Beat 98ish 'Stang GT

Damn right... and you can kiss my ass, SVT.

I'm up at the front of the stop light aith my subs blairing, on a quest to get to the mall to get my g\f something for christmas and this stang GT pulls up next to me and for some reason, takes my bass as a challenge. I faintly hear him revvin and flip the music off. I'm half a car behind him so I can see the big GT on the back (not to mention the nice big purple license plate light) and figured I'd get stomped but I'd still be fun since I hadn't had a race in a while. The light turns green and I got a great start. Almost full traction and a nice pull. I got half a car in front of him in 1st and maintained through second. I pulled more in 3rd and got almost a full car before we hit the next light. I was turning and we both ended up at the mall parking lot. The windows were tinted so I couldn't see the person. The way it shifted hinted that it was an auto. I still won.
Anyways... Highlight of my life. Woohoo... We're all happy.

It wasn't a GT, he wasn't racing you, he missed every shift, or he was running in 4 cylinder mode.

Nice kill man, dont even trip about readin the fools post bove this, notice it always seems to be a V-8 owner rippin on these racing threads. Theres nothin wrong with havin 4 extra cylinders, I like bigger engines, but that doesnt make ya'll unbeatable by foreign 4's.....

Sorry but this time I think I've got to agree with my good buddy Self... this story doesnt Add up correctly... I dont think the Mustang was trying.. or it was a V6.

With your current mods I highly doubt you could burn a GT stang. And if it was an Auto, its almost fool proof... meaning it cant miss a shift.

He must of not been trying, or it was a V6...I think it must of been a mistaken Identity on the owner of the Mustang... Like how people put Type-R badges on certain Hondas?

I can think of only one thing...
Did he have a loud exhaust? I know some people with really loud exhaust and it sounds like they're going really fast but they're not. And i'm talking about V8 cars. So it could of been a mistake???

Originally posted by mnd643
Nice kill man, dont even trip about readin the fools post bove this, notice it always seems to be a V-8 owner rippin on these racing threads. Theres nothin wrong with havin 4 extra cylinders, I like bigger engines, but that doesnt make ya'll unbeatable by foreign 4's.....

I'm not ripping on anyone's racing story, and I don't think V8s are unbeatable by any means. But what I do KNOW, is that the 260 horsepower of the GT would be MORE THAN enough to overcome a nearly stock EX. SO, either the Mustang was a badge-switching RICE BOY, or he wasn't racing, and it just sounded like he was going all out because of his loud exhaust. That's happened to me on more than one occasion. I'll pull up somewhere and people will ask me why I was speeding. I'll look at them like they're crazy and then tell 'em that I was only going 25, the car's just loud:D

low 15 sec cars stock

vs a high 16?

you have some mods, but the sound system you have would be enough to weigh it down to where you basically are stock...

1...could have been a gt and been trying, but screwed up a shift
2...engine could have been shot to hell, you defentally would have won
3...you could have gone into f&f mode and somehow hit your nos eventhough you dont have it, and won

(adding the 3 just for fun, not to be an ass :P)

Even if its a 6, good kill
if its an 8, ,better kill

eather way, good hunting, keep posting the kills :D

A couple things here. First, if you had to turn music off to really hear exhaust of GT then it was not packing a v8. More likely a heavy auto v6, that might pull a high 16 on a downhill slope on a cold day. Also. if there was a GT emblem on the back then it was not a 98 or older GT with the 215 hp rating... It would have to be a 99 or newer, since that is when they started putting the emblem on the back. So, in that case it would have 260 hp and run mid 14s with a good driver on a auto trans. So, I am quite sure your cold air induction and a shifter would not make up the 2 second deficit between your times and theirs. So, cyprus, It would be safe to say, you raced someone not racing. Very ricer like I might say. You may start kissing now.

