I'm getting sick and tired of 5.0 mustangs having blowers just to hang with a 350 chevy. At the strip this weekend My car ran 14.5@ 95mph, while that doesn't seem too fast, for 5500 feet it was fast enough to beat almost every non supercharged car there.I only lost to two supercharged cobras with slicks. I hate supercharged 5.0's I would only loose by two or three car length's.

Casualty List (in two nights!)
91 RS TBI 17.6
87 LG4 firebird 17.8
96 Z28 w/ Intake and exhaust 15.3
96 Z28 w/LT4 heads and cam 6sp 15.1
70 455 Olds with intake exhaust 15.2
2001 GT w/ intake exhaust ported heads 3.73's 14.8
2003 GT w/ intake exhaust 3.73's 15.00
2003 nissan 350Z intake exhaust 6 sp 15.5
Bunch of 5.0's with intake exhaust 15's
Even with Stock C5 6 sp, well I lost by a fender.
89 L98 Formula 350 16.0
91 RS w/Fast burn 385 exhaust and 3.08's auto 15.7

 

What is your best corrected e.t.????

Those must have been some weak-sauce Stangs for you to hang like you say.

A modded supercharged 5.0 should be DEEP in the 12's or in the high 11's. Depends on traction two, and the type of blower.

If you lost to a C5 by a fender that means you are in the low 13's with a possibility of 12's.

Supercharged stangs running 13's????

 

Just put someone who can drive behind some of those cars, and you would have lost quite a few more of those races. I guess that your car is running mid high 13s. And s/c 5.0's pulling 2-3 car on you is more than running with you, that is beating you by quite a bit in the 1/4. Bolt-on 5.0's would probally be hanging with, h/c guys would be past you.

 

If he's talking about a basically stock Mustang w\ a Paxton SC, I can see it being in the (low) 13's. I had an '89 LX hatchback that was basically stock w\ a 100 shot of nitrous - it ran 13.20's @ 106 with a depressing 2.2 60ft time. One night I raced a guy with a similar year/body style Mustang that was basically stock, other than a Paxton SC - I beat him once from a stand-still, then twice from a roll.

 

Just wondering where in New Mexico you are. I was in Roswell last year at about 4000 feet and was running 14.1's at 9X, don't remember, I only ran a few times. Sounds like you had a fun two nights though, good kills. What mods do you have?

Whoa, I just read though your list, "96 Z28 w/LT4 heads and cam," that surprises me, about the same mods I've got. Must be some terrible drivers up there. Not putting down your car at all, just would have thought that car would run faster than that. Good kill nonetheless.

 

Yeh man ur right those drivers must be terrible. The 96 Z-28 should run a low 14. My buddies 95 Trans am 350 auto stock ran a 14.4 and he could do better. 5.0 Stangs 5speed should run high 14's than with exhaust and intake around mid. They should be givin u some trouble. good kills anyway makes u sound better

 

I know a guy with a stock motor and a supercharger. I can get the info if you like, but he went 12.1 @ 116 with tires, gears and a few bolt ons (basically to support the SC). What are the corrected times?

 

yeah, I know an iroc with a 305 with a supercharger that runs 11.0s all day!!! Totally stock tooo.

 

Really? Can you post the video, because I have the video of the low 12 second run!

 

stop being a tool..you were owned by Brian and can't take it like a man. Why don't you post a vid of the 69..err 67 camaro that you said was yours.

 

I hope I didn't give the impression that I didn't think (know) that it is possible to run sub-13 second ET's with a supercharger. I was simply giving one example of a supercharged car that couldn't beat my 13 second car (through no fault of the driver).

 

No, I didnt think that, as I know boost and corresponding mods have a lot to do with it. I was just sharing what I saw a Mustang with an SC go!

 

im curious to know what the corrected times are. whats a 14.5 at 5500 feet?

 

I think I know a particular black mustang with a white hood that wouldn't need a supercharger to put bus lengths on you

 

found a conversion chart for 5800ft (close enough)... a 14.5 at 95 at altitude would turn a 13.4 at 103 at sea level

 

OOOHHH REALLY!!!

Cool, good to know!

 

Just curious...would a supercharged or turboed car get the same altitude correction factor? I would think not since they are not nearly as affected by high altitude compared to NA cars. If they got the same factor, it would be incorrect because the non NA car would not run what the factor says at sea level.

 

i got the corrected time table from www.nhra.com

and yes, there is a different conversion for boosted cars

 

My sons stock 94 ta @ Bolwing Green 2 weeks ago ran 12.9>112mph in the 1/4 mile and all he has is long tubes and larger throttlebody quoted-------> (At the strip this weekend My car ran 14.5@ 95mph)

 

WOW, he went 12.9 @ 112 with just headers and a throttle body??? That is a record, somewhere that has to be a record.

 

Just...people never say they have freemods. there has to be more to it on that LT1.

