Re: 0-60 is not 6.7

Discussion in '1994 Ford Mustang GT' started by bronxgurl, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. Look at this Ford driver mad because his piece of shit mustang does only 6.7-60. My dad's Grand Prix has the same time to 60 and its a family five door. So FORD IS SHIT> HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!
     
  2. ahhhh,,, thats such a sweet story Rulya, about your daddy's car, but you go back through this forum and actually find out what the whole thing is about, you will see that the 0-60 isnt 6.7 its under 6 seconds and once again you must think about the torque on your pop's pontiac, when you get a car, or maybe a drivers liscence come back and talk your shit
     
  3. No, the GT is pretty slow.
     

  4. Re: 0-60 is not 6.7


    mmm...thanx for ur input
     
  5. '86 Mustang (Owner claims it's a GT - an insignia is missing in the back) maxes out at 160Km/h LOL.
     
  6. I got a car and a licence and a car dumb ass and dont be getting mad at me or my dads pontiac cause your car is shit. If GM put a 8 cyl. engine in a pontiac it would smoke this car. Even my legend can smoke this car even though you redneks say its "Jap Crap". It would out last any ford and smoke most of them. YOU REDNECK FORD LOVER!
     
  7. Every time I see a Carmaro driver he has:
    i) Long Greasy Hair
    ii) One of those funny little beards that sport insects and louse
    iii) His kid is sitting next to him with his finger shoved up his nose
    iv) He is parked outside the beer store (perhaps thats why his kid is picking his nose?)
    v) Their necks are sun-burnt.

    No disrespect to you Camaro drivers out there who are truly serious car enthousiasts, perhaps its a few bad apples that spoil the bunch.
     
  8. This has got to be the funniest thread i have ever read. It's funny how people think mustangs are slow but I rarely see them lose (I can already tell someobdy is going to say, "How many races have you seen?"). I have a '94 Mustang 5.0 and freaking raped a brand new (well, the newest) prelude with full intake and exhaust. Understand something, my car was bone stock (now I have cat-back and k&N filter). I have a friend who is modifying his eclipse and got owned by my other friends '88 5.0 which is also stock. So where do you get this bullcrap that 4-bangers beat mustangs all the time? The eclipse actually WILL NOT race either my friend nor me anymore because he admits it is not a race. We got something mig has never felt in his life... torque! So shut up mig, I know your lying about half that crap just to make you feel better about buying your $15,000 car that will get owned by my $4,000 stang. I'd be glad to race you and laugh.
     
  9. Nicely said man!
    Oh, and I'm going to get a 5.0 (Between '87-'95), and I was wondering what year out of those I should get.
     
  10. Apparently, neither do you.

    1/4 mile times are based on your RATE of acceleration. Change in acceleration per unit time.....direct translation-Horsepower.

    The ONLY thing torque gives you is the ability to launch at a much lower RPM.....but just like launching a little four banger at high RPM, too much torque will just make you sit and spin....

    Acceleration is determine by 3 things....

    Weight
    Traction
    HP between shift points.....

    That's it.
     
  11. #37 240SXer, Jul 18, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Did you forget Areodynamics? Altitude.. Humidity... What an idiot. Think you're Mr Race? Do you even race? How old are you 12? The mustang WOULD be 6.7 or even slower. It's heavy and does not even that that much power. And the torque DOES matter, idiot. Not only does it make launches better, more torque = better powerband. If a car has 200hp, but only produces power from 6000-8000 it #$%#ing sucks, because you're probably not gonna stay in the band after a shift, even if you do it'll suck. How would you lauch it? Lauch at 6000 and bake the tires? Launch at 4000 and bog it? Only way to launch a low torque car is to roast the hell out of the clutch. Look at an S2000. Ever actually see one run at the track anyone? They're pretty slow unless you're willing to go drop a new clutch in after you race.

    www.racingonthestreet.com
     
  12. Re:

    BoredUpR32 - "1/4 mile times are based on your RATE of acceleration. Change in acceleration per unit time.....direct translation-Horsepower."

    Did you get that directly out of a textbook? You obviously learned about drag racing out of "Drag Racing for Dummies."
     
  13. Read the post again.

    Maybe it's beyond your level of understanding.....
    That's coming from a Master's Degree in Physics. Do you even have an undergraduate degree?

    Aerodynamics fall into drag, a subset of weight....or force on the car (rediculous anyway...see below)
    Altitude, Humidity fall into the above and into HP output....already accounted for.

