Mid 90's Prelude (supercharged.?) Rapes My 95 T Bird..

solaris=amazing · #1 07-25-2005, 08:11 PM

First, i believe it was a mid 90's prelude...seconds, can you put a supercharger on them..? I thought they where mainly turbo type cars..? Reason below....

I'm on the meadowbrook (3 lane straight for atleast 2 miles) and i'm going pretty fast (70mph).. The prelude gets behind me and flashes his brights.... I switch lanes and slow down to get neck and neck with him at around 60mph.. I look over, he looks at me, and smiles.... I knod my head....HE HITS IT.....

All i here is REEEEEEEEE..... Like a supercharger whine, not that turbo noise, there wasn't any TSSST noise from a bov either (unless i didn't here it)...

Back to the race, he hit it and i hit it.. My AT hooks 3rd up to 85/90 then shifts to it's god awful 4th (overdrive band)... At this time his prelude had 3-4 BIG car's on me.. I went up to 100 and i realized he was GONE pretty much.. I slow down and flip my lights......gooooone..

WTF was in that car engine bay..? The only other time i remember being slaughtered by that much was by a 99 or so Z28. The race was over before it started pretty much.

BTW, there was no fart can also, the car was obviously a sleeper.. I thought my 95 4.6L bird (with 3.27 gears) could do better then that, but i got ROMPED...

BTW, there was no traffic on the highway at that time....it was a good run.

alphalanos · #2 07-25-2005, 08:14 PM

hmm...could have been either turbo with a recirculating type bov on it....or SC i guess???? i dont know much about this....probably SC i think.

solaris=amazing · #3 07-25-2005, 08:31 PM

Somethin....

Another thing, he had to have alot of work done to the suspension cause that baby had no front-to-back roll changing gears.

alphalanos · #4 07-25-2005, 08:44 PM

Well if it was as fast as you describe, then it probably had coil overs...or at least a very stiff shock and spring combo. That kind of stiffness really sucks daily driving though...

CivRacer95 · #5 07-25-2005, 11:13 PM

He could have very well had either of the two boosters. But yes, they do make superchargers for the mid 90's ludes. Although, it is much more expensive to buy a SC than it is to buy a Turbo kit. I honestly don't know why he would have went SC. I'm going to say he was TCed with the recirculating valve. Either way, sounds like you really got handed a good amount of your ass...fried and crispy. Nice death.

WarShrike · #6 07-25-2005, 11:39 PM

Nice death, and I'd have to say that the Prelude would have had a recirculating BOV. Alot of professional installs have picked up on doing this, especially for consistant street use. I've read elsewhere that it tends to be good practice to install it with a recirculation style setup. Good to see somebody likes the sleeper ideology, keeps the cops eyes from wandering too far...

TatII · #7 07-26-2005, 12:50 AM

ah yes the meadowbrook. and yes they do make super chargers for the lude. jackson racing makes them i believe.

solaris=amazing · #8 07-26-2005, 12:51 AM

Oh i got killed alright...but i like seeing FAST cars like that.

Still, nothing ever topped what i've seen at my previous job, autozone.. One day i'm at the register and i see a fire bird pull up with a plate saying 427 FIRE.... The guy came in, cool dude..we where talking about cars, and he had pretty much EVERYTHING done to this 99 Firebird, the biggest factor being a 427 engine dropped in with i believe a 3 speed turbo..?..something tranny, it was AUTO, but you could shift it manually though..like a some dragsters. Basically he said the car was to fast to have a manual tranny.

600HP all Naturally Aspirated......crazy. Roll cage, also.. Anyway, here's the best part..

This dude leaves the lot..gets onto hempstead turnpike and literally accelerates like a jet engine perpelled monster making white smoke... I NEVER seen a car that fast in person.

BTW, it was a mid 10's 1/4 car. He said the only way he GOT mid 10's is with slicks and 100lbs of sand in his trunk. NO traction. I DO believe he had a lsdiff also...i hope so..

GritMaster · #9 07-26-2005, 02:03 AM

too fast for a manual tranny? naw... it prolly had a 6 speed and just couldn't handle the power without building it so he just did an auto swap. a TH-400 was the tranny probably

Oh yeah, any car can be supercharged.

(well as long as it's powered by a cumbustible)

CamaroSSBoy346 · #10 07-26-2005, 03:17 PM

yah.. those 4.6L Thunderbirds are slow..

BullDog71ss · #11 07-27-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GritMaster

too fast for a manual tranny? naw... it prolly had a 6 speed and just couldn't handle the power without building it so he just did an auto swap. a TH-400 was the tranny probably

Oh yeah, any car can be supercharged.

(well as long as it's powered by a cumbustible)

Once a car gets too many ponies it gets hard to shift fast enough to keep up with the car using a standard clutch setup. Which is why I stuck with my TH400 in the 71 SS. Also, you can't hardly find a standard clutch that is usefull on the street that will hold up to that kind of power for any real amount of time. Besides, swapping in an auto tranny would cost way more that building his 6 speed that the car origionaly came with

So yeah...a car can be too fast for a standard tranny/clutch setup.

WarShrike · #12 07-27-2005, 07:53 PM

That's where you go GT Style and install a sequential shifter.

GritMaster · #13 07-28-2005, 02:48 AM

Too fast? no.

Too powerful? Yes.

As far as speed, you're just to slow :P

oh and changing the gearing will help with the first gear problem.

qr25sentra · #14 07-28-2005, 10:35 AM

i never raced or drove a thunderbird of ur year.. what do they run in the 1/4 stock?
i drove a 97' cougar, im guessin the only difference is the weight? cuz the cougar is pretty porky. it had nice tq(280 i believe) but ran out of breath real early(205 hp).i compared it to my sentra and 0-60 felt slower, but up top it probably would get me.

my friend has a 94 dodge dakota(5.2 5spd) and raced both the thunderbird and a 5.0 cougar.. he said he made the thunderbird look stupid and the 5.sl0w is only good for burn outs.

CamaroSSBoy346 · #15 07-28-2005, 11:53 AM

yah. The 4.6L Thunderbirds arent good at much, considering they werent mean to be fast. I believe, cruising with luxury would be the best way to describe them. I cant say much about the 5.0's, since I've never driven one, but the 4.6L's made 265TQ, and 205HP.. and in 96 they got 5-10hp thanks to an updated intake. Plus, these cars came with really tall gears stock. 2.73's-3.08's Only a few came with the 3.27's.

BTW, with the mods in my sig, the 4.6L ran a 15.94 @ 87, in 90* high-humidity weather.

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD