• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech

102 trap w/ only exhaust. Magnaflow exhaust??

  • Thread starter Thread starter 01Black_46
  • Start date Start date Feb 29, 2004
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
0

01Black_46

New Member
Feb 29, 2004
23
0
0
Feb 29, 2004
#1
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #1
This is my first post as well as my first time at the track. I only have the Magnaflow O/R X and the packs. I ran four times and got a best of 102.24 MPH trap speed with only exhaust...... Heres my data sheet (my 102 run I cannot find the sheet, but heres a similar one at 101.6X mph

or click here if image does not show

As you can see-I am not a very good driver (2.3 60'...) but I still pulled off a 13.92 on everything stock down to the filter. Maybe magnaflow really does gain a significant amount more then others exhaust??? I had 4 runs with two low 14's and two 13.9X's-all of them in 101 and 102MPH (all runs spinning 1st gear pretty bad) All with 2.3 60'. Anyone have any suggestions on what next to get in the mid 13's?? Traction was a major issue. On a 01 GT with street tires btw

Post any comments or suggestions below. Is this uncommon to run 102 with no traction and crappy 60' with just exhaust? Thanks
 

Attachments

  • receipt2.webp
    52.8 KB · Views: 142

daver01

Founding Member
Oct 4, 2002
396
0
0
52
Lexington, Ky
Feb 29, 2004
#2
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #2
impressive #'s. btw, what was in the other lane?
 
0

01Black_46

New Member
Feb 29, 2004
23
0
0
Feb 29, 2004
#3
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #3
SRT-4.... Was pretty embarassed to get beaten by the only fast ricer there. He sure could drive considering the traction problems they have...
 
J

just some guy

Founding Member
Sep 23, 2002
723
0
0
FL
Mar 1, 2004
#4
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #4
01Black_46 said:
SRT-4.... Was pretty embarassed to get beaten by the only fast ricer there. He sure could drive considering the traction problems they have...
Click to expand...
he didnt have a traction problem.
 

daver01

Founding Member
Oct 4, 2002
396
0
0
52
Lexington, Ky
Mar 1, 2004
#5
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #5
jesus, that is depressing. wish i hadn't asked.
 
0

01Black_46

New Member
Feb 29, 2004
23
0
0
Mar 1, 2004
#6
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #6
just some guy said:
he didnt have a traction problem.
Click to expand...
No not at all. Most people I know can't hook them up to save their life though.. Front wheel drive
 
0

01Black_46

New Member
Feb 29, 2004
23
0
0
Mar 1, 2004
#7
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #7
Actually. It was not the neon on that run.. I think the srt-4 was my 102.24 run. Pretty sure that one was where I got whooped by an 03...... Cobra. Neon ran a 12.9 with small shot of nitrous if I can remember right. So is 102 high for just exhaust?
 

daver01

Founding Member
Oct 4, 2002
396
0
0
52
Lexington, Ky
Mar 1, 2004
#8
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #8
that makes more sense & makes me feel much better.
 
0

01Black_46

New Member
Feb 29, 2004
23
0
0
Mar 1, 2004
#9
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #9
01Black_46 said:
. So is 102 high for just exhaust?
Click to expand...
 

daver01

Founding Member
Oct 4, 2002
396
0
0
52
Lexington, Ky
Mar 1, 2004
#10
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #10
higher than some i've seen with more than just exhaust.
 
R

RacerGT

Founding Member
Jun 28, 2002
2,371
0
0
41
St. Charles, Missouri
www.racergt.com
Mar 1, 2004
#11
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #11
You have a high trap because you spun. Get some tires and your ETs will drop significantly and so will your MPH by a few.
 
0

01Black_46

New Member
Feb 29, 2004
23
0
0
Mar 1, 2004
#12
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #12
RacerGT said:
You have a high trap because you spun. Get some tires and your ETs will drop significantly and so will your MPH by a few.
Click to expand...


Thats interesting. I thought if you got there faster-you generally run faster. My least spin run yielded the fastest trap and et. Anyways, I interested in ET's-and there is a lot of room for improvement. Any more suggestions/comments?
 
J

just some guy

Founding Member
Sep 23, 2002
723
0
0
FL
Mar 1, 2004
#13
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #13
01Black_46 said:
Thats interesting. I thought if you got there faster-you generally run faster. My least spin run yielded the fastest trap and et. Anyways, I interested in ET's-and there is a lot of room for improvement. Any more suggestions/comments?
Click to expand...
the statement of better 60' and overall time lower mph is correct.

there is a trade-off point between e.t. and mph, lets say a decent spin run would net you your highest ever 103.5 mph. with this speed your car has enough power to run a 13.1 lets say. well, the closer you get to that 13.1 your car loses mph because it is accelerating in less amount of time, in other words you are minimizing the time in which you can speed up, although you have used to same amount of power to go 13.1 at 102 as you did when you ran lets say 13.6 at 103.5.
when you are going faster and getting superior traction like 1.7 60's you are making the most of your available power.
get me?
think about it like this, you apply X amount of power durning a shorter amount of time, MPH is judged by power, so that is why it is lower. whereas if you applied X amount of power during a longer amount of time, you will trap higher.
 
