Sn95 Vs 90 Fox Gt Stock Stock

#41
If you want to talk weight: http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/how-much-do-94-98s-really-weigh.773198/.

Maybe I'm missing something, but a 90 GT could have 35 hp less than a SN95 4.6 depending on the latter's year. Assuming traction and vehicle condition together were impeccable for both cars, it was always going to be an uphill battle.

On a side note, I always wanted a 92 GT with the Holley Systemax II kit with 3.73's, but never did it.
 
#44
ximportdriver said:
If you want to talk weight: http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/how-much-do-94-98s-really-weigh.773198/.

Maybe I'm missing something, but a 90 GT could have 35 hp less than a SN95 4.6 depending on the latter's year. Assuming traction and vehicle condition together were impeccable for both cars, it was always going to be an uphill battle.

On a side note, I always wanted a 92 GT with the Holley Systemax II kit with 3.73's, but never did it.
Click to expand...


My old 92 LX had that kit and I was very impressed with it. The combo of the heads cam and intakes was put together well. Mine had 3.55 in it and wasn't a total beast at launch but in the higher rpms it wanted to go!

Never did get a true dyno figure. It was low 200's on 5 cylinders though LOL!
 
#45
85_SS_302_Coupe said:
I was waiting for this to go the way of rice and it just did lol. If it's so easy to get a Civic to go 13s why have I never seen a naturally aspirated one break 15s?
Click to expand...


It's the Big Foot phenomena. It spreads like an infectious disease.

Big Foot as you know, is OFTEN talked about but RARELY ever seen. Though many are certain that they exist, few have actually ever been a first hand witnesses. Then there is the trouble of distinguishing ACTUAL witnesses from those who SAY they have witnessed.

So you see... It's a very complicated problem to sort. :nonono:
 
#56
Here's the thing man, I don't get my proof from You Tube, I get it from the track, physically in person. I go there and I see that "wide variety" you're talking about, and these days it's almost nothing but imports. And I'm telling you now, if it doesn't have a turbo, I've never seen one go faster than high 14s. That doesn't mean it's impossible, but it says something to me because if it were that easy to drop a motor in an old Civic why haven't I seen it done? The motors and cars are a dime a dozen and fairly cheap, seems to me if it were easy I would have seen it by now. I've seen plenty of quick turbo Hondas, but never all motor.

As for the HP ratings, you just simply have it wrong. The standard 5.0 make the same power from '88 on, Ford just changed the way they tested and rated the engines. They were mechanically the same except for a change in piston material and then an intake/TB change on the SN95. The only engines that made more power were the Cobras, and they only made 235/240. Even if there were legit differences in power, we're talking about 10 measly HP, which you will never see a gain from by itself. That kind of gain is easily lost in driver ability, traction, even air density and atmosphere conditions from one day to the next.
 
#60
Don't get me wrong, I love all cars import and domestic. As a matter of fact some of my favorite cars are imports. I respect any car that is built right. There are plenty of "rice" muscle cars out there. That being said, I am not saying that your 1.8 won't run 13's NA but, how much will it cost you to get there? Now, compare that to what it will take you to get there in a Mustang of ANY year? Or F body or, G8 GT, ect or any other muscle car (old or modern). Hell, I can do it with a tune, exhaust, sticky tires and simple weight reduction. You can even get a Mustang into the 12's NA cheaper than what your 1.8 will need to break 13.99
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Menu