To sum up all the other posts. Good kill - even on the chance he wasn't racing. ;)

Originally posted by YogsVR4
To sum up all the other posts. Good kill - even on the chance he wasn't racing. ;)

hehe, yes, that's pretty much the jist of it:D

Hey, svt. Theres this thing that happens a lot of the time when racing. It's called a driver. Some of them aren't very good and some of them are. A good driver can mean the largest difference in a race. Yes, he was racing, yes I did still beat him. unforseen variables can mean everything. I don't know if you want me kissing, I bite.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0
So, in that case it would have 260 hp and run mid 14s with a good driver on a auto trans.

14 seconds is pretty quick... at least compared to my econobox.

but having an Automatic pretty much eliminates the driver error...

i mean.. he cant miss a shift...


At least how i see it.

Hey guys. Haven't been on in a while. Saw this and HAD to respond.

I actually got the chance to cruise to Speedworld Motorplex here in Phoenix last Wednesday. Went with my bud who was doing tuning runs with his CRX. I would like to say that I saw a TON of Mustangs there that night. I even thought there might've been a Mustang meet or something...though I doubt it. Anyways, getting to my point, I watched every run that night and I'm here to tell everyone that the fastest I saw the newer Mustangs (99-up) run that night was about a 14.5. The 96-98 variety of Mustangs that night AVERAGED about mid-15's...with low 15's being the norm. I don't know whether they were stock or not, but some were louder than others...but even those ran only VERY high 14's. You could chalk it up to driver, but there were at least a dozen that ran that night...and I am sure that at least one of those guys knew how to marginally drive...which is what most Mustang people will claim it takes to take a '98 GT to 14's. The ones I mentioned above were the ones that didn't blow their launches...the ones that did ran 16's and there was a couple in the 17's.

Incidentally, there was a '01 EX that night that ran consistent 15's with a lowest pass of 15.6 with just I/H/E and removed back seats and passenger seats.

The best race for me that night was a blue '92-'95 Civic hatch on slicks that beat a black Z06(dunno what year Z06...I'm assuming '00). The Civic ran a 12.60 against the 'Vette's 12.90. The Civic guy even turned his hazards on right BEFORE the quarter-mark just to rub it in. Don't know what the Civic was running, but he definitely didn't have a turbo or SC...no BOV sounds or turbo spool-up or SC whine at all...mebbe nitrous? But then again, he never purged anything at all in his three runs...all-motor?(God help me if I claim that:rolleyes: )

Funny thing, after hearing about all these awesome Mustangs from SVT, all I could think about watching them at the track was what excuses he'd come up with for all these Mustangs not living up to his hype. Not trying to flame here, but that WAS what I was thinking.

For those of you that don't believe me, here's Speedworld's number...(623) 388-2424. It was the Wednesday night runs on the 18th of December.

P.S.: My friend's CRX was running on a supposed drag-only ECU that wouldn't let him shift past 7000RPMS...his best run was a 14.3 all-motor. Also, I saw this stupid 5.0 that was revving on me out in traffic a week earlier. I would've raced him for shits and giggles if there wasn't any traffic:rolleyes:...he looked pretty menacing with his unpainted cowl hood...he ran a 17.7:finger:.

Well there is some useful information. Thx carnutttt (No sarcasm, being serious). All i kno, is when i first read this i was with the others, simply because of the fact that IF it were a 99-up GT, then there wouldn't be much of a chance w/ out poor driving, or something of that sort.

I still think that the guy was running against a V6 auto, but thats only my opinion. this guy had full seats in, w/ a sub in the back. no way that a guy w/ 135hp (giving him 8hp from I/E) and running around 2600 lbs, is going to beat even a 96-98 w/ OUT it being a poor driver.

