I Have A Mustang Problem!!!

----I own a 1979 Mercury Capri which i raced against a honda crx and lost, i thought it would have won but it didn't. it has a Mustang 302 V8 small block engine and a 4 Barrel Carter copetition carb, it is a 3 speed automatic, and i recently put 15W-40 in it. How come it couldnt beat the honda? and is there anything i can do to make it go faster????? could it be the timing??? or is it the oil, it used to have 5W and it used to have a 2 barrel, i just put the 4 bar. carter on, should i have used a holly? would that make a difference?

Hondas can be made hella fast for cheap. I mean, he may have just worked that thing up, CRXs aren't called pocket rockets for nothing. I've seen some of them work over some bad ass cars, and as much as I dislike Honda (I blame them for starting the rice craze), I know lots of Hondas that kick ass in racing, so dont feel to bad.

I'd like to help you with your car, but when it comes to old school cars, I dunno dirt from dogshit, but plenty of other people should be able to help.

i blamed the transmission, if i put a 5 speed in it i think it would go a hella faster

----I own a 1979 Mercury Capri which i raced against a honda crx and lost, i thought it would have won but it didn't. it has a Mustang 302 V8 small block engine and a 4 Barrel Carter copetition carb, it is a 3 speed automatic, and i recently put 15W-40 in it. How come it couldnt beat the honda? and is there anything i can do to make it go faster????? could it be the timing??? or is it the oil, it used to have 5W and it used to have a 2 barrel, i just put the 4 bar. carter on, should i have used a holly? would that make a difference?

A 79 Mercury Capri is not a heavy car but it is definetly heavy when put next to a CRX. Add that to the fact that your 1979 stock 2-barrel motor only made 140hp stock, plus the auto eating up 15-20% of that before it gets to the rear wheels and it's no wonder you got beat.

You want to make some decent power goto a junkyard get a 87-93 5.0 H.O. motor. Take the fuel injection stuff off, throw a good 4-barrel intake and your carb on there and put it in.

Also ditch the single y-pipe exhuast, get a whole dual exhuast(exhuast headers back) of an 87-93 and you'll be set for a while.

no no, the capri does have a 4 barrell on it, how much horsepower is that then? it already has dual exhaust

just blame ford

I thought the capri was a chevy. Oh well, honda chalks up another win!!! Wooohhh!! Just kidding man. CRX's as extremely light cars, and when you put enough HP into them, they fly like crazy. Oh well. I'm sure you'll figure something out. Late...

don't feel too bad mate. Crx's are really fast like everyone mentioned, plus there are soooooo many different engines that people put into their crx's. If this crx had an engine anywhere from a B16 to a B18 then its pushing between 160-200hp in stock trim. add that to the light weight and your auto slowing you down and it all makes sense.

no no, the capri does have a 4 barrell on it, how much horsepower is that then? it already has dual exhaust

Does it have a 4-barrel intake? What intake did you use?

Honestly not all 302 are created equal through the years. Your 302 just is anemic in the hp department and a slapping a 4-barrel intake and carb , and true dual from stock cast manifolds,is not gonna fix it. Maybe you added 20 horsepower but I doubt it. Your engine has bigger problems.

Your 79 had only 140hp, by 82 the 5.0 H.O. made 157hp with a 2V marine cam, 2Vcarb, alumnium intake and improved head design.

By 83 the 302 H.O. made 175HP, from a Holley 4180C 4-barrel carb, aluminum 4-barrel intake, improved exhuast ports on the heads and a better flowing exhuast set-up.

So your motor has a worse cam, worse heads, maybe a better intake, carb, exhuast. If you were lucky you'd be making 175HP. I had a stock 83 GT 5-speed and it was nothing to right home about performance wise stock. So it's not that there is anything wrong with your 79 capri it's just the way it is.... it's not that fast.

you're seriously worried that the oil made you lose?

oh my god.

----I Have A Mustang Problem!!!

What Mustang doesn't :tongue:



[jk]

Just get a Ford Racing 347 crate motor and be done with it. It'd surely haul some ass.

haha and cost three or four times as much as a complete CRX, if not more.

get a real car, something that performs.

haha and cost three or four times as much as a complete CRX, if not more.

get a real car, something that performs.


It will perform with the right tuning. A simple carb and intake swap won't do much other than make it sound better.


a Single plane intake, 600-650cfm 4 barrel mechanical secondaries, aluminum heads, high lift cam and a good set of full length headers will get the motor going good.

