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

Whats is the top speed a stock 5.0 can do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter speedo
  • Start date Start date Jan 2, 2004
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 2 of 4 Next Last
C

custom89stang

New Member
Dec 9, 2003
705
0
0
41
Seattle, WA
myspace-805.vo.llnwd.net
Jan 2, 2004
#21
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #21
rbridges said:
I find it hard to believe that a fox body has a .32 drag coefficient. that's very good for a modern car, not to mention a 20 yr old design. I think the hardtop vette is .32 and it looks much more aerodynamic.
Click to expand...

The fox3 mustang has .39 CD the 94,95 fox mustangs have 0.35

1987 - Cosmetically, the Mustang received a new front fascia, tail lamps, rear side window, and body-side moldings for both the base LX and GT . This new "aero-look" helped decrease the Mustang's CD to about 0.39 and increase top speed to about 145 MPH. (In comparison, the new fourth-generation Mustang has a CD of 0.35.)
 
C

custom89stang

New Member
Dec 9, 2003
705
0
0
41
Seattle, WA
myspace-805.vo.llnwd.net
Jan 2, 2004
#22
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #22
Ha

In an October 1986 issue of Road & Track magazine, the Mustang GT edged-out the Camaro 5.7L IROC-Z in 0 to 60 times and Quarter mile speed. The GT sprinted to 60 MPH in just 6.7 seconds while the Camaro was ever so close at 6.8 seconds. Both cars reached the quarter mile in 15.3 seconds, but the GT's trap speed was 93.0 MPH; 3 MPH more than the Camaro's. Better yet, the 2-door 5.0L LX coupe could hammer the Quarter mile in mid-14s right off the showroom floor. WOW! (Mustang 3, Camaro 0)
 

TrophyHead

15 Year Member
Mar 18, 2003
1,195
11
49
PA
Jan 2, 2004
#23
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #23
custom89stang said:
In an October 1986 issue of Road & Track magazine, the Mustang GT edged-out the Camaro 5.7L IROC-Z in 0 to 60 times and Quarter mile speed. The GT sprinted to 60 MPH in just 6.7 seconds while the Camaro was ever so close at 6.8 seconds. Both cars reached the quarter mile in 15.3 seconds, but the GT's trap speed was 93.0 MPH; 3 MPH more than the Camaro's. Better yet, the 2-door 5.0L LX coupe could hammer the Quarter mile in mid-14s right off the showroom floor. WOW! (Mustang 3, Camaro 0)
Click to expand...

Was that GT an auto? 15.3 OUCH. Pretty cool though.

Didnt the 88's beat the 88 vettes in the 1/4 mile also? I've heard that some where but forget where.
 

huskerpower02

Member
Aug 21, 2003
770
0
16
KS
www.cardomain.com
Jan 2, 2004
#24
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #24
89MustangGX said:
There is no speed governor.
Click to expand...

Where have you been man? I havent seen you post in a long time?

-Drew
 

89MustangGX

I have nothing productive to add!
Jul 3, 2001
10,262
1
0
46
Mill Creek, WA
stangnet.cardomain.com
Jan 2, 2004
#25
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #25
huskerpower02 said:
Where have you been man? I havent seen you post in a long time?

-Drew
Click to expand...

I'm still here, just not posting as much. I sold my Orange car and bought a clean slate to start with...so I've been keeping busy with that. I haven't posted any pics yet...but work is progressing!
 

bit

Founding Member
Sep 27, 1999
1,975
1
48
Anderson, SC
Jan 2, 2004
#26
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #26
One thing you guys need to remember when you are talking about CD is designers often sacrifice CD for downforce. That is the reason the FOX hatch is more aerodynamic than a Porsche or a C5 Vette.

Where did you find those facts? Would you happen to know the drag coefficient of a fox coupe(notch)? Thanks
Click to expand...
I have been around these cars for a long time so I pick up info here and there. There was a thread about this a year or so ago. The notch is around .40, LX vert is .42. I don't remember the GT, but the GT vert is around .50.
 
C

Calypso Pony

New Member
May 11, 2003
68
0
0
46
El Paso, TX
Jan 2, 2004
#27
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #27
Thanks bit
 

90mustangGT

I felt sorry for girls because
Founding Member
Jan 15, 2002
2,773
17
89
47
Dallas, GA
Jan 2, 2004
#28
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #28
Bit is right, I don't know about the numbers but downforce plays a role. Spoilers and wings turn drag into downforce.

The foxbody isn't a large car, that is part of it. It may be less effecient but doesn't have to punch that large of a hole through the air to move.
 

DirtyD916

Active Member
May 25, 2003
804
1
38
39
Norcal 916
Jan 2, 2004
#29
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #29
what would the top speed be if you had a t56 6-speed in her?
 

DirtyD916

Active Member
May 25, 2003
804
1
38
39
Norcal 916
Jan 2, 2004
#30
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #30
iwth her being a 5,.0 lx notch.
 