any who...still a good kill way to go Cyprus. :D

So, carrnutt are you saying that moddified mustangs only run high 14s to 15s stock? with a good driver? Because that is what is sounds like. Those are stock times for the respective years of the mustangs you where talking about, unless your at a track above 5k feet above sea level. Just because a mustang sounds "LOUDER" doesnt mean its modified other then exhaust. I would have though you would have known better then that Or is it you just look for any chance to take a shot at me? Sure there is always the senario where a driver screws up, it happens. But, in cyprus case he did not mention the GT spinning out, so that portion of the lauch was correct for the GT driver, leaving the source of error to be in shifting. Hmmm the consensus is it was an auto , not much room for a mistake there. Are Mustangs the fastest on earth?, No. Can a mostly stock mustang beat a mostly stock civic without any trouble, Yes. The difference in the two times is to great, even with major errors on part of the mustang driver, most likely he was not racing. But, if he was racing, he was a sorry driver or made a large driving error ( read. left trans in nuetral) If so, then jolly good kill cyprus.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0
So, carrnutt are you saying that moddified mustangs only run high 14s to 15s stock? with a good driver?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying I SAW what could've POSSIBLY been modified Mustangs based on the fact that they at LEAST had an exhaust. Besides, I'm not really making a statement, I'm stating a fact...there is a difference. They ran what they ran no matter what they had under the hood...which is nothing, you'd hope.

BTW, did you know the stock rated quarter-mile times for your '95 Cobra was 15 flat? Well...they are magazine times:rolleyes:.

I am saying you need to get off your damned high-horse when it comes to the Civic vs Mustang thing. You yourself said that it is not the fastest car in the world...then quit making an excuse for every damned Mustang loss you read about in this forum.

If people want to think that modded mustangs only run 15s, thats fine. Just wouldnt put any money down on a race if I was you. Just having a louder exhaust on a mustang is worth very little power if any, not what most people other then ricers would call modded.
As far as the times for my car stock, Car and Driver rated it at 0-60 in 6.1 and the 1/4 in 14.8 But, like you said its a magazine. When I first got the car, before I did anything to it other then the Coldair induction it ran a 14.2@99mph. Thats with a 2.3 60ft time. If I could have got some traction and got my 60ft time down, it would have put me into the high 13s. So, take magazine times with a grain of salt. So, why dont you hop off the "all mustangs are slow soap box"

Who knows, maybe you guys are right. It couldda been a V6, It did say GT on the back but I had my suspicions as to wether it was a real gt or not. With all of the tacky stuff the guy had on there he could have just glued it for all I know... but he was racing. That was fairly obvious. I don't know specs or times or details... Just what I saw.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0
If people want to think that modded mustangs only run 15s, thats fine. Just wouldnt put any money down on a race if I was you. Just having a louder exhaust on a mustang is worth very little power if any, not what most people other then ricers would call modded.
As far as the times for my car stock, Car and Driver rated it at 0-60 in 6.1 and the 1/4 in 14.8 But, like you said its a magazine. When I first got the car, before I did anything to it other then the Coldair induction it ran a 14.2@99mph. Thats with a 2.3 60ft time. If I could have got some traction and got my 60ft time down, it would have put me into the high 13s. So, take magazine times with a grain of salt. So, why dont you hop off the "all mustangs are slow soap box"

You pulled a 2.3 60' on a 14.2 @ 99?? Your car is an oddball:confused: If that's so, you have the potential to run around a 13.7 or 13.8 on a 1.9 to 2.0 60'...BUT, that being the case, your mph would be closer to 90 than 100...I'm guessing about 94mph or so. That doesn't add up. A car with, what, less than 300hp MPHing out at 93 and ETing mid-13s...It's just ODD:confused: :bloated:

Hmmm...according to a lil reading, the car is over 3300 lbs (stock), with under 300 hp? that'd be some good driving. not impossible tho. the S2000 weighs jus under 2900, an only pushes 240hp, yet, it can run high 13's. plus, a whole lot less torque. how much power did it have? its 240 stock rite? plus the 285lbs of torque...hmmmm....it'd be close. well...that was a waste of a post...jus out loud thinking :p

Well, I whent back to double check the timeslip to make sure I was thinking of the right one. Im number7 in the right lane, the only thing i was off on is the mph its 98.4 not the 99 I thought it was. The 99mph was on a later run with a lower E.T. I double checked the date, and in adition to cold air induction I also had an off road H-pipe. The guy in the left lane was a nitrous running trans am. Must have been running a pretty good shot because a couple runs later he blew up the motor half way down the track.

