• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

I call BS! How about you?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SMOKEDYA
  • Start date Start date Apr 22, 2010
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2

7upstang91

10 Year Member
May 30, 2008
936
124
74
Florida
Apr 23, 2010
#21
  • Apr 23, 2010
  • #21
Gearbanger 101 said:
Well, when he stated the guy’s original list of mods, heads weren't mentioned. So, based on the info listed.....yes, we were led to believe it was a stock long block with little more than a carb swap. In which case those horsepower and quarter mile time would have been bunk.




....but now


Did you not think it might have been relevant to mention the fact that he was running a 9.5:1 357ci and not a stock 9.0:1 302ci....or AFR 185's and not stock Iron castings when you initially laid out his list of mods.

Knowing what we do now, 324rwhp/300rwtq and 11-second ET's in a stripped car is actually quite feasible. As a matter of fact, I'm actually inclined to believe he's down a little or the torque side.
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Full supsenion...gutted car...and have stock heads with those numbers. Even you had to know those weren't stock heads with those kind of numbers.
 

NIKwoaC

中國製造
15 Year Member
Oct 31, 2006
5,525
943
214
Chengdu Province
Apr 23, 2010
#22
  • Apr 23, 2010
  • #22
Well, now that we know a little more about the motor, I'm beginning to believe that what is BS is how LOW the power/torque numbers are. Like said above, though, the tranny setup could be influencing that. Mid to low 11s with an AFR headed 351 is perfectly believable.
 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Apr 23, 2010
#23
  • Apr 23, 2010
  • #23
7upstang91 said:
You're kidding right? Full supsenion...gutted car...and have stock heads with those numbers. Even you had to know those weren't stock heads with those kind of numbers.
Click to expand...
Nope, I figured it had stock heads and nothing more than a carb swap and weight reduction (based on what many of us thought was an accurate depiction of Johns initial recount of the car) and the guy who owned it was simply lying about both the power and quarter mile times. The guy sounded like one of those typical BS'er that think a CAI and a "chip" adds 100hp because advertisers claims state as much....and since he had all this horsepower now and he stripped some weight, he was simply guessing how fast it went, without ever having been at the track.

These guys are a dime a dozen where I'm from. I probably run into half a dozen of them an outing at our local cruise night. They're called bench racers and none of them ever have a clue.
 

7upstang91

10 Year Member
May 30, 2008
936
124
74
Florida
Apr 24, 2010
#24
  • Apr 24, 2010
  • #24
Gearbanger 101 said:
Nope, I figured it had stock heads and nothing more than a carb swap and weight reduction (based on what many of us thought was an accurate depiction of Johns initial recount of the car) and the guy who owned it was simply lying about both the power and quarter mile times. The guy sounded like one of those typical BS'er that think a CAI and a "chip" adds 100hp because advertisers claims state as much....and since he had all this horsepower now and he stripped some weight, he was simply guessing how fast it went, without ever having been at the track.

These guys are a dime a dozen where I'm from. I probably run into half a dozen of them an outing at our local cruise night. They're called bench racers and none of them ever have a clue.
Click to expand...

True...we don't have many of those in my area.

Over 300rwhp and I knew it had to have heads. Who does all that work without heads?
 

Kdubslugga

Active Member
Jun 7, 2003
1,515
3
38
Akron, OH
Apr 24, 2010
#25
  • Apr 24, 2010
  • #25
 

85_SS_302_Coupe

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end
15 Year Member
Nov 11, 2003
6,945
1,598
223
Northern KY
Apr 24, 2010
#26
  • Apr 24, 2010
  • #26
We have so many guys going high 11s with Explorer motors it's not funny. An aftermarket headed 351 could easily do it in the right car with traction.
 

SMOKEDYA

20+ Year Stangneter
Jul 13, 2003
3,637
8
79
Tucson AZ
Apr 24, 2010
#27
  • Apr 24, 2010
  • #27
That what i was saying BS to. Is that he claims thats all he makes at the wheels but runs low 11's. I must suck at driving or something? My coupe weighted 2800 and i made the numbers in my sig and only ran a best of 12.4and an average of 12.5-12.6 peace












john
 

Mike97gt

it doe snot
Founding Member
Jan 26, 1999
10,633
7
89
the people's republic of massachusetts
Apr 24, 2010
#28
  • Apr 24, 2010
  • #28
SMOKEDYA said:
That what i was saying BS to. Is that he claims thats all he makes at the wheels but runs low 11's. I must suck at driving or something? My coupe weighted 2800 and i made the numbers in my sig and only ran a best of 12.4and an average of 12.5-12.6 peace









john
Click to expand...

