Pages: 1

Hmmm... 2005 GT 1/4mile ET's

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Grape Ape

I got this from the corral. It's the best ET an owner has claimed as of yet, and to my knowledge. Anybody seen a better one yet? And before someone takes this the wrong direction, I stand by my earlier remarks(maybe not even made here) that this new model will see better ET's with seat time alone. I expect them to be better still with more mileage and better drivers taking them down the track.

I'm fairly sure the below ET was done with a manual transmissioned car. Owner still claims it's factory stock and I actually believe it in this case. Anyway, on with the comments...

R/T ... .020
60' ... 1.934
330 .. 5.673
1/8 ... 8.773
MPH .. 79.66
1000 . 11.433
1/4... 13.698
MPH . 99.60

I launch around 4000 and i shift about 5500. goes thru in 4th. 3.73's would be nice. as far as consistency, the car goes quicker and faster each tme out.


Posted by: EvilLS1

With that 60' time I think its very believable. A 1.93 on stock street tires is excellent. I'd say either they had a ton of VHT down on the track or he was on drag radials.

The MPH still seems a little low to me. I figure a 270-280 rwhp car should trap atleast 82 mph in the 1/8 and 102 mph in the 1/4. Then again, maybe the new stangs are a bit heavier than the previous ones.


Posted by: LS1JAY

Looks like a slow POS!














































Seriously though... with a HP rating of 300, that should be about right.

Just don't forget that my little I-6 Chevy has 275 HP! :flip:


Posted by: Grape Ape

275... Yer scarin' me!

I think these cars are only getting quicker... Jeremy Martorella took a stock 05 to Moroso Friday night and got a 1.89 short on factory tires, and Moroso SUCKS! He only ran a 13.7 @ 98 or somethin'.. .can't remember. These cars "hook-n-book" and that's part of why the ET and MPH doesn't seem to match well with what we're used to. Many are in the 14.0 range and seeing 97 or so and many are in the 13.8 range already too. With more being purchased, we'll soon start to see some real good numbers... You know, enough to give us a real baseline ET to expect when stock. The more miles on the engine(to a degree no doubt), the better they seem to run.


Posted by: Tang

damn, my '98 model was trapping 85 in the 1/8, what a sad sad little car


Posted by: LS1JAY

My stock, auto SS went 8.40's@86 and 13.0's@107 with just an air lid which was technically an option for the SS, but mine didn't have the option, so I added it! 13.7@99 is still kinda slow for 2005.


Posted by: Grape Ape

Not sad at all. It's completely new and nobody's used to driving it yet, not to mention the gearing. It's been out for days, or weeks at best. Besides, it's no Cobra and it's not real lightweight either.


Posted by: Tang

I have a Mustang Enthusiast mag, and one complaint they had, was even though it had the variable valve timing and all that BS, that it just didnt give the adrenlin rush they expected. Especially when comapred to the Mach 1.

On another note, the V6 stang is a 4.0 now with 210hp and 240ft/lbs.

Base Curb weight V8
3450 manual
3500 Auto

V6
3300 manual
3345 auto

Oh yea, and the standard rear gears are 3.55's, nothing new about that.


Posted by: Tang

I assumed a 180# driver

1/4 mile estimate

You Entered:
Vehicle Weight - 3630 (lbs)
Trap Speed - 99.60 (mph)
Drivetrain Loss - 15 (%)


Results:
Rear Wheel HP - 243.5
Crankshaft HP - 286.5

1/8 mile estimate

You Entered:
Vehicle Weight - 3630 (lbs)
Trap Speed - 79.66 (mph)
Drivetrain Loss - 15 (%)


Results:
Rear Wheel HP - 249.2
Crankshaft HP - 293.2

Now heres Jay's estimates

You Entered:
Vehicle Weight - 3650 (lbs)
Trap Speed - 86 (mph)
Drivetrain Loss - 18 (%)


Results:
Rear Wheel HP - 315.3
Crankshaft HP - 384.5


Posted by: IROC_ZO6

i caught a light with one in my GTO tonight. he ate my ass off the line, but pulled even in 1st, gained 2 cars in second, and walked him after that... wtf is with these cars gears? the GT ran 1-2-3 as quick as me, but when the car shifted to 4th, it was like he hit the brakes...

BTW, we stopped outside of town at the 76 station and bs'ed for a few, he already had 1500 miles on his gt (my goat has 550 now) and had already had it to the track. He liked it overall, but says the aftermarket needs to step up because he is already bored with it. Apparently he traded in his 04 cobra on this gt i told him to stop by MMC- we'll see if he does.