The cars are kinda on the heavy side, the before mentioned run was with a 1/4 tank of gas and no jack or spare and my 175 lb weight. The 240hp and 285 pounds of torque are underrated form ford, trying to jack up the new 4.6 that was coming out in mustangs in 96. If you look up the extra parts that seperate the 94 cobra from the 215 hp 94 GT, on just the motor you have the GT-40 heads, cobra intake, 24lb injectors, 1.7 roller rockers, revised cam , underdriven pullies, not to mention the suspension and trans differences. These parts would add more then the 25 hp that is listed as the difference between cobra and GT. Probably putting the cobra making closer to 275 or more. Just a theory that most 94/95 cobra people hold to.

In edit of my previous post, the car also had a superchips powerchip. Keep forgetting about it since it was on the car when I got it. But, its only worth a couple hp, since it really only advances the timing a bit.

so let's just clarify......wat's faster........a 1997 civic ex auto or a 1996 mustang v6 auto?.......both stock......????

Both with good drivers ( eliminate the driver error angle) the v6 mustang would be faster. So, good kill on the part of a stock civic taking down a stock v6 mustang.

So...you did have more than just CAI when you ran low 14's then? The chip you had in it alone should drop your quarter times almost a second due to the fact that in 1994, Ford re-chipped their 5.0s anticipating stricter emissions regulations. A year later, when they found out that they didn't have to do that, they used the original chip they have been using on their Cobras and gained the almost-second acceleration loss. if you check here (http://www.missouri.edu/~apcb20/times.html#Ford), you'll see that for the same production year as both cars, your car was running the same time as a Probe GT. The times in my link were run by actual owners who tested their STOCK cars on a track, and not by magazine testers, whom everybody seems to not trust. Also, if you notice, the same-year 'Stang GT as yours runs slightly quicker in the quarter. The low-volume Cobra of the same year, despite it's impressive hardware improvements, was just basically a replica of their Indy 500 pace-car, with the exception that the pace-car ran a less restrictive ECU. The GT, on the other hand, was built with the re-chipping in mind, which is why, as you probably know, a stock '94 Cobra benefits more from a re-chip than a stock '94 GT.

Also, you will notice that despite your claims, the Mustang V6 and the Civic EX/'92-'95 Si (with the 127HP SOHC VTEC) run in the same vicinity as far as acceleration times. Don't even claim driver error, since like I said, these times were run by various owners...and you claimed a lot faster for the GTs I saw running at the track...what? They all erred?

Go ahead, respond...live up to the nickname a few of us have given you...FORD NAZI.

P.S.: Regardless of whatever errors you might point out in my information above, I GUARANTEE I know more about your car than you'll ever WANT to know about mine...and THAT shows your narrow-mindedness.

Errors? Where did you get your info from? You cannot rechip the ECU in the 94/95 cobras, other then to slightly tweak the timing and fuel curve. Call up Superchips and ask, if you dont believe me. The only way to get pass the restrictive nature of the ecu is either replace the ENTIRE, ECU with either an aftermarket computer or get the harness swap and use the computer from a 93 cobra. The restrictive nature of the cobra ECU is not related to Emission controls, where you get your facts is anyones guess. ( read. you make them up) The restrictive nature is related to timing pulls between shifts, to help the weak T-5 to survive a bit longer, and timing pulls at around 200 deg coolant temp, to minimize pinging, which often plauged the 5.0 The chip I have in my car does the same thing I could do without it, such as change timing and adjust fuel pressure. Basically very little reduction in times.

The seacond loss in times between the 94 and the 95 cobra does not exist. Check facts not random times you find on the internet. Go to corral.net and ask what people run in the 94 and the 95 cobras stock. It is the same. They also have the exact same ECU, with the exact asame program. Check with SVT division at ford ( 1-800 -ford-svt)
Your link of times is an uncited source of collected internet time. Sure anybody can screw up a shift and run an 18 in the 1/4, does that make the cars max times an 18? I hope your brighter then you act. The Time posted by Car and Driver magazine is a 14.8 for the 94 cobra and 15.7 for the GT of the same year. Both from reputable magazines not some "shady" homemade source. http://www.car-stats.com/stats/showstats/showstatsgivenid.aspx So, check it out and see for your self. Frankly the more you open your mouth the more its obvious you know very little about anything other then your honda. Oh, and about being closed minded doesnt bother me, its the people like you who think their openminded, while their really more closed minded then the people they accuse. Besides, I have never given a darn about political correctness. And remeber you dont know jack obout my car. So, dont humour yourself, no one is laughing, but at you.

i agree with the domestic guys on this one. no fucking way he was trying. I have a hard time with 5.0s. the few 4.6s that i have raced have kicked my ass severely

I gotta put my opinion in on this, and I have to agree with 94Svt. No way it was a GT, also a stock V6 mustang is faster than a stock Civic. I read alot of shit talking on V6 mustangs (in other threads) and I have yet to see them preform as poorly as being accused. I have two friends that have 99 V6 mustang, and they will wax any stock civic. There are not very many modified V6 mustangs, at least not when compared to honda or acura. So if you have raced one and beat it, it is almost gaurentied to be stock, and there for not really worth bragging about unless you did it in a stock Civic. So IF he actually beat a mustang, then he and every other weed wacker exhaust sounding driver should celebrate, because it doesn't happen very often.

I should make my statement more clear, when I said my friends 99 V6 mustang waxes stock civics, I do not know specific years or models, I wouldn't say it waxed the Si, but definitly no problem with the lower based models.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0
The cars are kinda on the heavy side, the before mentioned run was with a 1/4 tank of gas and no jack or spare and my 175 lb weight. The 240hp and 285 pounds of torque are underrated form ford, trying to jack up the new 4.6 that was coming out in mustangs in 96. If you look up the extra parts that seperate the 94 cobra from the 215 hp 94 GT, on just the motor you have the GT-40 heads, cobra intake, 24lb injectors, 1.7 roller rockers, revised cam , underdriven pullies, not to mention the suspension and trans differences. These parts would add more then the 25 hp that is listed as the difference between cobra and GT. Probably putting the cobra making closer to 275 or more. Just a theory that most 94/95 cobra people hold to.

In edit of my previous post, the car also had a superchips powerchip. Keep forgetting about it since it was on the car when I got it. But, its only worth a couple hp, since it really only advances the timing a bit.

Just noticed this post...The 240hp can't be TOO underrated. And the car can't have anywhere near 275hp. I come to these conclusions using my car as an example. Stock times for the Lt1 Camaro/Firebird are 14 flat, nearly a second quicker than the stock Mustangs in question. The Lt1 cars have 275hp. This hp estimate isn't overrated, it isn't underrated, it is DEAD ON. Seen more stock LT1s than I can count(read 50+)dyno in and that number is right on. The Lt1 is also a heavier vehicle than the Mustang. If the Mustang had 275hp it would be running a couple tenths QUICKER than the Lt1, not 8 tenths SLOWER. In fact, if anything, those HP numbers are OVERRATED. And I'm also a member on The Corral. Your 14.2 and "could-have-been" 13 second run is GODLY compared to what everyone else ran there stock(or very close to it). Most runs were in the high 14s and low 15s.

Originally posted by Self


Just noticed this post...The 240hp can't be TOO underrated. And the car can't have anywhere near 275hp. I come to these conclusions using my car as an example. Stock times for the Lt1 Camaro/Firebird are 14 flat, nearly a second quicker than the stock Mustangs in question. The Lt1 cars have 275hp. This hp estimate isn't overrated, it isn't underrated, it is DEAD ON. Seen more stock LT1s than I can count(read 50+)dyno in and that number is right on. The Lt1 is also a heavier vehicle than the Mustang. If the Mustang had 275hp it would be running a couple tenths QUICKER than the Lt1, not 8 tenths SLOWER. In fact, if anything, those HP numbers are OVERRATED. And I'm also a member on The Corral. Your 14.2 and "could-have-been" 13 second run is GODLY compared to what everyone else ran there stock(or very close to it). Most runs were in the high 14s and low 15s.


