Thanks man good reply, answered my question. I guess I should have worded it differently from the jump
Thanks man good reply, answered my question. I guess I should have worded it differently from the jumpmmm... I see. Well, when you can swap gears and add traction, you don't need a whole hell of a lot of power to run a low ET. However, just after the finish line, that new GT is going to blow your doors off because it's trapping a lot higher.
If you want the equivalent power to keep with it even from a highway roll, or to match traps in the 1/4, I'd say a solid 300-320 rwhp.
I think that's underestimating the '85 significantly and overestimating the New GT a little. I'd guess the 85 mustang weights quoted were 4 cylinder LXs. You're probably close to the same as the '87-93s. It's the same chassis, motor, and a close enough body.
The new ones are pretty quick huh? I haven't ridden in one and haven't been to a track in a long while to see one in action. The other day I was reading an article on mustang gt vs charger rt. Thats what kinda sparked this thread. They said the mustang ran like a high 12 (12.8 maybe it was??) and the charger ran a 14! Like 14.05 I think. Must be one heavy pig. They also said the stang had a top speed of 150 where the dodge was 170Yea, I agree about the whole traction and gears thing. I can easily keep up with a newer mustang as long as its a high rpm launch. Once you get up into the higher mph though they fly by!
Yea, that's one reason they come stock with more power now in days right? Because the added weight for all the new good suspension they come with. I know you hear comes with 400hp stock but knock off some of that factory over-rating and think about weight differences. I'm not knocking the new ones they definitely are beast and nice racecars from the factory.
I know huh, exactly what I was thinking. They're sexy but that's a lotta scratch to run 14's. My old man would call it "a hwy cruiser." Maybe the target demographic isn't wanting a car to beat on at the track. Don't think I would on a mid 30k dolla car either.damn 170! but 14qtr eh...
True I got a buddy that has one of those v12 jags. All he does is drive the interstate racing Audi's and what not, high speed stuff. Crazy.I know huh, exactly what I was thinking. They're sexy but that's a lotta scratch to run 14's. My old man would call it "a hwy cruiser." Maybe the target demographic isn't wanting a car to beat on at the track. Don't think I would on a mid 30k dolla car either.
I don't have the stones to do 140 in my fox. Too rough at the moment.150, unless limited, is not the stang's top speed. A fox would go over 140.
How Much Hp To Run 12s In Sn95 And In Fox?
Ha-ha sounds fun.If he wants some interstate action, he needs to come live in Germany. I've spent half a tank of fuel staying with a couple of porche turbos in my Corvette. Those cars are faster, but no one really wants to try to stay above 160 for very long, and I'm just as comfortable there as they are
1992 LX with GT interior from the factory.Yes this is possible... But how many people have done it? Also this is on slicks. And weight reduction.
booyah! I'm glad to see someone confirm the 240rwhp guess! Well done, sir1992 LX with GT interior from the factory.
No weight removal, 100% stock suspension, underdrives, full exhaust MAF., DOT's on turbines and skinnies on convo pros.
232hp, 3250 race weight, 12.96 @ 104.0 in 2600'DA.
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?