Posted by: Tang

Quote:
Originally Posted by IROC_ZO6
i caught a light with one in my GTO tonight. he ate my ass off the line, but pulled even in 1st, gained 2 cars in second, and walked him after that... wtf is with these cars gears? the GT ran 1-2-3 as quick as me, but when the car shifted to 4th, it was like he hit the brakes... .



Nothing is up with their gears . They are geard almost identicle to a T5, with 3.55 rear gears.

1st-3.38
2nd-2.00
3rd-1.32
4th-1.00
5th-0.68

http://www.ttcautomotive.com/Englis...cts/TR-3650.asp There if you don't believe me.


The GTO is still geared just like the F-Bodys

1st-2.66
2nd-1.78
3rd-1.3
4th-1.00
5th-0.74
6th-0.5


Posted by: MikeT

whats different about the motor compared to '04? Also, is the 4.0 all new?


Posted by: Tang

The 4.0 is all new, and the 4.6 has 3 valves per cylinder, I dont remember if they did before or not. I'll type up a little section here...

Quote:
"Horsepower is another point of my contention. The '05 GT weighs about 3600lbs and the 281 engine despite it now producs 300 horses, never has been critisized for its unwieldy torque. It also gives up 100horsepower to the '05 GTO. Ford officials scoff at such a comparrison, given the GTO's lack luster sales to date, but thats a supercharger's worth of difference."




Posted by: Grape Ape

This is the 1st year Ford is using the 3V head on the 4.6L, and in the Mustang. I think the same heads have been used on the 5.4L since the new F-150 was introduced.

The '05 block is aluminum, just like the pre-'03 Cobra and the '03/04 Mach1. The intake is a new design for this new car. The 5.4L probably uses a different intake and cams.

I've heard here and there that the 4.0 is all new, but I'm not convinced yet. I think it's the same basic engine used in the Ranger/Explorer. I just haven't looked to see, and nobody seems to be 100% on it. Like me, they probably haven't looked at both.


Posted by: IROC_ZO6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tang
The GTO is still geared just like the F-Bodys

1st-2.66
2nd-1.78
3rd-1.3
4th-1.00
5th-0.74
6th-0.5




Difference is between this and the f-bodys is really noticeable, especially when you are in 6th, with the 3.42 rear. we have the close ratio (rpo-m12) tranny, same ratios as z06. This car revs higher in top gear than my TA did, and the TA had a 3.73

gto ratios
1st 2.97:1
2nd 2.07:1
3rd 1.43:1
4th 1.00:1
5th 0.84:1
6th 0.57:1


Posted by: Tang

Doesn't seem as "close" as the F-Body trans.
1st to 2nd difference is .88 on the Fbody, .9 on the one you listed
2nd to 3rd .48 on the F-bod, .64 on the one you listed
3rd to 4th .30 vs .43
4th to 5th .26 vs .16
5th to 6th .24 vs .27

And the overall spread from 1st to 6th is 2.16 vs 2.4


As far as the revving higher, .07 is not much of a difference. Are the tires shorter overall than on the T/A ?


Posted by: Adrenalin

My opinion on 4.6s are they suck. We are talking about a Muscle car here not a sporty little ricer or family/semisports car. Technology is good and change can be good as well, but that don't mean I have to like it. So far the 4.6 Modular motor has been in the Mustang for about 9 years now and they are still slow, expensive and too small for such a heavy car.

Ford has however gone in the right direction as far as handling, looks and other technology is concerned. GM has had the right idea of power but imo lacks the looks rearend strength and well.... the fact that its a GM! (don't want anyone to think I may actually like a GM product tho )

Seems Ford is trying to squeeze every last bit of power out of that 4.6 instead of admitting they should have chosen another path of Change. I think Ford is lucky GM dropped the Chevy/Firebid/TransAm when the did and also lucky the GTO doesn't look any better then it does or there would be alot of people eyeing those instead of that slow 4.6.

I love hearing reports and articles saying, just bolt on a blower etc to contend with the competition... That idea stinks, period.

No more Ford bashing for me, I am still a Ford man as long as I have my 5.0, just had to get that off my chest!

Carry on....