Whatever your conclusion on your opinion of the rating of the cobra is just that, opinion. Some people would debate that all those LT1s are not under rated. Most stock 94/95 cobras dyno over what they should be making. Most run as fast as mine are faster when mostly stock. Try asking the question in 94/95 mustang tech section on www.corral.net/forums There are plenty of cobra owners on there with dyno sheets and track slips. And I should have been into the 13s with the 14.2 run, just it was my first time at the track and I was learning to launch.

hahahahahahh I laugh at this post ahhahaah..... But if you think you kill it then good for you.....

Originally posted by 94svt5.0



Whatever your conclusion on your opinion of the rating of the cobra is just that, opinion. Some people would debate that all those LT1s are not under rated. Most stock 94/95 cobras dyno over what they should be making. Most run as fast as mine are faster when mostly stock. Try asking the question in 94/95 mustang tech section on www.corral.net/forums There are plenty of cobra owners on there with dyno sheets and track slips. And I should have been into the 13s with the 14.2 run, just it was my first time at the track and I was learning to launch.

I already have;) Was told by most people that they had pulled high 14s and low 15s. You even replied I think, yours was by far the quickest time, especially since you should have been in the 13s. Not saying you're lying, just saying that you have an oddball. Which is definately possible.

And I'm one of the people who debates LT1s are underrated. I think the 275hp is DEAD ON. Seen tons and tons and tons of dyno runs with tons and tons of different cars, that rating is right on. Not over nor under rated at all. And it doesn't make sense that a lighter car with equal horsepower would run nearly a second slower than a heavier car with that same horsepower. That's all I'm saying. The Mustang doesn't dyno in at anybody's 275hp, seen lots and lots of those dyno too.

Under what name and how long ago did you post at corral? I posted the question about HP rating on 94/95s a long time ago, and the general consensus was they where under rated. I dont think they are makeing 275, just more then there rating. So, what are you saying an LT1 runs with its 275 hp? 14 flat? if thats the result of 275 hp then mine is running a little bit swifter then that, if I could gets some decent stick tires ( read: not bald) I would have had some 13s at the time.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0
Under what name and how long ago did you post at corral? I posted the question about HP rating on 94/95s a long time ago, and the general consensus was they where under rated. I dont think they are makeing 275, just more then there rating. So, what are you saying an LT1 runs with its 275 hp? 14 flat? if thats the result of 275 hp then mine is running a little bit swifter then that, if I could gets some decent stick tires ( read: not bald) I would have had some 13s at the time.

Yeap, a 14 flat would be right about average for a stock LT1. So that's what I'm saying. You could have been DEEP into the 13s. With a 2.0 60' instead of your less-than-stellar(read HORRIBLE :D hehe)2.4, you could have been bordering on a 13.6 or so. That's what I was saying a few days ago on here. Let's assume that you DID bust a 2.0 and ran a 13.6. Your mph would have dropped down to around 92-94 or so. That's incredible. A mid 13 with not even 95mph??

I dont know about 95 mph, your probably right it would drop abit if I got some traction.. Pretty sad 60ft time, first time ever at a dragstrip, combined with less then decent tires. So, how much hp do you think it was making? Hope for some low 13s in the spring since the install of gears and larger mass meter. There is a guy who sometimes posts on the corral that runs high 12s with all the same mods as mine plus a different cam and computer.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0
I dont know about 95 mph, your probably right it would drop abit if I got some traction.. Pretty sad 60ft time, first time ever at a dragstrip, combined with less then decent tires. So, how much hp do you think it was making? Hope for some low 13s in the spring since the install of gears and larger mass meter. There is a guy who sometimes posts on the corral that runs high 12s with all the same mods as mine plus a different cam and computer.