Unfortunately, it's low compression will hurt it. So, rebuilding the old motor for a bit high compression or swapping in a crate motor would be ideal.

yeah but redneck.... didn't you dump the old iron for some proper performance in your z?

just blame ford
ouch.

chevys been lettn me down lately though

whats wrong with your ride?

yeah but redneck.... didn't you dump the old iron for some proper performance in your z?


I still have my Nova. I just prefer the Z... I can make it go just as fast as a domestic if need be, and I can go drive on the back roads if I want.

Something older muscle cars can't really do unless you spend a crap load of money on suspension.

My Z is my four wheel motorcycle. Minus all the annoying wind noise and buffeting.

GStang your sig is incorrect.

#1 It can and has been beaten.
#2 ALL Mustangs are stock?
http://hotrodder.com/2qwk2c/
#3 GM Stated that the LS1 directly from the factory would run between 13.4 and 13.7 in the quarter-mile.
#4 I know for a fact, and have seen stock 2003 Mustangs run less than 13 seconds flat.
#5 Can't really comment...
#6 " " "
#7 " " "
#8 " " "
#9 The LT1 can beat the Mustang from the factory, but as far as price-for-power goes, the Mustang will beat it with aftermarket parts, summing up to about the same price as an LT1. And the LS1 cannot beat the LT1 from the factory.
#10 Not even stock LS1s can surpass 160mph in the quarter-mile.
#11 That's the reason trans-brakes were invented.
#12 Hoping your passenger isn't your son or daughter.
#13 A tuned LS1 isn't stock.
#14 Refer to #1 if you think the stock LS1 will out-perform a Mustang 100% of the time.


^_^ No flame intended, I was just in the mood to prove someone wrong in my own self-denial that LS1s could possibly be better than Mustangs.

GStang your sig is incorrect.

#1 It can and has been beaten.
#2 ALL Mustangs are stock?
http://hotrodder.com/2qwk2c/
#3 GM Stated that the LS1 directly from the factory would run between 13.4 and 13.7 in the quarter-mile.
#4 I know for a fact, and have seen stock 2003 Mustangs run less than 13 seconds flat.
#5 Can't really comment...
#6 " " "
#7 " " "
#8 " " "
#9 The LT1 can beat the Mustang from the factory, but as far as price-for-power goes, the Mustang will beat it with aftermarket parts, summing up to about the same price as an LT1. And the LS1 cannot beat the LT1 from the factory.
#10 Not even stock LS1s can surpass 160mph in the quarter-mile.
#11 That's the reason trans-brakes were invented.
#12 Hoping your passenger isn't your son or daughter.
#13 A tuned LS1 isn't stock.
#14 Refer to #1 if you think the stock LS1 will out-perform a Mustang 100% of the time.


^_^ No flame intended, I was just in the mood to prove someone wrong in my own self-denial that LS1s could possibly be better than Mustangs.


gtstang was being sarcastic
and where do you get a lt1 can beat a ls1 from the factory?
you have no idea about cars if you even considered a stock ls1 can reach 160 in the quarter, ls1 top speed stock is 158

best stock timefor a ls1 in the quarter i have seen is 12.88

thats impressive without wheels..... thats the fastest wheel-less engine i ever saw!

can an LS1 get a street sweeper to 160 on the quarter?

thats impressive without wheels..... thats the fastest wheel-less engine i ever saw!

can an LS1 get a street sweeper to 160 on the quarter?

only if it has a type-r badge on it or a spoiler

haha... better paint it candy red just to be sure

Yeah, and I have no idea where you got that crackhead idea that and LS1 tops off, stock, at 158. It doesn't. If it did, why wouldn't everyone use it? And an LT1 beats an LS1 because of it's torque, which is proven just about every year by a car at the Hot Rod Nationals. You should pick up HotRod magazine sometime and read it, if not Hot Rod maybe another magazine that doesn't fill you full of 158-mph dreams with a stock motor.


*edit* Oh and if you had read correctly, I didn't say a stock LS1 could do 160 in the quarter. Read before you flame me please.

WAIT WAIT WAIT...

i'm getting confused... you are talking the engines right?

perhaps i needed to be more obvious but an engine cant get up the quarter at all by itself, nor does it have a top speed over ZERO unless dropped off a cliff or pushed down a hill! You guys need to clarify what the engine is used in before theres any point discussing these figures. as i tried to highlight, its not gonna get near that in a street sweeper (well unless it is a type R with a spoiler), but if you put it in a mini with a decent ratio etc. and it should fly! before theres any point discussing speed and times you need to mount it in something. All the engine does is REV and put out power and Torque, so discuss them! and do it somewhere else like the Chevy forum or something.