Posted by: Grape Ape

The 4.6L Mustang may not be all that fast, but the new Mustang GT is the quickest full on standardized production model ever, including all our 5.0L models, and by a good margin over all of them while being heavier, save the 1993 Cobra and the "R" models. They're also faster than any stock 5.0L version by a long way, hence the speed limiter. For comparison sake, the 5.0L HO was made for 12yrs, and the non HO was around from 1968 till mid/late 1990's and it never saw this kind of power in all that time when stock.

I still prefer to use the OHV engine in my own vehicles, but the fact is, the modular design is superior. Even when comparing the 351W based engine, the modular has clear advantages, We've seen modular powered cars run 6's already, whereas it tooks several upgrades and years of experimenting and tuning and building to do the same with the 351W engine, which is larger and enjoys a vastly more usable aftermarket. Take the W block and run 6's... heh, or even 7's with it and you know you've done a serious amount of work. The same is true of the modular, but that engine has done it using a Ford produced block, etc. whereas the W will be likely to use an "aftermarket" block and certainly aftermarket heads, cranks, etc.

The mod motor requires more thought, but has clear advantages, nonetheless. I give KUDOS to Ford for sticking with a program that most people only 10yrs ago thought would never work. They now use an engine that burns cleaner, is more efficient, and by all accounts lasts longer than any before while producing good power and torque. It also has a huge following in the aftermarket now, meaning it will only get better.


Posted by: EvilLS1

I felt the same way about the mod motor when it first came out but I have to admit that I've changed my mind. Ford is getting decent power (even N/A) from the little 4.6L now. I still prefer pushrod engines but I gotta give credit where its due. The 4.6L has come a long way since the weak ass 185 rwhp engine that we first saw in the 96-98 GTs.


Posted by: Tang

But there is no reason why it can't have more. They had fuel injected, dual overhead cam, 600hp , 260ci engines in the 60's. I think they can handle 350hp with 281 cubes and all the technology.


Posted by: Grape Ape

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tang
But there is no reason why it can't have more. They had fuel injected, dual overhead cam, 600hp , 260ci engines in the 60's. I think they can handle 350hp with 281 cubes and all the technology.

Have you lost your MIND!

Are you lumping several engines together or something? While some think it did, the 260 never even came close to 600hp, not even when Ford or Shelby used it in outright race only applications. The closest thing to 600hp from a small OHV Ford was around 1970, when people used the Ford GT with the 289/302 engine. I don't recall any DOHC Ford V8 in the 60's. They did have a SOHC with the 427.

The 5.4L has seen 385hp in the Cobra Mustang. As you know, that was the 2000 Cobra R. Getting 350hp from the 4.6L isn't some sort of impossibility, but Ford has no reason to do it, since the 5.4L is available. I'd like to see a 5.4L with 450hp used in the Mustang Cobra in the near future, but I don't expect it. They could easily do that without a S/C, but many people wouldn't like that because it would require fairly high compression. In turn, that would limit the available power adder applications.

Ford has kept in mind their consumer, in that they know people like to upgrade and individualize their cars. If Ford used a high compression engine, that would actually be a drawback to many. Hence, the S/C'd Cobra with low compression, allowing further upgrades for more power and more cars that stand out from the crowd. They also used a very stout block.

Not to knock GM, but had they done the same, we'd be seeing several LS series engines with stronger available power adders and more overall power due to higher owner interest and lower cost to and for each owner. As it stands, you just don't see people taking the same approach to the LS series as they are to the modular engines. Folks are taking 6.9L cylinder heads and using them on 5.7L and even 5.3L engines(so I've read) in order to lower their compression, thereby allowing more boost. Problem is, this cost money...lots of it. Most 4.6L SOHC owners don't take that route, as their compression is already okay for high boost. They've found little need to do more than a port job and common cam/spring swaps, which is less costly. Plus, you can get a DOHC head and basically drop it onto the 4.6L if the desire/need arises.

Ford was indeed thinking ahead.


Posted by: Tang

There was a 260 that had dual overhead cams, 32 valves and direct port injection, in the early 60's. It was actually sleeved down to 255ci, it was an indy engine. There was also a 255 with regular Ford parts that made 375hp with weber carbs.

I have pictures of the engines right here, but no flatbed scanner to scan them for ya. I about bet Mr P knows what Im talkign about.


Posted by: Tang

Not all info says 600hp, I think that was reserved for the Gurney-Weslake variants.

