Re: 0-60 is not 6.7

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

  1. Most domestic production cars have low prices compared to import cars production price so we can beef the shit out of ours to be ten times better then imports at the same price of the import production car price.

    Password please wut do u drive that ugly ass crx on all ur posts?
     
  2. WTF??? What CRX???

    The CRX is a FASTBACK you retard, the car in my posts is an Si (which I personally think looks a lot better than most cars produced in 1990, so you can kiss my @$$ if you think it's ugly, as you have SH!T taste in cars), which is my car, and that picture is one that was taken as I passed one of the checkpoints while I was in a rally race (one of BC's Novice events), and just FYI, the average speed for most of the other racers on that stage was 120 km/h, at the moment that he took that picture, I was at 190km/h (and a bit faster shortly after, before I had to slow down for a series of S-curves) which I reached just 500m after a hairpin turn (I took the hairpin at about 70-80km/h, sideways, which is impossible with a stock Mustang).

    The reason (USED) domestic cars have low resale values is because they are of poor quality, have poor reliability, and often break down, the higher price you pay for a used import and the higher price you pay for parts, is often offset by the even higher price you'd pay for higher fuel consumption, and such a large quantity of replacement parts.
     
  3. the fast back or not they all look the same to me. I have gone side ways on a corner in a 92 lx coupe mustang so ur full of shit.I used to have a little Ford Ranger 4-cylinder and i could kick a civics ass. They are slow as hell. My ranger only had 98 hp stock and this thing had bout 140,000 miles on it and it was way more reliable than my dads old toyota camry with only 80,000 miles on it so i have no clue what u are talkin about.

    Imports suck and domestics RULE.
     
  4. Ignorant moron.

    1st) a Fastback is completely different than a hatchback, that would be like saying a Ford Taurus Wagon looks the same as a Mustang (mustang is a fastback, Taurus wagon has a hatchback).

    Your Ford ranger couldn't keep up with any Civic, let alone an Si (hell, the Ranger weighed 2x as much and had about the same power as a Cx), and I don't know of any pre-1995 Pickup that has ever been faster than 7.8 0-100 (1990 Civic Si - 7.8 0-100)

    I never said that you can't get a Mustang sideways, I said that doing so at 80km/h on a hairpin turn in slippery conditions is impossible, as the Mustang would get too much oversteer and spin out.

    LOL, No Ford Ranger has ever been anywhere near as reliable as a Camry, so quit lying. Shall we pull up some consumer reports??? LOL.
    Perhaps in that one circumstance your dad happened to get a defective vehicle (For Toyota it's about 5%, whereas for Ford it's about 15%).

    Cut it with your retarded Imports vs. Domestics BS, you're only making yourself look more stupid. Both Domestics and imports have their advantages and disadvantages, which basically amount to:

    Domestics - high levels of mass production which result in low prices and cheap power

    Imports - High quality control, precision design, and quality constructed cars, which have a high resale value (which means a higher price tag). And very well balanced performance.
     
  5. I never said that i beat a civic si it was a little civic hatchback. i also beat a 2002 neon recently too. Well my truck was way more reliable than that camry so whatever dont believe me. I dont care bring up some consumer report.

    Yes, imports do have their highs also, but domestics have some highs also.
     
  6. "Yes, imports do have their highs also, but domestics have some highs also."

    - did I not just say this?

    Not difficult to beat a 2002 Neon, hell, the stock suspension on my 1990 Si was stiffer than that of a 2000 Chrysler Neon, and that was when my struts were weakened and needed to be replaced (weakened due to too much fast driving on rough roads). and again I still doubt you beat a Civic Cx, Dx, or Lx, as the Cx (the slowest of the three) has a higher power/weight ratio than an older Ford ranger.

    As I said, perhaps your dad got one of the Camry's that fell within Toyota's avg. 5% defective vehicles, your dad should have called them on the warranty, just remember, Ford's avg. of defective vehicles is more than 3 times that of Toyota, it's called quality control, a concept Ford has not yet heard of.
     
