Beat 98ish 'Stang GT

[carrrnuttt]

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.

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.

[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"

[Cyprus106]

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.

[Self]

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 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

[KrNxRaCer00]

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

[94svt5.0]

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.

[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.

[tenzoracerevovii]

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

[94svt5.0]

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.

[carrrnuttt]

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, 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.

[94svt5.0]

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/shows...tsgivenid.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.

[kidrocket]

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

[StangMan]

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.

[StangMan]

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.

[Self]

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.