Quote:
By late ’62, however, Ford management was getting ready to mount one of the most comprehensive and energetic factory racing programs in Detroit history, and decided to kick it off with a shot at the Indianapolis 500-with their brand new little V-8, in basically stock form. Meanwhile they had increased the bore of the production engine 0.300-inch, for a 260 inch total displacement, and offered it as an option in ‘sprint’ Falcons as well as in the Fairlanes. The Indy engine used a cast iron block (sleeved down to 255 cubic inches) and heads identical to the production design. With Weber carburettors the engine produced 375 horsepower on gasoline. This was good enough to place second and seventh (Clark and Gurney) in the ’63 Memorial Day Classic and to secure the publicity and image that Ford was seeking.



Quote:
After Ford’s surprising success with the stock rocker arm small block at Indianapolis in ’63, they turned their engineers loose on one of the most sophisticated projects ever concocted at Dearborn, the Dual Overhead cam Ford engine. Using the same basic 90°V, 255-inch block (cast of aluminium), they added a pair of aluminium heads with four gear-driven overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, and Hilborn fuel injectors. It was designed strictly for racing at Indy (it has never been offered in a production Ford), and it has been eminently successful.



Quote:
Indy DOHC 255ci
Ford prepared a special version of the recently introduced 260 CID engine
the final engine displaced 255 CI and produced 425 BHP at 8000 RPM
Many parts were replaced with aluminum or magnesium to trim the weight down to 406lbs



Look at that, all aluminum too ! See those modern Ford pussys need to get their shit together. What they are using now is 60's technology.


School is $500 per semester


Posted by: IROC_ZO6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrenalin
... GM has had the right idea of power but imo lacks the looks rearend strength and well.......lucky the GTO doesn't look any better then it does...




the "weak" rear-end in the GTO has gone 9.80s in a turbocharged/manual tranny holden, and still gets the guy to work every day. as far as looks, thats ok, if you ever grow up out of your boy-racer phase, you will like simple classy lines like Touring sedans have, instead of all the typical bullshit body cladding and fake scoops and vents. IMO, ive looked at the first gen mustang for 30+ years, why do i want to see something just like it.


Posted by: Grape Ape

Okay Kennis, ya got me on that, but I'm foolishly talking about production type stuff, and the 255 Indy engine was ONLY an Indy engine, which wasn't available in any production car. Still, it didn't make 600hp or anything close. Even if that very engine was available today, the cost factor would be prohibitive for the buyer. The 5.4L DOHC S/C'd GT engine makes much more hp and look at the price of that car! Of course, emissions would be a problem for the race engine anyway.

Btw, aluminum has indeed been used for decades by many manufacturers, but wasn't considered reliable until the Japs used in heavily in their cars. OHC engines have been around for ages too, so it's not like it was new, even back then. Today it's just far more commonly used.


Posted by: EvilLS1

Quote:
Folks are taking 6.9L cylinder heads and using them on 5.7L and even 5.3L engines(so I've read) in order to lower their compression,



I'm about to put ported 5.3L heads on my 5.7L LS1 to RAISE compression. boost


Posted by: Grape Ape

I don't blame ya! Btw, it would appear I typed "6.9" instead of 6.0 before...

And ...THIS JUST IN... I cannot verify this info yet, but I'm waiting for confirmation or some legit proof, but I just saw this on the corral..

"Originally Posted by DarknessRising
Uhh...not to rain on anyone's parade here but my '05 GT went 13.25/102 last Friday night. Automatic, stock, with only 399 miles on it. Good air helped as did a good starting line but I'm pretty damn tickled with this car. Price: $28,790 drive-out"

If that's TRUE, we're seeing what I expected... better air, more seat time or better drivers, and MUCH better ET's. Based on other drivers shift points, I'd imagine this guy drove it like he JUST stole it! Now let's see if he offers up a timeslip or something...


Posted by: Adrenalin

Well aside from this becoming a Debate, I can and do agree that the block is superior and frankly there are some great advantages to a mod motor. That is not what I am displeased with. We can also say this certain Pushrod motor did this back then and it took however long etc. and then compare how fast Mod motors have made great imporvements but remember technology, seat time etc has imporved increased on all fronts compared to the past.

But to get back to my point, having all the above advatnages is great, I mean it just gets the average racer where tho? With all this superiority that comes with the mod motor, it takes a power adder to compete with what an LS1 can do with only slight mods. Tell me this isn't true. My point is still, the mustang is a major sports car from Ford not a semi/sports car or ricer type sport. I also am not saying that they should have continued to produce the same pushrod motor either. Fact is, things change whether we like them or not, and that is not the problem. Given a certain amount of money, it is 10 times easier to make a 302 go faster then a mod motor on average.