    Tire Friction....again drag....a subset of weight (or vice versa should you desire).
    Bugs flying through the air, hitting the windshield (not only imparting impulse on the vehicle, but increasing it's weight, and increasing it's coefficient of drag....etc
    How far do we need to drag it down.....?

    Please, try to start an argument of education with me regarding the subject of physics and how it applies to automobiles.

    Maybe you should stop listening to the idiot commentators on TV.

    For a demonstration of your apparent lack of understanding, let's look at the Aerodynamics of the Mustang and how "important" it is in a comparison with other cars of the same nature. Now since it's CofD varies from .33 for the 94, to .36 for most recent Mach 1, it's Aerodynamic prowess isn't so astounding. Even the boxy WRX registers at a .33. It's frontal area is about average (as a matter of fact it's also VERY close to the WRX)....

    Now consider we're talking about from 0-60 mph. The aerodynamic differences between the aforementioned cars are so rediculously small, they are negligible.

     
  14. Re: Re:

    Sounds like it came out of a textbook?

    That's education speaking.

    Has nothing to do with drag-racing....drag-racing is a side note.

    The subject of torque and its relation to acceleration was broached. This would not even be an issue if you had spent any time in the TECH forum.....and you would have learned this by now.
     
  15. The 4.6 are smaller and more powerful than the 5.0, they weigh less. And they are about a second faster than what you guys are saying these people are saying they got their 94s to do.
     
  16. whats the 0-60 time for a 95 5.0 gt contverible?
     
  17. Hey I was thinkin about gettin a Magnaflow exhaust on my car, specs look great and I can get a good deal on it. plz reply
     
  18. best (read: stupidest) argument ever
    cuz i'm thinking of getting one, how modification-freindly are the 5.0 mustang engines TO NEWBS
    i know there are alot of aftermarket accessories, but i'd really like to get somehting where i could learn by modding it myself. noit just bolt on stuff too, but stuff i could get experience on
    does that make sense?
     
  19. to all you imports out there, there is a website suprastore.com which has 1000+ hp supras that only run 10.2 in the 1/4 mile. It also cost them 30,000 dollars just for the engine. Now put 30,000 dollars in a mustang and it will out handle and smoke a supra in a drag race.
     
  20. Um, since when is handling involved with drag racing?

    Anyway, a Mustang is useless for anything other than straightline acceleration. Don't believe me? Enter a rally race and use a Mustang, you'll find out quickly why Mustangs are useless to those who Actually race (not drag racing) with Imports.

    The funny thing is, that there are quite a few 600hp Supras that will run the 1/4 in just under 10 seconds, so I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about, perhaps those Supras have 500hp and 1000lbft torque? Or perhaps they're just not well modified.

    Anyway, 10.2 is Damn fast, it's a lot faster than you'll ever go, the fastest production cars available can barely come to within 2 seconds of that.

    It will cost much more than 30,000 to put a Mustang into the low 10's.

    I'm not going to rag on you since you're obviously a n00b, and (not that you can't have any automotive knowledge when you come to the site, but you obviously don't) know absolutely F^CK all about cars.
     
  21. go to the website dumbass suprastore.com. then u will see that it does say 1000+ hp
     
  22. Then as I said, they're likely not well modified ad there are faster ones with less hp.

    BTW - there are also WRX's with just $25,000 in them that can reach high 9's Case & point Cobb Tuning.

    Perhaps those Supras are geared more for top speed than acceleration.

    Careful, you don't want to make an ass of yourself so soon after registering on this site.
     
  23. password please, alright well mustang and camaro are mustle cars they really are not for handling. the corvette,viper,and cobra R are for handling but they are fast in a straight line too.


    i have a 5.0mustang and fast ford magazine and this one 95 mustang has about 20,000 dollars in it and it runs mid 8s. So it is possible to have less than a 10 second mustang for under 30,000 dollars. So do research before u talk trash.


     
  24. MM&FF is hardly a reliable resource, as they have proven on a number of occasions. Now, perhaps there is a 95 Mustang that runs mid 8's that has less than 30,000 in mods, I don't know, but I sincerely doubt it, and until I see supporting evidence from a more trustworthy resource, I'm going to remain skeptical.

    I'm not talking trash, I've gone through it all before with other mal-informed Mustang fanatics, it's all pretty much a gag-reflex now.

    BTW - I would think that if a Mustang GT can be modified to beat 10 seconds for that low a price, then the Fastest Mustang with an MSRP of $35,000 should be able to do better than high 12's/low 13's, being a car that's designed for straight-line acceleration and all.
     

Share This Page