0

01Black_46

New Member
Feb 29, 2004
23
0
0
Mar 1, 2004
#14
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #14
just some guy said:
the statement of better 60' and overall time lower mph is correct.

there is a trade-off point between e.t. and mph, lets say a decent spin run would net you your highest ever 103.5 mph. with this speed your car has enough power to run a 13.1 lets say. well, the closer you get to that 13.1 your car loses mph because it is accelerating in less amount of time, in other words you are minimizing the time in which you can speed up, although you have used to same amount of power to go 13.1 at 102 as you did when you ran lets say 13.6 at 103.5.
when you are going faster and getting superior traction like 1.7 60's you are making the most of your available power.
get me?
think about it like this, you apply X amount of power durning a shorter amount of time, MPH is judged by power, so that is why it is lower. whereas if you applied X amount of power during a longer amount of time, you will trap higher.
Click to expand...


Makes sense. I saw you have a 13.15 at 103.5-What mods were you running-and you were using slicks?-I have a T/A and a dragon plenum incoming. Hoping for low 13's with slicks. I'll go back in 2 weeks and try again. Once I break 12's N/A-I'll prob look into forced induction/nitrous (too expensive to get faster N/A once running 12's)
 

JonJon

Founding Member
Aug 16, 2002
4,801
1
68
back in Marylands
coldgravity.com
Mar 1, 2004
#15
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #15
102 is believable

i trapped 100-101 with C&L maf, 99 MPH all stock

i gained 2 MPH from my x pipe after I lost 2 mph from my rims.
 

gtrackd02

New Member
Aug 2, 2003
290
0
0
48
st clair shores
Mar 1, 2004
#16
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #16
I'v only clocked over a hundred a few times.... my best run was a 13.93@99.5
with a 2.0somthing 60foot and i have alot more than just a catback...
of course at the track i run at i spin first second and it kicks out a little in third too.....

But those numbers seem pretty good to me....oh and i also got beat by an srt-4 but he only ran a 13.2......lol
 

StngStr

Member
Jun 24, 2003
616
0
17
48
Central Florida
Mar 1, 2004
#17
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #17
just some guy said:
the statement of better 60' and overall time lower mph is correct.

there is a trade-off point between e.t. and mph, lets say a decent spin run would net you your highest ever 103.5 mph. with this speed your car has enough power to run a 13.1 lets say. well, the closer you get to that 13.1 your car loses mph because it is accelerating in less amount of time, in other words you are minimizing the time in which you can speed up, although you have used to same amount of power to go 13.1 at 102 as you did when you ran lets say 13.6 at 103.5.
when you are going faster and getting superior traction like 1.7 60's you are making the most of your available power.
get me?
think about it like this, you apply X amount of power durning a shorter amount of time, MPH is judged by power, so that is why it is lower. whereas if you applied X amount of power during a longer amount of time, you will trap higher.
Click to expand...

So....you saying that since I am trapping 103mph that my car is capable of low 13's with a lower (1.7) 60 ft? Where's Jackie Chan?....I need to borrow his tires on Wednesday........
 
J

just some guy

Founding Member
Sep 23, 2002
723
0
0
FL
Mar 1, 2004
#18
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #18
StngStr said:
So....you saying that since I am trapping 103mph that my car is capable of low 13's with a lower (1.7) 60 ft? Where's Jackie Chan?....I need to borrow his tires on Wednesday........
Click to expand...
yes
 
J

just some guy

Founding Member
Sep 23, 2002
723
0
0
FL
Mar 1, 2004
#19
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #19
01Black_46 said:
Makes sense. I saw you have a 13.15 at 103.5-What mods were you running-and you were using slicks?-I have a T/A and a dragon plenum incoming. Hoping for low 13's with slicks. I'll go back in 2 weeks and try again. Once I break 12's N/A-I'll prob look into forced induction/nitrous (too expensive to get faster N/A once running 12's)
Click to expand...
i was running 275/40/17 nitto drag radials, cai,t/a,cnl plenum,o/r x, catback, 4.10s and a shifter.

i also backed it up with a 13.168 at 103.7 2 days later


those are the best runs from those 2 days, then right after that, i broke my drivers side axle.
 

StngStr

Member
Jun 24, 2003
616
0
17
48
Central Florida
Mar 1, 2004
#20
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #20
where've you been? Haven't seen you at the track lately. I'll be out of town for a week starting wednesday, but I'll be back at OSW on 3/10/03. Maybe I'll see if I can use John's tires and see what I can do with some traction.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Engine Unexplainable Exhaust Pop and Gurgle
  • Mrnissen122
  • Feb 14, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
12
Views
589
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Feb 18, 2026
Noobz347
Fox Fuel Pump Issues After Replacement/Upgrade
  • Ryu
  • Jun 23, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
600
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 5, 2026
Ryu
Weber Carburetor tuning help
  • SchwarzStock
  • Jul 6, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
96
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jul 19, 2026
SchwarzStock
K
Engine 2000 Mustang GT - Fuel issue post-blown spark plug repair
  • kenster1092
  • Feb 26, 2026
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
4
Views
379
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Mar 10, 2026
kenster1092
K
J
Emission problems
  • jls.zmmr
  • Feb 5, 2026
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
2
Views
248
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Feb 7, 2026
AeroCoupe
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?