Yes Joe Shmoe with 45 extra grand can run 6s in the quarter etc etc etc but it just isn't feasable for the average racer. Well unless you think its cool to add a power adder just to hang with a NA LS1.... 281 ci, the Buick grand national came with a turbo and has the ability with very little money to whoop some serious ass.

Bottom line, 281ci no matter how superior etc this mod motor may be, it is been weighed it has been measured and it is found lacking...


Jay what did my red GT run stock before any mods? I will have to look for the info, and I may have spent a total of 250 bucks on a maf, electric fan (which '94 up come with), underdrives and Flowmasters (used parts)everthing else stock it ran 13.4s with 3.08 gears. This is nothing impressive I know, but seeing how "inferior" that motor was compared the new mod motors, I would choose that anyday. A set of 3.73s and that car would have been within 13.1s easily if not faster. Jay knows it and I am sure would agree.


Posted by: Tang

Bud of mine has a '95 Cobra, with minimal mods running 12.80's @ 109 .


Posted by: Grape Ape

I'm not gonna argue with you guys about what 5.0's ran with actual minimal mods. If the engine has no mods at all, and the rear gears are stock, and it's NOT a Cobra, yet it still runs mid 13's or better, it's exceedingly light or a ringer. I've owned Mustangs myself for nearly 20yrs and driven no fewer than 30 of them down the dragstrip. Suffice to say I'm not just buyin' it.

That said, the 4.6L block can survive into the 8's and no matter who says otherwise, the stock A50 block won't survive long enough to take a 3,000 lb car there. Bottom line, better engines usually cost more money. Particularly when produced by the same manufacturer.

Oh, and you'll just have to trust me on this one, but the Mustang isn't, and was never meant to be a "sports" car. It's just "sporty." Sports cars have 2 seats, both up front.


Posted by: Adrenalin

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape
I'm not gonna argue with you guys about what 5.0's ran with actual minimal mods. If the engine has no mods at all, and the rear gears are stock, and it's NOT a Cobra, yet it still runs mid 13's or better, it's exceedingly light or a ringer. I've owned Mustangs myself for nearly 20yrs and driven no fewer than 30 of them down the dragstrip. Suffice to say I'm not just buyin' it.

That said, the 4.6L block can survive into the 8's and no matter who says otherwise, the stock A50 block won't survive long enough to take a 3,000 lb car there. Bottom line, better engines usually cost more money. Particularly when produced by the same manufacturer.

Oh, and you'll just have to trust me on this one, but the Mustang isn't, and was never meant to be a "sports" car. It's just "sporty." Sports cars have 2 seats, both up front.



Grape, seriously bro, well let me address one thing at the time here.

1. My coupe, when it was untouched, (motorwise: intake to heads to block w/130k miles on the ticker) ran some decent times for way back in '95. I am not bragging as I don't think the times I ran were anything special and not uncommon. The same goes with the red GT.

2. I never said anything about the stock block not beign able to handle x amount of power etc. That is fine and great it just takes a million dollars to get any power out of the damn thing.

3. You say the Mustang isn't a sports car. That is just crazy there. Unless you are a total idiot, you know what I am talking about. Put whatever label you feel like on the Mustang and call it that if that makes you feel better. I guess you call them family cars? Who cares what you call them.

Now when you feel like addressing my post, maybe you can actually address my post instead of random facts that have nothing to do with what I am talking about. I thought I was clear with my original post but gave the benifit of the doubt and clarified, you seem to still have missed it.

I didn't post it to debate if so and so thought it was better then I did. It doesn't take a genious to know people have different opinions. You like them for there strength, technology and some Joe ran a 6 with them. Great. I just don't share the same enthusiasm.




Posted by: EvilLS1

Well this is a change. Ford guys argueing with a Ford guy.





Posted by: Adrenalin

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilLS1
Well this is a change. Ford guys argueing with a Ford guy.





I got an idea Evil...































Shaddup!!

:flip: :flip:


Posted by: Grape Ape

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrenalin
2. I never said anything about the stock block not beign able to handle x amount of power etc. That is fine and great it just takes a million dollars to get any power out of the damn thing.

