SRT8 VS 87-93 5.0

[25thmustang]

Well, I can tell you right now that it doesn't way anything close to that 4700 lb. turd station wagon .


As for the second comment, I don't care if your station wagon is faster than my stock Vette (which was made in 1985 BTW). If you want to make a fair comparison it WOULD smoke a stock or lightly modded 85 Stang in the 1/4 .

Umm... you own one of the weakest, slowest Corvettes out there. If your not talking about handeling, your WAY out of your league when comparing to an SRT8. Weak rebuttel here.

I would take an 85 GT, 5-speed fox with gears and run your 85 Vette. Willing to bet the race would NOT go as you expect it to.

 

[just4bob50]

The only cars from detroit that could put a hurting on a mid to late 80's stang was the Grand National, especially the 87's not to mention the GNX.

IMO the mid 80's vettes are akin to the 96-98 4.6 stangs in performance.

 

[cervinistang]

I like the vette. Engine swap and it would be sweet. its not a flying brick. ive seen alot of really nice c4 corvettes. ive even considered buying one.

why would i buy a station wagon? i dont got no damn kids!

 

[FastDriver]

I think that vette would go 14s...

 

[Juggalo95]

You are equally stupid if you believe that a vette (regardless what year ) has the same 1/4 mile time as a civic.

Id be willing to bet my bone stock 95 gts is faster than the 85 automatic vette in the 1/4.

Hell I bet my 89 Honda Civic/CRX is faster too....it even has a stock 89 Engine in it (note stock engine from dif model crx same year though) hmmm wtf does that mean????

I like the look of later lt1 c4's...Hell I even considered a older 80's c4 but I have a kid and knew a sn95 or aero fox would be a better choice

I dont even think I care about speed anymore guess thats why I want a yota 4x4 for dd again

 

[RS200]

Id be willing to bet my bone stock 95 gts is faster than the 85 automatic vette in the 1/4.

Hell I bet my 89 Honda Civic/CRX is faster too....it even has a stock 89 Engine in it (note stock engine from dif model crx same year though) hmmm wtf does that mean????

I like the look of later lt1 c4's...Hell I even considered a older 80's c4 but I have a kid and knew a sn95 or aero fox would be a better choice

I dont even think I care about speed anymore guess thats why I want a yota 4x4 for dd again

Gonna have to disagree here, bud. The CRX's top of the line engine was the D16A6 from the Si, yet it still had only 108 HP and less than 100 ft. lbs. Yes it weighs 2000lbs, but it's still very underpowered. We're talking 16+ seconds slow. Even a limp C4 could do better. Now if the engine you speak of is from a JDM 1989 CRX SiR, it's a different ballgame. It would probably be faster (135ish WHP vs around 90), but in my humble opinion, a stock B16 in whatever vehicle sucks balls (usually less than 100 ft. lbs @ the wheels - holy lack of torque!). My humble opinion also says that C4s are overrated and overpriced, and should be sold to free up equity to buy useful stuff.

 

[FastDriver]

Honestly, 14.1@97 sounds like a really strong running '85 vette, though it's definitely conceivable. The LT1 vettes ran mid to high 13s, and the LS1s ran low 13s. With a 70hp deficit against an LT1, I'd expect the L98 to go mid 14s. I would also expect it to be quicker stock for stock against an 85GT, but I think it would be a decent race. I owned my stockish '89 LX 5.0 at the same time that my dad owned his L98, and we never raced, but I honestly think I'd have taken him. Still would've been a good race, though. My best 1/4 out of that car was a 14.2@98mph with just a K&N, and glasspack mufflers on BFG Radial T/A rubber. We never ran his vette in the 1/4.

I'm thinking this car stock is going to do the 1/4 in the 14.3-14.8 range depending on tranny and options. A couple of factory freaks might have gone a little quicker. I wouldn't have expected any to run into the 13s, though. My old man had an '88, and it wasn't a slouch. It didn't have anything on his '92 LT1 or our LS1s, but it isn't the 15-16 second slow-poke that folks in here are making it out to be.

Chris

 

[FastDriver]

You know another way to think about it is this:

If these cars were really high 15 second cars, then with 70 exta horsepower on the same platform, the LT1 vettes would've been low 15 second cars.... Not even close. LT1 vettes were 13 second cars, even with an auto.

 

[bentley429]

Whatever you say pal. Friend of mine had a 85 gt and a 86? vette know for a fact it was around that year. Owned them at the same time, vette was stock mustang had a catback, h pipe, and I believe that was it mustang was faster then the vette hands down. He liked the corvette more though because it would handle very well. My father had a 90 covette with a auto though and that thing was a dog, good thing he swapped it out for a z06.

First off, I was NOT comparing my car to the magnum. If you read his earlier post you can see that is was 85 GT who brought my car into the mix.