Yeah, and I have no idea where you got that crackhead idea that and LS1 tops off, stock, at 158. It doesn't. If it did, why wouldn't everyone use it? And an LT1 beats an LS1 because of it's torque, which is proven just about every year by a car at the Hot Rod Nationals. You should pick up HotRod magazine sometime and read it, if not Hot Rod maybe another magazine that doesn't fill you full of 158-mph dreams with a stock motor.


*edit* Oh and if you had read correctly, I didn't say a stock LS1 could do 160 in the quarter. Read before you flame me please.


hmm do do do hot rod nationals maybe mod lt1 beats a mod ls1. ihave this little thing called experience you might not of heard of it, i have owned a lt1 and ls1 the, ls1 is faster

lastly ive had my ls1 at 158 so fuck off

oh nice.... especially with that sig of yours...

#10 Not even stock LS1s can surpass 160mph in the quarter-mile.

what does that mean ?

i would like to know something stock that could pass 160 in the 1/4 bc im pretty sure there isnt a car out there stock that can take the 1/4 over 130

Will you guys shut up?

Jeeze you bicker like little girls. GTstangs Sig is a joke, learn to laugh once in a while.

Good Call Redneck

what does that mean ?

i would like to know something stock that could pass 160 in the 1/4 bc im pretty sure there isnt a car out there stock that can take the 1/4 over 130


Mercedes CLK GTR runs the 1/4 mile in about...9.6 seconds at, if I'm not mistaken, around 150-160. Among other cars, I'm sure. And my father owned an LS1 Camaro...stock, ran the 1/4 mile, and I was looking at his timeslips...he never passed 160. He also took it to the local track for a few hours to mess around, never reached 160 on a 1-mile track. So...fight all you want about it, all I wanted to do, originally, was correct a sig...which was meant to be a joke, and it was made into an argument. I even said "No flame intended." I won't be checking this thread again, I believe it's purpose is gone.

My kill count has now=50 :smokin:

Mercedes CLK GTR runs the 1/4 mile in about...9.6 seconds at, if I'm not mistaken, around 150-160. Among other cars, I'm sure. And my father owned an LS1 Camaro...stock, ran the 1/4 mile, and I was looking at his timeslips...he never passed 160. He also took it to the local track for a few hours to mess around, never reached 160 on a 1-mile track. So...fight all you want about it, all I wanted to do, originally, was correct a sig...which was meant to be a joke, and it was made into an argument. I even said "No flame intended." I won't be checking this thread again, I believe it's purpose is gone.


:rolleyes:

1998 Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR

1/4:10.60 s
MPH:137.5 mph
http://www.japandomesticmotor.com/quartermiletime.html
http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?id1=145&id2=0

Jeeze.

WOOOO HOOOOOO another sig kill for GTstang. lol. You know with a screenname like GTstang and a sig like that, you would think that people had to know he is jokin around. :rolleyes: I guess people just have to prove they know it all.

Yeah, I really love that sig. It almost got me the first time I saw it then I read the name and it came to me hehe.

Hi,
It seems like you thread has been highjacked. Anyways, here is some help. The fundamental cork in the bottle for horsepower is the flow of air/fuel in and exhaust out. Here is what you need to do, in order of importance:
1. Add some headers, 1 5/8 inchers and a decent exhaust system. It will make a big difference and sound much better too.
2. A different intake, try the Weiand Stealth. Great low-end but single-plane like upper end.
3. Put on a decent 600 cfm vac secondary carb, ie Holley 4150
4. Make sure your ignition is up to snuff, new cap/rotor/wires/coil.
5. New cam - 302 cams from this era are pathetically weak. try something with around [email protected] duration, .475 lift or so.
6. Steeper rear-end gears, around 3.55's or so, compared to stock 2.73's.
7. Higher stall converter, ie 2500 or so.

Bingo, the above mods cost about around $1000 or so but you probably have 225 hp+ underhood now and dropped 2 secs of your quarter time. The Capri is very light, if stripped can easily be as light as a CRX. Make him kiss your ass next time.
Good luck

im thinking about buying a new car, what do you guys think about a 98 trans am ws6?

sell it

oh and formula 1 wizard i wasn't talking about your statement i was talking about the guys capri...pretty much any LS1 car is a winner so go for it...