The point of what *I* said is that it does handle power. You admit that, then try to disregard it in favor of the old 5.0 engine which was never "that good" to begin with. It doesn't take all that much money to get power from the 4.6L engine... Stock it makes 60-65hp more than the 5.0 ever did. Can someone replace stock 5.0HO heads with aftermarket aluminum heads and make more power? Of course. Is it easy... Yep. So that kind of thing is supposed to be "good" to me? The 4.6L doesn't need new heads to make more power. Can they be replaced.. Sure. Is it easy? Well not AS easy as the 5.0L was. That, however, is because it's a better design for strength.

Quote:
3. You say the Mustang isn't a sports car. That is just crazy there. Unless you are a total idiot, you know what I am talking about. Put whatever label you feel like on the Mustang and call it that if that makes you feel better. I guess you call them family cars? Who cares what you call them.

I care what they're called because people often mislabel them. You are only one example. They are not "sports" cars, not "muscle" cars(that era is over), not "family" cars. They're "pony" cars, but most importantly, they're sportY and fun. Corvette is a sports car. Viper is a sports car. Some Thunderbirds are sports cars.

Quote:
Now when you feel like addressing my post, maybe you can actually address my post instead of random facts that have nothing to do with what I am talking about. I thought I was clear with my original post but gave the benifit of the doubt and clarified, you seem to still have missed it.

I only remember where tell about about how quick your car was while claiming it all but factory stock. Btw, this thread isn't about what YOU choose to talk about... You'll notice, I started it about what *I* want to talk about. You may start one of your own.

I like you and all, but you're the one who's crazy, if you think I believe that crapola! Your car never ran 13.4's with stock gears and NO work aside from a mass air meter, electric fan and exhaust, unless it was VERY lightened down. Tell the WHOLE truth, not just part of it. I've had many Mustangs over the years, and I know plenty about them. I know and have known many people who make crazy claims about them and I know when someone is "stretching the truth."

Then there was your opinion that the 4.6L is basically a failure for Ford. Btw, how many engines have you designed? For that matter, how many 4.6L engines have you owned? See, to be opinionated is one thing.... To actually know what you're talking about, quite another. Had you argued the 5.8L "W" engine was better, I might've agreed, as that engine HAS strong points. Even it needs real work though, to remain together with a serious power adder.

I'm not crazy about the 4.6L engine. However, it IS superior to the 5.0L and that's all there is to it.

Quote:
I didn't post it to debate if so and so thought it was better then I did. It doesn't take a genious to know people have different opinions. You like them for there strength, technology and some Joe ran a 6 with them. Great. I just don't share the same enthusiasm.

I didn't start this thread so you could come along and try comparing the 5.0L to the 4.6L, but you decided to do it, ridiculous though it is. It doesn't take a genius to realize he's starting the debate he's blaming others for, or saying he doesn't want to have.

I didn't ask you to post with or without enthusiasm. But when you come into "my" thread and start a fight with me, you'll probably get one. This thread is about the 2005 Mustang GT. If you want to argue, piss and moan about the car or it's driveline, do it elsewhere. If you think you're going to teach me something about the 5.0 and it's capabilities, you're wasting time. I'm done that little engine, in favor of the big brother that wears a "W" in it's name. I liked the 5.0 for years. The modular, like the "W" is simply BETTER.


Posted by: Tang

NOW, this place is getting back to normal.

I will throw my dog in the fight too.... I'm not a hater of the the 4.6, I've only gotten to drive two. My Aunt had a '96 GT Auto (read: SLUG) , it sounded great though. I also spent an afternoon driving a '00 GT around. The power was smooth, but it just never seemed to hit a point at which it felt strong. I guess it was the gear in my old 5 ohh that made the '00 feel so slow, where I was used to it snapping your head back. The 4.6 is a pretty neat thing, I just think Ford should have taken the 351W and did with it what Chevy did with their 350, alter the design to refine. You can'r argue gas mileage, because the LS1's got just as good, if not better mileage than the 4.6's .

With all that said, I still love the '96-'98 Cobras. The 4.6 32v cars sound simply amazing through a full Bassani exhaust.


Posted by: Grape Ape

The only thing I really dislike about the 4.6 is fuel economy. The Grand Marquis gets the same mileage as an automatic GT prior to this year. Plus, while the new 4.6L burns far far cleaner than the previous 2V, it and they claim better efficiency and fuel economy, it really isn't looking like the mileage has been improved. In the F-150, it did improve, but with the Mustang it seems stagnant at best.