I would guess right around 250-260 to the rear wheels horsepower-wise. Very very good:) If your launch would have been decent you would have had a very nice time for a mostly stock car. What gear are you planning on running this coming spring?

The recent additions are 3:73 gears and a larger MAF, plus new suspension which is all over the floor, trying to get it figured out. But, it might actually hurt my traction a little due to stiffer spring rates. I think my exhasut system will get the next bit of attention, the stock mufflers are holding me back. Check on your post at the corral it has grown. Some others have some impressive times on stock cobras.
So, what is your car running now?

I think Self is down in the low 12's... bordering 11's.

That is if he can figure out why he keeps breaking his ring&pinion gears.

Tooooo muchhhhh horsepowerrrr.


NEVER! :D

Originally posted by RedNeck383
I think Self is down in the low 12's... bordering 11's.

That is if he can figure out why he keeps breaking his ring&pinion gears.

Tooooo muchhhhh horsepowerrrr.


NEVER! :D



Unless he is useing gears from Summit Racing. I have had major problems with their gears. Then they basically said I was screwed.

I think he is actually using gears from summit if i remember corectly from a street racing post.

I dont think he is using Summit gears, somebody I believe RazorGTR said to him to call Summit Racing to help him pin point why he keeps mashin' gears.

He's already got a Moser 12 bolt... damn nice rear end. *drools*

Sorry guys, for some reason I kept getting and error when I tried to log on to AF the past couple of days...I was going through withdrawal!!:eek: :D
Anyways, yea, last time I made the trip out to the track I couldn't push it any lower than a 12.2 or so but at a HIGH mph(117-118ish). That however was on the "itty bitty" 224/230 hyrdo-roller cam that I installed so I could pass emission without too much of a problem. Since then I've switched back over to a LOT larger SOLID-roller(don't know if anyone has noticed yet, but I'm a HUGE fan of big solid rollers:)) I'm looking for mid 11s this spring, and mid-low 10s on the spray.
Speaking of which...ATTN REDNECK - I found a guy who knows all about running a dual bottle n2o system!:D :D heheh, so I'm really gonna try and do that this year.
Oh, and the gear problem...It's really pissing me off. I've been running Richmond Gears...For the LAST THREE SETS!!:mad: If they break again, it's definately time to try something new. Either Summit's or maybe Strange. Thing about it is that I'm only running a 3.73 ratio. I could see if I had a 4.10 or 4.11, you have to suspect that you might break gears with a ratio like that. So I need to get that problem worked out soon, before I'm back at the track this year. I'm hoping to goodness that it's not a problem with the rear end that's causing them to break:( If so, that's $2k down the drain...Dang, no matter how much you put into this car hobby there's always a new problem to sap your funding!

Originally posted by Self
ATTN REDNECK - I found a guy who knows all about running a dual bottle n2o system!:D :D heheh, so I'm really gonna try and do that this year.


You sir...are one crazy MOFO!:lol2::hehehe::jumpie:

Originally posted by Self
Oh, and the gear problem...It's really pissing me off. I've been running Richmond Gears...For the LAST THREE SETS!!:mad: If they break again, it's definately time to try something new. Either Summit's or maybe Strange. Thing about it is that I'm only running a 3.73 ratio. I could see if I had a 4.10 or 4.11, you have to suspect that you might break gears with a ratio like that. So I need to get that problem worked out soon, before I'm back at the track this year. I'm hoping to goodness that it's not a problem with the rear end that's causing them to break:( If so, that's $2k down the drain...Dang, no matter how much you put into this car hobby there's always a new problem to sap your funding!

Have you tried JEG'S yet!?!? Good catalogs.

Ya, whats the deal with the error messages? I could'nt log on to automotive forums all day yesterday. I figured the server was down or something, but looking at the dates of other peoples posts they where able to post... strange.

