• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech

Why is my car so slow?!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter AZGT
  • Start date Start date Dec 18, 2003
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last

CobraM23

Founding Member
Oct 16, 2002
266
1
16
Johnson City, TN
Dec 18, 2003
#21
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #21
I ran a 15.07@91.3 with a 2.23 60' with my mods below but that was at a 3100' DA. Corrected thats a 14.5@92.5 which seems about right for the mods ive done.
 

Wickky

New Member
Jun 17, 2003
131
0
0
[]D []-[] [] []_ []_ Y
Dec 18, 2003
#22
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #22
geeeze why are the new v6 so fast compared to the v8's my friend has a v6 with 4.10 gears, CAI, underdrives and 17x9's and runs a 14.48
 

Try Me

Founding Member
Jan 14, 2002
387
0
0
Ottawa
Dec 18, 2003
#23
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #23
BC5200 said:
I've got a 96 GT auto and ran 15.4 @ 90 mph with 2 chamber flows, 4.10 gears, cold air intake, Under Drive Pulleys and Timing Adjuster

BTW- I had a 2.0 60ft time
These cars are just really slow.
Click to expand...

97GT BONE STOCK 14.9's all day long.

97GT CAI, Pro chamber and flows 14.7's.

With 4.10's i would hope for 14.3's AT LEAST.
 

new22003

New Member
Jun 22, 2003
657
0
0
Missouri
Dec 18, 2003
#24
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #24
AZGT said:
I have a 1997 GT Auto with the following mods:

Off road x pipe
2 chamber Flowmasters
3.73 gears
K&N
FMS C Springs

I took the car to the track a while back and was very dissapointed. The car ran 15.8s at about 87 MPH with a 2.3 60 ft time. Traction was not a problem. I see new v6 5 speeds duplicating these times Shouldn't my car be faster, especially with the gears? Weather wasn't too good-muggy after one of our Tucson monsoon storms. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Most of the non P.I. stangs at the local track here are running somewhere in the 15's.

I dont know if we have a bad track but my cobra is able to get into the high 12's there and my wifes 2000 gt auto runs mid 14's both 100% stock.
 
R

Ronald Jones

Member
Dec 21, 2002
80
0
6
Glendale, Arizona
Dec 18, 2003
#25
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #25
Ford did put better heads on the Mustang. The Cobra was rated about 80 hp higher than the GT in '96.
 
S

svtguy

Founding Member
Feb 27, 2002
1,094
0
36
Calgary, Alberta
Dec 18, 2003
#26
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #26
AZGT said:
I have a 1997 GT Auto with the following mods:

Off road x pipe
2 chamber Flowmasters
3.73 gears
K&N
FMS C Springs

I took the car to the track a while back and was very dissapointed. The car ran 15.8s at about 87 MPH with a 2.3 60 ft time. Traction was not a problem. I see new v6 5 speeds duplicating these times Shouldn't my car be faster, especially with the gears? Weather wasn't too good-muggy after one of our Tucson monsoon storms. Any ideas?
Click to expand...


Well 15.8 is slow but it really depends on the track your running at....Stock 99+ GT are supose to be in the 13.9 - 14.3 range. Up here in Calgary....most stock GT's run around 14.9 - 15.2 @ 92mph.
 

navarro98gt

Member
May 15, 2003
213
3
16
chicago, IL
Dec 18, 2003
#27
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #27
Wickky said:
geeeze why are the new v6 so fast compared to the v8's my friend has a v6 with 4.10 gears, CAI, underdrives and 17x9's and runs a 14.48
Click to expand...
WOW. ive only came across a couple of v6 stangs at the track and they were running in the low 16's high 15's.
 

FallenPhoenix

New Member
Nov 22, 2003
911
0
0
Odessa Tx
Dec 18, 2003
#28
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #28
Maybe Ford put lesser heads (and other drivetrain components) on the GT to keep the price down.

GM put practically the best of the best components in the TA and Z28 and look where that got them. No one wanted to buy a car (TA or Z28) that was basically the same 4 years in a row ('98-'02 all had LS1 and 6-speed) to top it off they were VERY expensive when fully loaded. Only reason I'll be able to afford a RWD V8 performance car soon is because of Ford keeping the price down on the GT and still having a great set of standard features. I'm getting a base GT and there's really nothing else I want that I could get in an option since I plan to replace wheels, stereo, etc.

Back to the topic, what were the conditions of the track when you ran that? Out here in West Texas we get crappy times due to the altitude and other factors.
 

mogs01gt

Founding Member
Jul 22, 2002
3,113
30
119
Ohio
Dec 18, 2003
#29
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #29
When you buy a GM, all you get is a motor that makes good power and a nice tranny.
 

Try Me

Founding Member
Jan 14, 2002
387
0
0
Ottawa
Dec 18, 2003
#30
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #30
mogs01gt said:
When you buy a GM, all you get is a motor that makes good power and a nice tranny.
Click to expand...


True that.
New they were way over priced. Glass rear-ends from the S-10 line up and clutches with 1 year lifespans.. great motor and tranny though.
 

downsouthman1

Member
Dec 16, 2003
643
0
16
Texas
Dec 18, 2003
#31
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #31
Also people. Remember that Ford didn't need to spend the $$$ it takes to try & make the NA 4.6L outperform a 350 cid GM motor. They were already outselling GM 3:1 Firebirds & Camaros of all kinds combined. Why waste the $$$?
 