Second , there were many Vettes that were "weaker and slower" than mine most notably, the C1 Vettes (53-62) and the C3 Vettes produced from the mid 70s to early 80s (i.e around the same time the mustang II was being produced ) in which HP ranged from 165 - 200hp. The 1984 Vette with the L83 Crossfire was also a complete dog. 1985 was actually the year in which power went up for the Vette with the new L98 engine and TPI.



Well considering an 85 Vette weighs about the same as an 85 GT and has 20 more hp and about 60 more lb. of torque, I would say that the Stang would have to be more than lightly modded to have a chance at beating a the Vette. stock for stock, the Stang would have no chance.

 

[Juggalo95]

Gonna have to disagree here, bud. The CRX's top of the line engine was the D16A6 from the Si, yet it still had only 108 HP and less than 100 ft. lbs. Yes it weighs 2000lbs, but it's still very underpowered. We're talking 16+ seconds slow. Even a limp C4 could do better. Now if the engine you speak of is from a JDM 1989 CRX SiR, it's a different ballgame. It would probably be faster (135ish WHP vs around 90), but in my humble opinion, a stock B16 in whatever vehicle sucks balls (usually less than 100 ft. lbs @ the wheels - holy lack of torque!). My humble opinion also says that C4s are overrated and overpriced, and should be sold to free up equity to buy useful stuff.

Yes I said stock CRX engine...didnt say it was a the JDMSiR engine/Trans....Car Weighs 1900lbs...It lacks torque no biggie...trust me its not holy ***** fast but its faster than a stock older c4 and alot of other cars of the era...and the b16a is correct engine of the era. I dont really care to get in a pissing contest. And my d16 that was in ran mid 15's all day long with just bolt ons. There are a lot of "factory freak" d16's...

 

[Saleen8786]

christ 3 pages for this just do full exhaust,tires and some suspension mods thats all

 

[RS200]

Yes I said stock CRX engine...didnt say it was a the JDMSiR engine/Trans....Car Weighs 1900lbs...It lacks torque no biggie...trust me its not holy ***** fast but its faster than a stock older c4 and alot of other cars of the era...and the b16a is correct engine of the era. I dont really care to get in a pissing contest. And my d16 that was in ran mid 15's all day long with just bolt ons. There are a lot of "factory freak" d16's...

My best friend's beater is a 1990 DX Hatchback with a D16A6/D16Z6 mini-me and a couple of bolt-ons. It has run a best of 15.4 @ 91; it's zippy, but not quick enough to take out a C4. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match here..I'm not against you, but I don't think a mid 15 can hang with even the worst C4.

 

[leroy93lx]

Redfox should just :Track: and video tape it. Post it up and Prove to everybody what it runs. No more ghey pissing matches on the internet that way.

 

[MY 85 GT]

Redfox should just :Track: and video tape it. Post it up and Prove to everybody what it runs. No more ghey pissing matches on the internet that way.

I agree.....

 

[FastDriver]

I don't think anyone here has to prove a damn thing.

Chris

 

[Boostedpimp]

A friend of mine before modding his str8 was running consistent 12.9's with it at the track so i'd say put your fox on a major diet and throw some bolt ons to it and learn how to not miss a shift and launch good with some dr's and your good

 

[85ragtop]

Play nice.

 

[MY 85 GT]

A friend of mine before modding his str8 was running consistent 12.9's with it at the track so i'd say put your fox on a major diet and throw some bolt ons to it and learn how to not miss a shift and launch good with some dr's and your good

Yeah thats what mine ran stock...12.9-13.0 109-110 mph....Now its alot faster.....Since they came out with a hand held tuner..we can change the Air fule settings...these cars run PIG rich from the Factory....

 

[Juggalo95]

For what? Just to prove some dumba$$ ricer wrong ?

LOL...Yeh my car ran mid 15's with the D16...not its just has a SiR B16a...waaay faster than non lt1 c4...Might be a "ricer"...which btw the car has factory Honda Alloys,no body kit..no fart cannon exhaust....but at least im not trying to look like im a 1986 "baller" with the old benz and vette...bet ya dress up like your from Miami Vice Still....But Ill admit yes the vette has more potential than a fwd civic. Im not stupid just stating the fact that his vette is the most pathetic excuse of a vette that chevy made.

 

[MY 85 GT]

Sorry to say this but nothing honda put out from the factory is even in the same league as a Corvette . So unless your pu55y crx can run significantly better than low 14s in the 1/4 I wouldn't call it "waaay faster" than a C4.


Well i think your wrong on that count buddy...Honda has a few cars that can smoke you slow ass vette....Take my Dads yes i said my Dads new 2008 Honda accord it does low 14's and like 100 mph..in the 1/4 and its a family car pretty said to see a 4dr smoke your vette huh? And like you said you would never own a wagon or something like that...Well to each his own but see i wouldnt own a vette that was slow either...so i guess were even....