Originally posted by RedNeck383
You sir...are one crazy MOFO!

hahah, maybe a little bit crazy. But the guy said he would be willing to help me do it at no charge, if I'd help him build his rollcage in return(if any of you post on IF you've probably seen the pics of my friends SI and his rollcage that we've built, if not I'll post'em here later). And I also have two 10# bottles just kinda hanging around. One NX and one TNT, gonna have them both powdercoated black maybe and toss them in.

As for JEGS, I know they usually have really good prices...So I'll have to check them when I buy.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0
Ya, whats the deal with the error messages? I could'nt log on to automotive forums all day yesterday. I figured the server was down or something, but looking at the dates of other peoples posts they where able to post... strange.

No clue about the error messages, I noticed the exact same thing:confused:

SVT... did you ever race a GTX grand prix? im curious to hear what they can do. and if they are a match for cobras/or svt.bras

Originally posted by pontiactrac
SVT... did you ever race a GTX grand prix? im curious to hear what they can do. and if they are a match for cobras/or svt.bras


one of the dudes i used to streetrace with in st. louis has a GTX that walks vettes. hes spent assloads of cash though. most run mid 14s

Originally posted by pontiactrac
SVT... did you ever race a GTX grand prix? im curious to hear what they can do. and if they are a match for cobras/or svt.bras



Nope. never lined up aginst a GTP in the cobra But ran neck and neck with a GT model in my 1995 v6 mustang. I guess it was a Grand am or something.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0




Nope. never lined up aginst a GTP in the cobra But ran neck and neck with a GT model in my 1995 v6 mustang. I guess it was a Grand am or something.

Yea, they are pretty rare. it should be intresting to see how the new GTO stands against cobras and camaros. They've got around 350-375 if i remember correctly. I think they come out in late of this year.

Last I heard the new GTO is only supposed to run mid 14s or so. But, Im not a 100% sure.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0
Last I heard the new GTO is only supposed to run mid 14s or so. But, Im not a 100% sure.

That could be true but of course there are always rumors, and they arn't sharing alot of specs on it so who knows? i guess it's possible to get specs from the austrailian monaro which it was modeled after but i believe they arn't completely the same, the looks is a dead give away on that

Ya, I think those times are based on the Monaro.

Originally posted by 94svt5.0
Ya, I think those times are based on the Monaro.

do all svt's have a cobra instead of a mustang on the grill?

The lack of info and specs on the GTO makes me think that they are either below expectations and need refining before production, or they are going to hold out production for another year. If they are coming out this year usually all info has already been released and made public. Kinda makes me wonder whats up...

Originally posted by StangMan
The lack of info and specs on the GTO makes me think that they are either below expectations and need refining before production, or they are going to hold out production for another year. If they are coming out this year usually all info has already been released and made public. Kinda makes me wonder whats up...

or it could mean the exact opposite, they are trying to build interest, it's like a movie, are they going to give away the whole plot if they want people to see it?

Originally posted by pontiactrac


do all svt's have a cobra instead of a mustang on the grill?




All cobras have a horse in the front grill. I Have had many people tell me my car is not a cobra because of the horse. Just have to reply with the basics the no cobra came from the factory with a snake on the front, but it is a common aftermarket add on though.

I saw something that rated the new GTO at 340hp/360tq, but if there are no true specs out on it, then it could be anyone's guess. My best guess is that it'll be somewhere under that, because GM is so damn protective of their precious vettes...

Here's a bunch of pics: http://www.ls1tech.com/GTO.html

look 4 the 2 crome pipes out back of stang. thats the real only difference that u can definately tell from the back. but to me i think it was a 6 not a gt. i have friends who have stangs and i doubt that a civic could beat a v8 gt regardless of conditions. but gr8t kill anyway :frog:

Yeah I believe 340 hp/360lbs torque is what the first brand of GTO's will have. If thats true then you'll see it definately beating GTs, and probably Trans Ams and SS Camaros, but not beating supercharged Cobras.

To me thats sort of a disappointment, I was hoping more for like 360hp standard. Hopefully it will be up to that later on. Who cares if it beats the regular C5 Corvette? There are other reasons besides power when it comes to buying a Vette. It wouldn't lose its market.