That's a shame really, as it's a fairly small V8. On the other hand, it's almost comparable to most V6 offerings, particularly in the 60 less to almost even hp range. With a 5spd automatic, the mileage should be notibly increased. And maybe it is, but I haven't seen any verifiable calculations to agree.

Personally, I'd think the 351W would be able to see the same fuel mileage, given an aluminum block and heads, as well as a lighter crank and rods. I'm positive it could also pass emissions, just not as easily. I believe that's much of the reason for the 4.6L and other modular engines to begin with, as their emissions numbers are unquestionably better than basically any OHV made. The new 3V is said to be 56% better than the last, which was already so good that it didn't even need a smog pump to meet compliance.


Posted by: Adrenalin

You mean to tell me with all your 20 years experience and and all your 30+ Mustangs you couldnt make a Fox mustang run a 13.4 with a Maf, Underdrives, Flowmasters and electric fan beitn the only aftermarket parts?


What do you think it would take for a Fox to run that ET? Tell me specifically... the thing is if you say more then that, you must not know what you are doing, because it was not hard to do. You act like it was some awesome time or something. lol




Posted by: LS1JAY

I must admit, Terry's car did run 13.4's just as he described it. It wasn't gutted, but it did have draglites and some minor weight reduction. It has the seats and all and carpet. Just minor stuff. I still have it on tape. BTW... it lifted the wheels on that 13.4@101 pass! I ran the same with my Automatic Formula with just headers, Flowmaster weld in, no cats, and a cold air induction box on radials!


Posted by: EvilLS1

My old 1992 GT went 13.68@101 with 3.55s, cobra intake, removed silencer, pullies, flowmasters, no cats, shorty headers and drag radials.

Added TFS Twisted Wedge heads, GT-40 intake, spacer, custom comp cam, 1.7 rockers, & TB and it went 12.8@105 (new owner was driving). It also had a hundred horse nitrous kit but I never got any ETs with the spray. It was probably a high 11 second car on the juice.

I dunno what this has to do with the conversation but I just figured I'd throw that in for comparison or something.


Posted by: LS1JAY

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrenalin
Jay what did my red GT run stock before any mods? I will have to look for the info, and I may have spent a total of 250 bucks on a maf, electric fan (which '94 up come with), underdrives and Flowmasters (used parts)everthing else stock it ran 13.4s with 3.08 gears. This is nothing impressive I know, but seeing how "inferior" that motor was compared the new mod motors, I would choose that anyday. A set of 3.73s and that car would have been within 13.1s easily if not faster. Jay knows it and I am sure would agree.

It ran mid 14's bone stock. 14.6 I think and that was on street tires. I rememebr in good air with the mods you mentioned (also had no cats and draglites with slicks & skinnys) it ran 13.4@101ish. I have the video.

That car did seem to be somewhat of a freak though. Most of the GT's with those same mods were a good bit slower! Plus, you were launching at redline and dead hooking and you could drive that car! That makes up for a lot! I think with gears and headers you would have possibly dipped in the 12's (12.9's) with you driving it hard!


Posted by: EvilLS1

The fox body coupes were pretty quick. I've seen a bone stock notchback run 13.9 on drag radials in good air. Those cars are light!


Posted by: LS1JAY

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilLS1
The fox body coupes were pretty quick. I've seen a bone stock notchback run 13.9 on drag radials in good air. Those cars are light!


That's what was so strange... Terry's GT hatchback was faster than his coupe! His coupe did run a 13.0 in VERY good air with stock heads and cam, but it had a LOT of bolt on's and a upper and lower intake with gears and LT's. It eventually went 12.6 with H&C and low 11's on the juice. The day he ran the 13.4 in his GT it was probably 60*-70*.


Posted by: Adrenalin

Quote:
Originally Posted by LS1JAY
That's what was so strange... Terry's GT hatchback was faster than his coupe! His coupe did run a 13.0 in VERY good air with stock heads and cam, but it had a LOT of bolt on's and a upper and lower intake with gears and LT's. It eventually went 12.6 with H&C and low 11's on the juice. The day he ran the 13.4 in his GT it was probably 60*-70*.



I have been trying to find my slips and some notes I made while working on the GT. There is no telling what I did with them, but it doesn't matter.

Jay, keep in mind if My coupe had a fresh motor it would have been alot faster then it was. Yes I know peeps say the more miles a car has the more loose it is etc and will get more power. However, keep in mind the car had 130k miles on it, the guy I that had it before me told me he tried to blow it up so his dad would buy him another. He intentially ran it without oil. Number 8 cylinder was way off, (You may remember that Jay, not sure tho). Also remember that the coupe was my first Mustang and the GT, I was able to use what I had learned from the Coupe.

