why did i lose

[FormulaLT1]

Originally Posted by longlivetheZ

Well...the 89 TTAs ran in the mid 13s from the factory. They are GTA Trans Ams with a Grand National engine with different heads and a GNX intercooler. They were officially rated at 250 hp but actually put out ~300 hp with a 350 lb feet of torque. Pretty ballsy mother fuckers. I remember reading somewhere along the line that for a long time they were the fastest Trans Ams ever made. Don't think this still holds true. Worded that wrong before.

Oh...and the ram air formula firebird runs low 13s...not 12s. Just a little faster than the turbo TA which runs in the mid 13s. Both are pretty fast for stock cars. http://www.ls1fbody.com/1999_Quickest_Cars.htm Very cool article. I love the pic of the VR4 at launch.

There have been a number of cases of guys picking up there cars going right to track and running 12's but I agree for the most part they ran in the 13's (but then switch drivers on any car and it will run different times, that doesn't mean thats what the car is capable of just what that driver can get it to do but I am sure you guys know that)

[longlivetheZ]

Yup. The same "switch drivers" approach can be held true for any car. There's lots o' factors when it comes to stuff like 1/4 mile and 0-60 times. That's why I always take these numbers with a grain of salt. I've seen the Z32TT in mags and online run anywhere from ~5.2 sec all the up to ~5.7 sec. This is why I usually say the Z32TT does the 0-60 in ~5.5 sec...

[k3smostwanted]

yeah, driver's make a performance car stout or lousy. when you like at 300zxTT times, like i have said...1/4 mile times range anywhere from 13.6-14.3, so like LLZ i say very high 13 or very low 14. turbocharged cars are hard to get an accurate 0-60 time period, there is always gonna be a huge gap.

anyways, i have seen more than a few stock WS6 TA's run in the 12's from the factory at the track. very impressive cars...about 4 years ago, it was about the only american muscle car that i would consider buying.

[longlivetheZ]

They aren't bad in the bang for the buck category as far as straight line performance goes, but I've NEVER heard anything about them being that great in corners, the interior fit, finish and quality is lame (my dad looked into getting one back in the day cuz he had a 70-something one when he was younger...you know...nostalgia [sp.]...and he didn't get one cuz the interior is cheap) and they're really common. I'd pass.

[FormulaLT1]

Yeah, they do lack the cornering abililty of IRS cars but can handle turns pretty well for a muscle car when outfitted with some suspension goodies. Interior is hit and miss with some people. I like the orange/red/plastic modern look of the interiors but to some people they look gimicky and cheap. To each there own. If we all had the same taste in cars there would be no need for more than one make or model.

[k3smostwanted]

Originally Posted by longlivetheZ

They aren't bad in the bang for the buck category as far as straight line performance goes, but I've NEVER heard anything about them being that great in corners, the interior fit, finish and quality is lame (my dad looked into getting one back in the day cuz he had a 70-something one when he was younger...you know...nostalgia [sp.]...and he didn't get one cuz the interior is cheap) and they're really common. I'd pass.

definitely no where near great as formula stated but they are not bad. they handle better than alot of the cars that you would expect to corner better.

thinking of solid axle compared to IRS and cant help be remember the 05 mustang vs. 350Z comparison. mustang holding more than its own. we can obviously tell where nissan slacked a little bit on this car besides the frog like rear end.

[xXxRocker5150]

ugh, that rear end looks like a damn potatoe

[longlivetheZ]

Lat accel for an 04 350Z is .89 G (still...nothing amazing) and lat accel for an 04 Mustang GT is .84 G (eww). That's QUITE a difference...

[longlivetheZ]

Here's a good article, actually...

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...an/index1.html

.87 for the Z (eww) to .81 (dude...my Z31 with waaaaaaaaaay worn out shocks can do that...) for the GT.

In no way, by my research anyway, does the older mustang compare to the Z in any handling sense.

Even the new Mustang that handles better than the previous one doesn't handle as good as the Z (GT Coupe = .87, V6 Coupe = .79). Source: http://ford.jbcarpages.com/Mustang/2005/index4.php

[FormulaLT1]

Originally Posted by longlivetheZ

Here's a good article, actually...

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...an/index1.html

.87 for the Z (eww) to .81 (dude...my Z31 with waaaaaaaaaay worn out shocks can do that...) for the GT.

In no way, by my research anyway, does the older mustang compare to the Z in any handling sense.

Even the new Mustang that handles better than the previous one doesn't handle as good as the Z (GT Coupe = .87, V6 Coupe = .79). Source: http://ford.jbcarpages.com/Mustang/2005/index4.php

Do you believe everything written in mags and posted on some site

[k3smostwanted]

Originally Posted by longlivetheZ

In no way, by my research anyway, does the older mustang compare to the Z in any handling sense.

who said anything about the older mustang?

i have read in several of these same magazines that the Mustang GT out handled the Z. it got better track times in testing, it takes corners faster, and it is still a solid axle. trust me, i have been in a couple arguments over the same matter in the "Car Comparison" forum. .87 is damn close to .89 and all i said was that "it more than holds its own". i am just saying, if the Z had a solid axle it would probably handle like complete shit when compared to the Mustang.

check out road and track's past articles. i am pretty sure they tested both cars and they got pretty damn FAST slalom speeds.

[longlivetheZ]

lol...no I don't believe "everything" but Motor Trend and magazines like those are pretty damn accurate, man.

If the Z had a live rear axle, it would have been designed to have a live rear axle and it would probably handle like a car with a live rear axle...sure...if you just slapped a live rear into the Z like it is now, it'd be fucked up cuz it wasn't designed for it. Might as well slap some leaf springs on there while your at it...lol

I thought you were talking about the older GT for some reason.

[FormulaLT1]

I take those stats I see in Road and track, Motortrend and car & driver with a grain of salt. Especially when I see a huge corvette ad (or so on) in the mag and then a comparison where shockingly a corvette (only used as a example) blows away its competition. Besides I have read all three testing the same cars and first off most of those mags claim to do three runs and average them to get there numbers on each vehicle. Also there numbers vary by alot many times and some of them I am sure are not accurate 100% of the time.

[k3smostwanted]

Originally Posted by longlivetheZ

lol...no I don't believe "everything" but Motor Trend and magazines like those are pretty damn accurate, man.

If the Z had a live rear axle, it would have been designed to have a live rear axle and it would probably handle like a car with a live rear axle...sure...if you just slapped a live rear into the Z like it is now, it'd be fucked up cuz it wasn't designed for it. Might as well slap some leaf springs on there while your at it...lol

I thought you were talking about the older GT for some reason.

nah, the older GT is weak but the New GT does handle just as well if not better than the 350Z. maybe a professionaly Japanese driver that drives the 350Z on a regular basis can make it lap better but for the average decent driver i bet they can make the mustang easier to drive as according to magazine results and friends. the mustang seems like it is a very easy car to take full advantage of. for a professional driver it may not be better but for the average jow like me and you, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference nor would we be able to take the other to the extreme.

as for magazine articles, they should be taken with a grain of salt BUT that is all the statistics we have because most of us do not have the time nor skills to drive every car to its extreme. so we have to use these statistics whether we like it or not to compare cars. the only thing most of us can probably do is give an opinion about how fast it feels, how we like the details of the interior, or how we like the lines of the exterior.