SVO was told the mustang was going to be canned after 1986 in favor for the Mazda MX6 due to its better EPA numbers which made it easier for ford to meet CAFE requirements. The SVO group asked for a thunderbird after considering their SVO a sucess. They had already started on their aero-T-bird and their mid-engine sports car, before the UAW convinced ford to sign an agreement to continue the mustang til 1993.Stinger said:Well, I imagine the new focus SVT is faster but it's a different 2.3...the Mazda 3 turbo also uses a turbo version of the "new" 2.3...it's pretty damn fast (relatively speaking) as well.
The fastest "magazine" time I've seen for the SVO is 15.0 at 91.0 mph. This is in 1986 btw. I've seen enthusiasts pull low 14's out of them bone stock though. (this is all on street tires).
The 1987 SVO that was canned because they didn't want it to outpower the "legendary" 5.0 made 280hp...too bad they never let it go into production.
bhuff30 said:15.0 doesn't seem to bad considering the corvette of the day was running mid 14's with an engine more than double the size.
I have too disagree with you here,,theres no way an 86 vette was in the 14'sbhuff30 said:15.0 doesn't seem to bad considering the corvette of the day was running mid 14's with an engine more than double the size.
willys1 said:I have too disagree with you here,,theres no way an 86 vette was in the 14'sVettes were lame in the 80's.The only fast car in the 80's besides the Stang was the Buick Grand National(Turbo 6banger) it ran high 13's,,and its brother the GNX,,was in the low 13's.They also wanted to make a Turbo 5.0 for the 25th anniversery,,but it was squashed!!
Never said it didnt exist!! Just said there was no way an 86 vette ran in the 14's out of the factory.z28's smoked mustangs for decades,,but starting in 85(1st year of roller cam) Mustang started to kick butt!!mr_woodster said:There were alot of lame cars, that doesnt mean they didnt exsist! The lost vodoo mustang II comes to mind. There were years that the vette/camero smoked the mustang , when the mustang was choked down in the 70's and some early 80's...it comes full circle.
I think its really good to compare factory times of similar vechiles in that time period. It helps to put things in perspective as to what "fast" was , at that time.
HUH,,I gotta double check that,,14.1,,all due respect,,85 vettes had less then 250hp,,14.1 seems way off.mr_woodster said:After doing a couple searches, they all list the vette the same way ...
Year/make/model/0-60/Qmile times
1984 Chevrolet Corvette 6.7 15.1
1985 Chevrolet Corvette 5.7 14.1
1986 Chevrolet Corvette 5.8 14.4
bhuff30 said:imagine a 5.0 powered automatic GT convertable running 16's
Dude,your "WRONG",now swallow!! Its the truth,85's had less hp then the 86's!! Just because its about the same in wieght(but it is heavier) doesnt mean there gonna do the same time!! Yes,,go to a mag. ,,just so you can learn the truth for your self!!84,85,86,87,88,89 vettes were "SSLLOOOWWW!!!bhuff30 said:http://www.pr.streetracing.org/whats_new.html#Chevrolet
http://www.yanmark.com/quartermiletimes.html
http://blackws6.20m.com/whats_new.html
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/default.aspx
I don't know who did the origional test, but all of these sources list the 85 corvette at 14.1 and the 86 corvette at 14.4. If you want, I could even go to the library, and look up the orgional C&D or Motortrend test that shows the corvette in the 14's, but I think 4 seperate sources should be sufficient.
Also, do you really think a 2 seat corvette weighs SO much more than a mustang that it would be in the 15s instead of the 14s with a slightly higher rated power output? Common man. Get a life.
You are so blinded by 87-89 5.0 notches running 14's that you can't even imagine a 5.0 powered automatic GT convertable running 16's, which absolutly is the truth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?