Could be a lot of reasons.. Maybe he drives better, maybe his car is setup better for drag racing? I don't know your car and I can't see a mods list. I see guys all the time with 300-400 HP running 13's
 

25thmustang

Mustang Master
Sep 5, 2003
2,021
85
99
Montgomery, NY
Apr 24, 2010
#29
  • Apr 24, 2010
  • #29
SMOKEDYA said:
That what i was saying BS to. Is that he claims thats all he makes at the wheels but runs low 11's. I must suck at driving or something? My coupe weighted 2800 and i made the numbers in my sig and only ran a best of 12.4and an average of 12.5-12.6 peace












john
Click to expand...

Cant see numbers in your sig, but at 3150 and 256 rwhp I go 12.5 - 12.6...

As stated before autos on a dyno make weird numbers. Was it an MD or Dynojet? An efficient gutted auto with those mods... 11.2s seems so so and the power is irrelivent.
 

SMOKEDYA

20+ Year Stangneter
Jul 13, 2003
3,637
8
79
Tucson AZ
Apr 25, 2010
#30
  • Apr 25, 2010
  • #30
OOOOPS sorry forgot i changed my sig. My numbers are 318/338 at the wheels. I was running a TKO 26x10x15 slicks launching at 5800 and cutting mid high 1.5-low1.6 consistant 60'. Well i now weight 33xxish LBS same power but with 3.55 gears and D/R's with less syspension mods,so we'll see next saturday what changes? peace












john
 

SMOKEDYA

20+ Year Stangneter
Jul 13, 2003
3,637
8
79
Tucson AZ
Apr 25, 2010
#31
  • Apr 25, 2010
  • #31
25thmustang said:
Cant see numbers in your sig, but at 3150 and 256 rwhp I go 12.5 - 12.6...

As stated before autos on a dyno make weird numbers. Was it an MD or Dynojet? An efficient gutted auto with those mods... 11.2s seems so so and the power is irrelivent.
Click to expand...

is your car auto or stick? what gears? his numbers were on a MD dyno,as well as mine were to. peace









john
 

90lxcoupe

20+ Year Stangneter
Oct 7, 2003
3,596
350
134
Apr 26, 2010
#32
  • Apr 26, 2010
  • #32
I'll say it agian, dyno numbers dont mean ****, you see it all the time, guys got a 500hp blower motor that runs 11.50's, Ive seen my car make 20 less HP two nights later and the only change was the weather, the car even stayed strapped on the dyno the whole time. I dont put a whole lot of stock in dyno numbers, people get so stuck on them, the dyno is a tuning tool
 

25thmustang

Mustang Master
Sep 5, 2003
2,021
85
99
Montgomery, NY
Apr 26, 2010
#33
  • Apr 26, 2010
  • #33
SMOKEDYA said:
is your car auto or stick? what gears? his numbers were on a MD dyno,as well as mine were to. peace









john
Click to expand...

Stock tranny, weak clutch, 3.73s and my numbers were on a dynojet, so probably in the 24x range on an MD.

Brothers car makes similar power to yours, although on a Dynojet, and has been 11.8 @ 114. I doube he would crack 300 on an MD.

With these facts, I can absolutely see his car running those numbers, and an MD showing those power levels.

BTW, I knew a guy who ran his car all the time. Car went high 10s all day long. On the dyno I don't think it cracked 350 rwhp. The guy laughed that his sub 350 rwhp car was running into the 10s...
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How much do you think my car is worth?
  • sn9550
  • Jan 28, 2007
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 30, 2007
90
J
new 5.0..... hows this sound. need to decide by 2marro. please help. i cant decide
  • jeffs89gt
  • Nov 4, 2006
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
2
Views
632
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Nov 4, 2006
Flavadave4
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
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?