 

all the free mods in the world couldnt put that car into the 12's.... unless he has a set of ported LT4 heads and LT4 hot cam and took off about 300lbs. Also, TC, and rear gears...

Maybe with an LS1... but LT1 with just that... thats fantastic!

 

Yea, at 5500ft, that is about 1 second slower than sea level. So read his initial post and subtract a second from all the "casualty's" times. Good kills man. At least we know you can drive down there in "stunt" mexico

~Matt

 

Ok, so they are all 14s or slower. Looks like he was the only car to run 14s, and that at sea level is only a 13.5! Unless the conversion is more than that, or I am missing something here, NOONE there can drive.

 

saying comes to mind, those who speak quietly often carry a big stick. in other words if u have to start a thread like more often then not ur car probably aint so hot.

 

all smog crap gone lt headers true duel exaust 3'' pipe, 6speed <--geared and 3.73 rear

 

Well now, that's not just long tubes and a TB.

 

Feel like loseing? Give me the time and place.
I'm in rose hill V.A.

 

i know a guy with a built 02 ss supercharged headers cam heads computer slicks and he runs at 13 just cuz he has a good car doesnt mean its tuned and i dont know how its not tuned cuz its a freaken comp and on top of that he sucks and is a rich snob

 

Still no way it could run that MPH with those mods.

I had a HOT cammed WS6 and the best mph I ever turned in that car was 111.7. Best ET was 12.4@111.

Not going to happen with those mods, more to it than that.

 

I've seen that picture before (on the internet). I highly suspect that it does not belong to you. Way to take credit for someone else's ride.

 

They don't.

At least I never did.

 

5.0s need a blower to hang with a 350? Thanks for the info...

 

ive never raced any stangs before but my buudy has and hes never beat one...so i dont know abou the whole SC to hang with us deal. of course my buddies a 305 and i can beat hiom to but still. i wanna run a 5.0 bad to se how i fare.

 

93 GT all stock motor, tb,intake, maf, AND gears with just exhaust and Powerdyne seeing 7psi....times in sig..all on street tires and 3440lbs!

 

Yea, I was thinking that. I raced a 96 Z28 6spd, with shorty headers, y-pipe, catback, TB, MAF, pulleys, HPPIII, and a 100 shot of nitrous and I was pushing him down the road with my car. I was not slow..but he was in my way. I have race numerous close to stock LT1's on and off the track. They are not that much faster IMHO than a 89-92 L98.

 

I can beat a LS1...but thats a 346 or something right? Those junk ol 5.0 slows..

 

i guess some LT1s run better than others, or maybe the ones you raced werent that great at driving.

my girlfriends LT1 94' Formula with over 115k on the clock has run a best of 13.6 at 101mph with only drag radials and cold air. this is in 80* weather and with her driving! highly doubtful an fbody 350TPI can match those #s with those mods

we just installed a SLP "loudmouth" catback, and with some cooler weather were looking for some 13.4s at 102/103mph. not to bad for just 2 boltons and tires!

 

Obviously, LS1s are not as fast as the Chevy 350 cause I just been a 2002 SLP SS on Friday from a highway roll-on. Haven't you heard? 5.0s cannot run with a 350 if they are N/A. Why oh why did chevy ever go from the 350 to the 346?

Chris

 

Well, one of the LT1's I raced was a 96 Firehawk auto with catback and drag radials. He ran a best of a 14.2 with a 2.0x 60ft time. I do know one guy with headers, 3.73's, y-pipe, catback, etc that runs 13.3@104 I think (auto again). Hard to screw up driving an auto! The LT1's should spank the L98's, just most I see are not too impressive, but then again neither are the L98's I have seen/raced. There was on with a 383 running 12.9 a few years ago. The 93-97 LT1's are supposed to be high 13/low 14 car stock from the old magazine tests and such. I have heard of some guys running high 13's stock with auto and 6spd but most were close to new cars. Cold air is a good gain from what I hear..lot more than Mustang. Those stock airboxes are crap on f-body's.

 

uhh I know many a blown 5.0 running 10s... that's just a BIT faster than your regular old BUILT 350. I hate fords as much as the next camaro guy, but your blind hatred is lame. a 302 isn't a dinky dick motor, it's got a great deal of potential and the stockers were just a nudge behind a 350 TPI and an LT1. thr 4.6 was the *** motor.

 

PI 4.6 > 5.0

 

Not to flame... but another *** dam mustang chit chat?

Jesus... back to stangnet.com for you guys!! I guess they dont have anything cool going on there?

Yes 5.0's are easy to mod and parts are cheap...
but a 350 can be as cheap if not cheaper to do... just present EFI applications seem to cost to *** dam much. By the time you get a decent intake with all the parts, and a engine that can haul.... you can just get a LS1 crate motor... or LS6. mmmm LS6....

 

Hmm he has a point there.