I honestly don't think the GT was anything special. Fun Ford weekends were full of cars that were faster then that with less. Man I wish I could find those notes and slips.


Posted by: Grape Ape

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrenalin
You mean to tell me with all your 20 years experience and and all your 30+ Mustangs you couldnt make a Fox mustang run a 13.4 with a Maf, Underdrives, Flowmasters and electric fan beitn the only aftermarket parts?


What do you think it would take for a Fox to run that ET? Tell me specifically... the thing is if you say more then that, you must not know what you are doing, because it was not hard to do. You act like it was some awesome time or something. lol


First off, when YOU build an engine that makes as much hp and torque N/A as the one I have, you may CONSIDER telling me I must not know what I'm doing. So far you evidently haven't.

As for not being able to run 13.4's with those particular four modifications listed, until you made the claim, I'd never even heard anyone say they'd done it, except with an 87 factory stripper. There are ways to knock down the ET, no doubt. But to go that quick with only those 4 mods is rather unbelievable to me.

Next, GEARS are important, and you have 3.08's listed. With that, I don't believe you. Also, using an aftermarket mass air meter with stock injectors and stock intake does little or no good at all. Also, you make no mention of tires aiding your traction. Those would be a good idea, and I seriously doubt your car had its original tires on it, and expect it had slicks, or cheater slicks if it even got close to 13.4's. Jay noted your car lifted the wheels... NO CHANCE without slicks and that limited amount of power/torque unless it's lightened as well. NONE! He also added that it had aftermarket wheels on it, but you must've forgotten that...

So it would seem you had the mods YOU listed, plus aftermarket wheels and tires, plus weight removal, even if you claim it was minimal, and who knows what minor things were done before you bought it, as it seems you got it used. I'd almost bet it had an aftermarket shifter as well, but that's just me and clearly I don't know as much about Fox body Mustangs as you... I've forgotten more though.

Just be honest. If you're going to tell the story, tell ALL of it so someone like me doesn't laugh at you in disbelief. And before you mount anymore defense, keep in mind, Jay already gave you up on the wheels and some weight reduction. That cat's outta the bag! I wouldn't be shocked to learn your car had 3.73's installed before you bought it, but hey... You likely swapped your own gears and know what they were.


Posted by: Adrenalin

Oh nos, Mister big bad Grape Ape has spoken, what shall I do?..

The car did have a hurst shifter , and I also didn't make mention of the a Zoom Kevlar clutch it had in it . I mean that has to be good for how many horses? I also had a pic of the car posted in my sig for a long time before The Corral stopped hotlinking. That same pic shows the car with the wheels up. OMG, is that a big secret, that I ran slicks? Your a real Dick Tracey aren't ya? Did you learn that a car can't yank the wheels with street tires from one of your bench racing buddies? kudos to you.

Bro, get a grip, I mentioned the Maf as that does indeed add power, I mentioned the Electric fan because that indeed in essence releases power, or wait was that you who was arguing that an electirc fan doesn't help with power in a thread a while back?(this I could be wrong about which you will surely correct me if I am wrong to prove how smart you are ), and lastly the Flowmasters, those too add power. In your little world I bet my hurst shifter was just the last straw of power! ooo man you got me there. You say the maf is useless, but yet I have obviously ran an et that you think so amazing it surely must have done something lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ass
First off, when YOU build an engine that makes as much hp and torque N/A as the one I have, you may CONSIDER telling me I must not know what I'm doing. So far you evidently haven't.



Your sig shows 11s. Tell me mister man, how far into the 11s are you and what have you done to get there, so I can scoff at you lol. I have built motors for other people there asshat.

Oh back to the GT, the gears were 3.08 as I said before. If you can listen, maybe I can show you a few tricks on how to make sure they are actually 3.08s in the rear, not just by reading a tag there Markus Jr.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Assclown
Just be honest. If you're going to tell the story, tell ALL of it so someone like me doesn't laugh at you in disbelief. And before you mount anymore defense, keep in mind, Jay already gave you up on the wheels and some weight reduction. That cat's outta the bag! I wouldn't be shocked to learn your car had 3.73's installed before you bought it, but hey... You likely swapped your own gears and know what they were.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GrapeAss