i'll be do9ing about 11 secs
high tens if i get it dyno tuned.

and imma make the back seats removable and since its a convertable imma put the special body kit to cover all the shit up ... gonna reduce the weight .... carbon fibre hood ... and carbon fibre bumpers ... putting in air ride ... lowering it ... and sum other shit ... 20 grand worth of mods ... im gonna beat nething him and his stupid eagle can put out ... i better ... i dont wanna loose my new car :bloated:

ez

Peter

Oh, and by the way...Having an airbag suspension setup is enough to make you fail tech at every track I know of...So you'll never know if you make your 11 or 10 second goals:biggrin2:

theres a track near my place that'll run nething ... so shudnt be a prob to get my time ... and the mid tens is the highest time ... im garenteed that or i dont have to pay for it ..(friend of mine) .... it can prob run 9s

Originally posted by Self
Stock for stock you'll smoke him no problem.
im not too sure of that... i thought the tsi will take him

it would prolly be really really close.

nope. the GSX run's a high 14 stock. a GT runs a low 14

wow... didn't know the new gt's are that fast..............


edit: are you sure? i have stats here that tell me the 2002 runs a 15.1. does the 03 have a different engine?

bad source. the new gt's are pretty quick an i've seen them hit the low 14's (stock cept for an exhaust system).

i'd put my money on the stang as well (that hurt to say)

Originally posted by mynismo
wow... didn't know the new gt's are that fast..............


edit: are you sure? i have stats here that tell me the 2002 runs a 15.1. does the 03 have a different engine?



Yea i have that same info and its from a car and driver.. i guess car and driver's drivers varey from year to year

tha't cause C&D's drivers suck. They can't drive for crap. I've seen bone stock AUTO 'vert GTs hitting mid to low 14's with a good driver. That's with the added weight and auto tranny. Now imagine a coupe 5spd with a good driver.

That convertible is gonna look ugly with a rollcage in it....


Sorta need one if you're running anything faster than 11.9's I believe.

Yea, horrible source that gave you 15s. I've driven an '02 MYSELF to a 14.3 with a 2.0x 60'. And that was an auto. I'm sure someone could pull a bit better than that with a manual and equivalent 60'.

Well, it is a little harder to launch the Mustang, with the Talon you just have to rev up and ride the clutch a little... The Mustang, you have to keep it high enough not to bog, and and not spin your tires...

Stock for stock, the Mustang will win by a good half second, driver skills being equal. With $1000 into each, the DSM has the edge.

Silver_GTR34, if he has a 3300lb 600hp Mustang, the DSM would need around 500hp just to keep up. AWD won't make any difference at that point, since the front of the car will lift off the ground, or at least take enough weight off of it that it'll have no traction. Unless you want to completely revise the suspension and add a wheelie bar, which means the Mustang would also beat it in the corners...

Trying to keep up with a car that has more than twice as much displacement in a drag race is a pretty silly, unless you have major advantages. If both cars have OHC valvetrain, turbocharger(s) and enough traction, the Mustang is going to win. It's 4.6 liters vs 2.0 liters. Actually, if he's expecting 600rwhp, he's going to need a steel crank, so he could stroke the engine past 5 liters at that point.

THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT. Technology is not a replacement, it's merely efficiency.

Originally posted by Cbass
THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT. Technology is not a replacement, it's merely efficiency.


See signature for comfirmation of above statements:iceslolan

Tell it like it is! :sunglasse

The newer mustang GT 5 speeds are running high 13s with a good driver and launch.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0
The newer mustang GT 5 speeds are running high 13s with a good driver and launch.

Unfortunately never seen it happen after watching upwards of ~50 newer mustangs make passes at the track. So until I see it, I don't believe it. Especially with mags claiming they can only manage a 15:eek7: I don't believe that either, but 13s is a little far-fetched as well.

if I recall correctly, a stock new GT will run high 5s to 60 mph and the talon/eclipse AWD turbo runs mid 6s to 60 mph. So there it is.

Originally posted by Self


Unfortunately never seen it happen after watching upwards of ~50 newer mustangs make passes at the track. So until I see it, I don't believe it. Especially with mags claiming they can only manage a 15:eek7: I don't believe that either, but 13s is a little far-fetched as well.

If you have seen it or not really isnt a determing factor. There are numerous mag test showing high 13s, granted they are mustang mags, but I dont think they would flat out lie about it. The 15s quoted by car and driver are really lame, and I read the article when they tested it, an auto convertable. Thats the heaviest mustang with the worst trans, being tested by very conservative drivers.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0


If you have seen it or not really isnt a determing factor. There are numerous mag test showing high 13s, granted they are mustang mags, but I dont think they would flat out lie about it. The 15s quoted by car and driver are really lame, and I read the article when they tested it, an auto convertable. Thats the heaviest mustang with the worst trans, being tested by very conservative drivers.

Maybe Self is at a slower track? Remember, different parts of the country can yield different times.

hey hey ppl ... thnx for the replies ... im trying to get the weight down but still keeping it a daily driver ... does neone know of a quick release system that can be put in to take out the back seats and put then back in .... for races and vice versa.... and i took my car down to the track ... im a decent driver (i hope ... lol) from what people tell me .... and the time was 14.7 seconds with no mods

Car-Stats.com Report for 2002 Ford Mustang GT
Obtained from C&D November, 2002
0-60: 6.3 Transmission: Automatic
1/4 Mile: 15.1
1/4 Speed: 93


not making this up people... :biggrin:

i guess c&d just sucks. i know they also say a dohc 240 runs 16.1 but i heard of a few people running 15.5 on completely stock engine.

Originally posted by mynismo
Car-Stats.com Report for 2002 Ford Mustang GT
Obtained from C&D November, 2002
0-60: 6.3 Transmission: Automatic
1/4 Mile: 15.1
1/4 Speed: 93


not making this up people... :biggrin:

i guess c&d just sucks. i know they also say a dohc 240 runs 16.1 but i heard of a few people running 15.5 on completely stock engine.


I know, I read the article. I think they must have been running above 5000ft:rolleyes: But, based on that 1/4 mile speed something was amiss.

DAMN, 500 HP for the GSX to win... o well. i jus like the AWD launch then, yep. Well, wut about the Evo 8 wit the same mods?

Originally posted by Silver_GTR34
DAMN, 500 HP for the GSX to win... o well. i jus like the AWD launch then, yep. Well, wut about the Evo 8 wit the same mods?

the point is...once u have that much power, the awd is useless, because the front wheels will leave the ground, or be barely touching the ground (for MOST AWD cars).

but awd at lower h/p ratings are great...VERY tough to beat in 60'.

the point is...once u have that much power, the awd is useless, because the front wheels will leave the ground, or be barely touching the ground (for MOST AWD cars).

but awd at lower h/p ratings are great...VERY tough to beat in 60'.






YES, Exactly, the front weels might not leave the ground, but have minimal effect, the drawback this is the extra drag of the front axle spinning..

It would actually take more than a 500 hp Talon to beat a 600 Stang, more like a 700 hp Talon... as the bigger engine is going to have a Flatter torque curve.....


As long as they both do not have or both have simuler boost, there is no substtitute for cubic inches, esp in this case of 2.0 vs around 5.0...

Nothing can top a good running Turbo V8...

25 lbs a boost on a 3.0 6 cylener from a Skyline or supra might yeild 600-700 hp, but the same boost on a Chevy 454 Rat motor would yeild well OVER twice that much HP..


Turbo kits are expensive for V8's...
it's almost more economical to build up the Stangs v8 without a turbo... should be able to get mid 12's easy with $3000 mods, and add a good fuel pump, 1/2 fuel line for the 250 shot NOS kit,, another $800... low 11's no prop.. way less than $9g's..

good luck

scott

What is the transmissions on the cars if they are both 5 speeds then it wont make much of a difference but if they are different then there could be a big difference

Originally posted by Donham

25 lbs a boost on a 3.0 6 cylener from a Skyline or supra might yeild 600-700 hp, but the same boost on a Chevy 454 Rat motor would yeild well OVER twice that much HP.. scott

:) aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh someone intellegent in the ways of motors

Originally posted by Donham

25 lbs a boost on a 3.0 6 cylener from a Skyline or supra might yeild 600-700 hp, but the same boost on a Chevy 454 Rat motor would yeild well OVER twice that much HP..



LOL, are you STILL on this rant?

You know what, you are right...question is, can that rat-motor with that much boost be a daily-driver, like the Supra and the Skyline is capable of with that boost?

You can engineer your motor of choice to have the same boost-carrying power as the over-engineered 3.0 liters...but, will it be the same motor?