  7. I had a 1990 GT and that shit was slo, had no traction, i love the 94 and 95s though.
     
  8. i had uhh..wait..i don't have a mustang BUT i got a trans am that is hot but i still give my props to ponys
     
  9. Iight yo im a chevy fan but also a sang fan and this car is hot with the right stuff done to it it can whip and suck in those 4 popers and spit them out
     
  10. This thing doesn't hold a candle to the STi version I, EVO I, 1994 Civic Type-R/Racer, Prelude, RX-7 (a lowly 3 "popper", 1.3 at that), ETC. ETC.

    And that with just comparing production models to the car, stock, once you get into mods, all of those cars would annhilate this 1994 GT even more when modded right.
     
  11. I would have to say lying is A strong word but I will tell you I
    believe he beat the new mustang. Just yesterday I was out in my 94 GT
    don't like racing other mustang's but was sitting at a stoplight. And
    hear came I would also guess it was 1999 mustang 4.6 GT. The light
    turned green he took off then i knew he wanted to race so I also took
    off. Remember he had better reaction time it seemed that he was going
    to take off from me but when we were in 2nd gear I cought and passed
    him when we were in 3rd gear he gave up. And we also sat side by side
    at another light and he did not do anything. Now it could have been
    driver era but I did beat the new mustang. All though I do not know
    my guss would be one of two things. He did not drive well or the gears and rpms let me go more in the rpms because he was hitting 3rd
    and I was still rapping out in 2nd when I passed him. This is A very
    true story.
     
  12. I raced a 2002 Mustang GT in my 94 Z28, put about 10 car lengths on him at 80, let off the gas, let him go by, floored it again and passed him a 2nd time. My car is 10 years old now and it still eats these things! Pathetic...
     
  13. you ever think that maybe you were racing an auto? even still, i'd doubt that it would lose. ... i have a 00 gt 5-speed, and have driven 04 gt's auto and 5-speed, a 03 gt, a few 01-04 v6's stick and auto, 00 gt convert auto. all of the these car mentioned are quite capable or beating a 95 gt, except the v-6, but even they could hang with it. mid-early 90's mustangs and fox-body were for modding, but still a good out-of-box preformer (especialy when the guys that brag about beating them ussualy own imports that cost $1000's more).
    99 and new gt's are much better out-of-box preformers. i don't really feel the need to do any mods because i am happy having fun with the power my mustang came with. if i owned a pre-99 gt, (which i have driven) i would want to squeeze out a little more power. I'm sick of hearing 5.0 guys say that the 4.6 sucks becuase it has no torque. that is entirely untrue. no STOCK 5.0 has put out more ft-lb's than a stock 4.6.

    1988 GT
    Obtained from MT January, 1988
    0-60: 7.2 Transmission: Manual
    1/4 Mile: 15.8

    1992 LX 5.0
    Obtained from MT September, 1992
    0-60: 6.2 Transmission: Manual
    1/4 Mile: 14.8

    1995 gt
    Obtained from C&D February, 1997
    0-60: 6.5 Transmission: Manual
    1/4 Mile: 15.2
    1/4 Speed: 93


    1999 GT
    Obtained from C&D February, 1999
    0-60: 5.5 Transmission: Manual
    1/4 Mile: 14.2
    1/4 Speed: 98

    1999 lx v-6
    Obtained from C&D February, 1999
    0-60: 7.1 Transmission: Manual
    1/4 Mile: 15.6
    1/4 Speed: 90

    2001 GT
    Obtained from MT June, 2001
    0-60: 5.4 Transmission: Manual
    1/4 Mile: 14
    1/4 Speed: 100


    2002 GT
    Obtained from C&D November, 2002
    0-60: 6.3 Transmission: Automatic
    1/4 Mile: 15.1
    1/4 Speed: 93


     
  14. HI well i have a mustang gt 1994 and ive done 0 to 60 in 5.9 seconds and i also have a ford poster that it says all the mustangs from 1964 to 1994 with specs, productions,horsepower, torque and 0 to 60s and says there that the mustang gt 1994 does from 0 to 60 in 6 secons flat...
     