9

97predator

Member
Aug 18, 2003
302
0
16
va beach
Dec 18, 2003
#32
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #32
by not overpowering the 4.6, ford kept the mustang alive. it sucks for those of us who want speed, but hey speed cost. too much obviously since the f bodies are no more. they had so much power they put themselves out of the market. great cars, but hey they are no more. the ls1 in the f body makes 56 hp/L while the 4.6 makes 55hp/L. so the engines are equal in power per liter. add another liter and you have your f body power. but why pay 30,000 + for an f body when you can get a GT for around 20,000 and then supercharge it and make more power? Parts for f bodies are way expensive. I saw long tubes for over a grand. hells no! I love all muscle cars, but the mustang is the best bang for the buck. Spend 3,000 and get an intercooled procharger. then your car wont be slow.
 

downsouthman1

Member
Dec 16, 2003
643
0
16
Texas
Dec 18, 2003
#33
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #33
97predator said:
by not overpowering the 4.6, ford kept the mustang alive. it sucks for those of us who want speed, but hey speed cost. too much obviously since the f bodies are no more. they had so much power they put themselves out of the market. great cars, but hey they are no more. the ls1 in the f body makes 56 hp/L while the 4.6 makes 55hp/L. so the engines are equal in power per liter. add another liter and you have your f body power. but why pay 30,000 + for an f body when you can get a GT for around 20,000 and then supercharge it and make more power? Parts for f bodies are way expensive. I saw long tubes for over a grand. hells no! I love all muscle cars, but the mustang is the best bang for the buck. Spend 3,000 and get an intercooled procharger. then your car wont be slow.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. We can mod our stangs & make them run. F-bodies were pretty much maxed & cost 50% more. No deal. No way. I'll take my Stang over an F-body or even whatever GM comes up w/ in the future anyday.
 

downsouthman1

Member
Dec 16, 2003
643
0
16
Texas
Dec 18, 2003
#34
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #34
Like look @ the GTO. What is it, $35k. No thanks. I'd rather get a used 03 or 04 Cobra for like 30k.
 

KJ Hoppus

New Member
Mar 18, 2003
1,008
0
0
Elk Grove CA
Dec 18, 2003
#35
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #35
i ran 14.2 /w 2.0 60ft in a 98 Auto with only: Mac cai, mac o/r xpipe, flows, steeda pullies and t/a, control arms, stock gears, and S.D. Coils and livewires.
 

downsouthman1

Member
Dec 16, 2003
643
0
16
Texas
Dec 18, 2003
#36
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #36
KJ Hoppus said:
i ran 14.2 /w 2.0 60ft in a 98 Auto with only: Mac cai, mac o/r xpipe, flows, steeda pullies and t/a, control arms, stock gears, and S.D. Coils and livewires.
Click to expand...
14.2 w/out PI heads is great indeed. Good run.
 

KJ Hoppus

New Member
Mar 18, 2003
1,008
0
0
Elk Grove CA
Dec 18, 2003
#37
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #37
thanks
 

downsouthman1

Member
Dec 16, 2003
643
0
16
Texas
Dec 18, 2003
#38
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #38
no prob. I'm only running 14.3 w/ PI heads. My reaction & 60 ft are killing me through the 1/4. It's been a while since I ran. I decided not to peddle @ the track until I can rally compete. I'll go again after I do my full exhaust, probably sometime in 2004.
 

DBMSTNG

I fantasize about it being BIG!
Founding Member
Apr 23, 2002
2,120
0
56
not quite here
Dec 18, 2003
#39
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #39
the 96-98 heads suck so bad because they were designed in the early 90's possibly late 80's. the 99+ are better because they had more sophiticated methods of designing and manufacturing them. but even the 99+ 2V heads aren't good.

the 99+ V6's are fast (relatively speaking) because they are lighter than the 96-98 GT's and probably haev shorter gearing in the tranny.
 

StratGT

Founding Member
Oct 11, 2001
477
0
16
Mississauga, Canada
Dec 18, 2003
#40
  • Dec 18, 2003
  • #40
MotleyCrue said:
Not trying to shift direction of this thread, just a question, you guys say the 96-98 Mustangs need a head swap, why would ford put heads that didnt perform well on a Mustang? I dont understand. Wouldnt they try their best to keep the competition close between the mustang and the Fbodys? Can someone explain that to me? Thanks
Click to expand...


The answer is simple. If you wanted maximun performance, you had to buy a Cobra, which was rated at 305hp. If i remember correctly, it was a faster car than all the LT1 Camaros and TA's.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
SOLD Supercharged 1989 SSP Coupe $13,500 obo
  • notchlubber
  • Jul 17, 2018
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
13
Views
13K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) May 28, 2020
notchlubber
N
Updated: 1st Run In 86 Gt, Low Mph (in My Opinion) Any Ideas?
  • v8stang289
  • Sep 20, 2015
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
32
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 23, 2015
A5literMan
  • Locked
Just Some Suggestion's For Foxes
  • Detroiit
  • Jul 24, 2014
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 25, 2014
Noobz347
  • Locked
Expired 89 Mustang GT 5.0 Convertible (31K original Miles) - DC/NOVA - $10K OBO
  • koala33
  • Apr 4, 2013
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
0
Views
10K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Apr 4, 2013
koala33
Progress pics and going to the track tonight.
  • 90mustangGT
  • Jul 29, 2011
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
9
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 30, 2011
LarsD
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
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?