C

Calypso Pony

New Member
May 11, 2003
68
0
0
46
El Paso, TX
Jan 2, 2004
#31
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #31
Don't forget the Saleen wing, 17in Pony R's, and 3.73s. Oh yeah the Eibach lowering progressive rate springs.
 

IndyBlk5.0

New Member
Nov 24, 2003
1,122
1
0
New Whiteland, IN
Jan 2, 2004
#32
  • Jan 2, 2004
  • #32
man i love foxbodys!!!!!
 

Flash1966

Founding Member
Aug 24, 2001
829
0
16
42
Orlando, Florida
Jan 3, 2004
#33
  • Jan 3, 2004
  • #33
How accurate is the speedo at those high speeds? I always heard the Fox speedometers weren't great to begin with and high speed just added to the inaccuracy. I saw 130mph in my car with the 3.55s but otherwise stock, and that speed was on a GPS, the speedo was reading over 140. I haven't had the courage to test again with the blower, but 5th gear pulls REALLY slowly and the car gets so floaty that I don't think I'll find out any time soon.

Sure would love to build my Fox to run 200mph out in Nevada or Bonnieville.
 

saleenster

Founding Member
Aug 18, 2002
2,621
0
47
Vancouver, WA
Jan 3, 2004
#34
  • Jan 3, 2004
  • #34
Calypso Pony said:
Don't forget the Saleen wing, 17in Pony R's, and 3.73s. Oh yeah the Eibach lowering progressive rate springs.
Click to expand...


Very true..Steve did a test in early '87, where he took a stock lx mustang with 3.08 gears and did a top speed test..the car reached 141 mph. He took this same car, added the saleen kit, and springs and the car reached 149 mph...I believe the entire install took about 3 hrs, so the weather was pretty much the same during both tests.
 
9

93-ex-chp

Founding Member
Jan 28, 2001
96
0
0
www.andersonfordmotorsport.com
Jan 3, 2004
#35
  • Jan 3, 2004
  • #35
I always heard .36 for the GT, .38 for the LX hatch, and .40 for the coupe, I'm sure the 'verts are all 0.40+ regardless GT/LX.
 

whitemustang89

Member
Dec 15, 2003
166
0
17
40
in the sticks of arkansas
Jan 3, 2004
#36
  • Jan 3, 2004
  • #36
i have a 140 speedometer and i took it to 135 one night it was floatin like a piece of styrofoam im scared to take it any higher or go that fast again unless some $$ is on the line.
 
S

SPEED FREAK

Founding Member
Aug 7, 2000
1,448
0
0
Regina, SK.
Jan 3, 2004
#37
  • Jan 3, 2004
  • #37
Just think of how good it would be with a chopped roof, slanted windshield and a belly pan with some lowering springs. All minor stuff of course Wasnt the berreta like .28 cd? I thought it was close to top honours? At least for its time.

Coupes make too much turbulence at the back end to be really effective top speed cars, Mine gets right hairy at around 120 mph And I know the 351 with 3.73's can top out fifth but I have not the balls to try it. Maybe with some serious aero mods and some real rubber Hell the end of the quarter mile is scary enough. Me thinks coupes should stick to auto - x and 1/4 mile stuff, they excel there.
 

ashford

Member
Dec 19, 2003
485
0
16
46
fargo ND
Jan 3, 2004
#38
  • Jan 3, 2004
  • #38
i drive a capri and i ran across the drag coeficients some where. all i remember is than the capri was .03 less then the mustang of the same year about .36. only thing i can tell ya about top speed is that i got scared about 5 g in 5th.
 
B

Boss 351

Here sthhhhhhhheeeve take a picthh of my man flowe
Jul 13, 2003
2,433
23
48
Canada
Jan 3, 2004
#39
  • Jan 3, 2004
  • #39
A fox body coupe with a good drag coeficiency would be the Thunderbirds.
 

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
46
Northern KY
Jan 3, 2004
#40
  • Jan 3, 2004
  • #40
DirtyD916 said:
r u serisous!!!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??! they seem so. . . so . . . .blcoky. Like look and a fox body and then a porsche and the lack of lines and curves just make them seem so UNaerodynamic. But hey you learn something new everyday.
Click to expand...

the Ford GT90 has 0 curves on the entire car. VERY aerodynamic
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 2 of 4 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fox Good shop in Washington state or Oregon
  • keel
  • May 14, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
119
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 20, 2026
keel
J
Intake
  • James S
  • Jul 10, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
195
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 12, 2026
James S
J
Fox Fuel Pump Issues After Replacement/Upgrade
  • Ryu
  • Jun 23, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
621
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 5, 2026
Ryu
Y
Speed density 302 to carb 351W
  • yaboity
  • May 29, 2026
  • Fox Engine Swaparoo
Replies
1
Views
108
Fox Engine Swaparoo May 29, 2026
AeroCoupe
J
Engine Tuning...?
  • justadude07
  • May 30, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
7
Views
226
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jun 6, 2026
Blown88GT
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?