  15. my 94 mustang GT does the quarter in 15.06. it has an airhog filter but thats it. ive seen estimates of 15 flat. from experience its pretty hard to find parts for the 94 and 95 because of the new body and old engine. there are tons of upgrades for 5.0s tho. i doubt anyone in this forum has beaten a 99up mustang GT with a stock 94 or 95 unless it wasnt really a GT or it was automatic. the guy that posted 1/4 mile times above me left out the 96-98 4.6s, they were a lot different from the 99up 4.6s. password please seems to lie a lot and only cares about rally racing which no one gives a sh1t about on this forum. as to the original comment 6.7 seems high i think its more like 6.3 for 0-60. in the HOTROD mag. drag week there were 2 94 mustangs in top 11. 1 averaged in the 8's and the other in the low 9's, they were both street legal just go to the hotrod website and read up about it. i dotn know how much money they put into them tho. thats all i got, later
     
  16. my 94 mustang GT does the quarter in 15.06. it has an airhog filter but thats it. ive seen estimates of 15 flat. from experience its pretty hard to find parts for the 94 and 95 because of the new body and old engine. there are tons of upgrades for 5.0s tho. i doubt anyone in this forum has beaten a 99up mustang GT with a stock 94 or 95 unless it wasnt really a GT or it was automatic. the guy that posted 1/4 mile times above me left out the 96-98 4.6s, they were a lot different from the 99up 4.6s. password please seems to lie a lot and only cares about rally racing which no one gives a sh1t about on this forum. as to the original comment 6.7 seems high i think its more like 6.3 for 0-60. in the HOTROD mag. drag week there were 2 94 mustangs in top 11. 1 averaged in the 8's and the other in the low 9's, they were both street legal just go to the hotrod website and read up about it. i dotn know how much money they put into them tho. thats all i got, later
     
  17. my 94 mustang GT does the quarter in 15.06. it has an airhog filter but thats it. ive seen estimates of 15 flat. from experience its pretty hard to find parts for the 94 and 95 because of the new body and old engine. there are tons of upgrades for 5.0s tho. i doubt anyone in this forum has beaten a 99up mustang GT with a stock 94 or 95 unless it wasnt really a GT or it was automatic. the guy that posted 1/4 mile times above me left out the 96-98 4.6s, they were a lot different from the 99up 4.6s. password please seems to lie a lot and only cares about rally racing which no one gives a sh1t about on this forum. as to the original comment 6.7 seems high i think its more like 6.3 for 0-60. in the HOTROD mag. drag week there were 2 94 mustangs in top 11. 1 averaged in the 8's and the other in the low 9's, they were both street legal just go to the hotrod website and read up about it. i dotn know how much money they put into them tho. thats all i got, later
     
  18. my 94 mustang GT does the quarter in 15.06. it has an airhog filter but thats it. ive seen estimates of 15 flat. from experience its pretty hard to find parts for the 94 and 95 because of the new body and old engine. there are tons of upgrades for 5.0s tho. i doubt anyone in this forum has beaten a 99up mustang GT with a stock 94 or 95 unless it wasnt really a GT or it was automatic. the guy that posted 1/4 mile times above me left out the 96-98 4.6s, they were a lot different from the 99up 4.6s. password please seems to lie a lot and only cares about rally racing which no one gives a sh1t about on this forum. as to the original comment 6.7 seems high i think its more like 6.3 for 0-60. in the HOTROD mag. drag week there were 2 94 mustangs in top 11. 1 averaged in the 8's and the other in the low 9's, they were both street legal just go to the hotrod website and read up about it. i dotn know how much money they put into them tho. thats all i got, later
     
  19. I wasn't expecting huge acceleration figures out of this either. Pre-2005 Mustangs never were fire-breathing monsters (except for a few limited-production models like the Boss 429 and the Cobra Mustangs.)
     
  20. I can say this with a great amount of certainty. Take an 87-93 Mustang Gt and Run it against a 94-95 GT both bone stock and the 87-93 will win. The 94-95's were slower cause the engineeers had to use the T-Bird's intake to clear the hood and lost some HP's doing it. As far as the guy with the Prelude whatever you're smoking please pass it around cause you're out of your mind.
     

Share This Page