Got Raped?
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
From: Round Lake,IL
Car: 1986 IROC-Z
Engine: 305 T.P.I.
Transmission: 700R4
Got Raped?
i shur did! my budy has a 89 LX 5.0 w/ 5-speed manual, off road h-pipe, and Flowmaster cat-back and killed me. i have a 1986 IROC-Z (305 TPI w/ SLP runners and K&N filters).heres how it whent down.... we pull up to a light, i'm in front he's in back, in goes green.... we punch it, i totaly kill him in first then second( i think to myself i may win) still in front. when third comes i say to myself son of a b!tch, here he comes. he pulled so had in third he gets into the on-comeing lane (no other cars were present 
) to pass me. so were door to door, at 90 mph or so, when he shifts into fourth and dusted me. after that i see nothing but blue ovle tail. i let of at the same time he did, i was doing 110 mph or so and he was at 125 mph or so. this is so gay! has this happend to you? lets here it...
) to pass me. so were door to door, at 90 mph or so, when he shifts into fourth and dusted me. after that i see nothing but blue ovle tail. i let of at the same time he did, i was doing 110 mph or so and he was at 125 mph or so. this is so gay! has this happend to you? lets here it... 
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
From: Round Lake,IL
Car: 1986 IROC-Z
Engine: 305 T.P.I.
Transmission: 700R4
i am planning on a 383 ci w/ a blower in the futur, so this doesn't happen ever agen.
just to let the veiwers know i didn't make up any excuses. i took it in stride
.
just to let the veiwers know i didn't make up any excuses. i took it in stride
. 
Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Car: 91 1LE
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MM5
Axle/Gears: GU6
That's probably a mid-low 14 second Mustang. I don't see how he would have really pulled so much in 3rd since they run out of steam up top. I know my 93 GT was pretty good until 5500K in 1st, 4500-5000 in 2nd, and died in 3rd around 4000. It reall felt like I hit a brick wall at the top of 3rd in that thing. It only ran 14.3 @ 96 too.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
From: Round Lake,IL
Car: 1986 IROC-Z
Engine: 305 T.P.I.
Transmission: 700R4
it must be a factory freak then...
i don't know much about fords but it did have cold air and other mods like 373s wich helped alot
i don't know much about fords but it did have cold air and other mods like 373s wich helped alot
Trending Topics
Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Car: 91 1LE
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MM5
Axle/Gears: GU6
Originally posted by F-Body Tim
it must be a factory freak then...
it must be a factory freak then...
Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Car: 91 1LE
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MM5
Axle/Gears: GU6
Originally posted by F-Body Tim
look....... two CHEVY GUYS arguing about a FORD
look....... two CHEVY GUYS arguing about a FORD
Full exhaust, cold air, pulley's, and 3.55's on a 2.0 60' were only good for a 14.3. Not all are that slow with those bolt ons, but that would still only be good for real high 13's. That h-pipe and catback is only good for low 14's. I ran 14.6 with an offroad x-pipe and flowmaster catback myself.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
From: Round Lake,IL
Car: 1986 IROC-Z
Engine: 305 T.P.I.
Transmission: 700R4
but seriusly i don't know if he has any 13 second slips.
i am assuming it's 13s because he dusted me bad, and my car isn't in the high 15s, i hope. 
i am assuming it's 13s because he dusted me bad, and my car isn't in the high 15s, i hope. Last edited by F-Body Tim; Feb 8, 2004 at 09:36 PM.
Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Car: 91 1LE
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MM5
Axle/Gears: GU6
Originally posted by F-Body Tim
but seriusly i don't know if he has any 13 second slips. i am assuming it's 13s because he dusted me bad, and my car isn't in the high 15s, i hope.
but seriusly i don't know if he has any 13 second slips.
i am assuming it's 13s because he dusted me bad, and my car isn't in the high 15s, i hope. That's more than likely the truth. I just don't see an auto 305 with your mods being any better than mid 14's myself. What do I know though 
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
From: El Paso, Texas
Car: 2000 Trans Am and a 85 Iroc-Z
Engine: The Mighty LS1& 305 just beat meTPI
Transmission: 4L60E and 700R4
That sucks man. I know it doesn't help but my rock with mymods only got me a mid 15 here in TX. Thats about a mid to high 14 at sealevel. Kinda sad. Oh well hopefully the chip and converter I am throwing in next week will change that.
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 5,321
Likes: 4
From: Northern CA.
Car: '82 Z28
Engine: 350
Transmission: TH400 4,000 stall
Axle/Gears: Currie 9", 4.56 gears
My first race was against an 89 5 speed 5.0 I lost horribly. The next week after the race it all began, I started dumping money into the car lol 
That was back in '01.
I lost horribly. The next week after the race it all began, I started dumping money into the car lol That was back in '01. 
Supreme Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
From: CT
Car: Mustang
Engine: Bolt Ons
Transmission: Stock
Axle/Gears: 3.73
My friends 1988 LX hatch went 13.9 with just an H-pipe. No lie 100% stock, he removed the air silencer and had an off road H-pipe. The car was a non AC, 1988 speed density car with no power options and 3.08 gears. I never believed him till he added a catback, and pulleys and went a 13.7 @ 100. That car has to be one of the fastest Factory Mustangs I have ever seen, but I have seen it, and maybe your friends is also? Probably low 14s, but then again I have never been in a Mustang that nosed over at 4000 rwpm, maybe yours had issues?
Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Car: 91 1LE
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MM5
Axle/Gears: GU6
Originally posted by 25thmustang
I have never been in a Mustang that nosed over at 4000 rwpm, maybe yours had issues?
I have never been in a Mustang that nosed over at 4000 rwpm, maybe yours had issues?
The 87/88's are known the be the freaks of the 5.0s. They had a stackup of changes after 88 thru 93 that decreased power each year. Those speed density one run real hard though.
Supreme Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
From: CT
Car: Mustang
Engine: Bolt Ons
Transmission: Stock
Axle/Gears: 3.73
The 1987 and 1988 Mustangs were slightly faster. The Speed Density cars (the 1989+ cars had mass air meters, as well as the 1988 CA Mustangs) seemed to pull harder but dont allow for large mods without a switch to mass air. I have also been told the cams were slightly better but have no proof. From 1989 till 1992 the cars were the same, but in 1993 they switched to hyperutectic pistons, and a different computer. Neither of these affected hp, but Ford changed the way it rated power, and the car was rated at 205hp when in reality they made the exact same amount.
Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Car: 91 1LE
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MM5
Axle/Gears: GU6
Originally posted by 25thmustang
but in 1993 they switched to hyperutectic pistons, and a different computer. Neither of these affected hp, but Ford changed the way it rated power, and the car was rated at 205hp when in reality they made the exact same amount.
but in 1993 they switched to hyperutectic pistons, and a different computer. Neither of these affected hp, but Ford changed the way it rated power, and the car was rated at 205hp when in reality they made the exact same amount.
There is a lot of info at http://www.mustanggt.org about the changes.
Hypereutectic pistons replace the forged aluminum pistons.
Horsepower and torque ratings dropped for ‘93.
The reduced ratings were influenced by a stack-up of minor mechanical changes and by changes to Ford’s engine evaluation processes.
The changes made were mainly due to emissions, fuel economy, customer satisfaction requirements, a series of mechanical revisions.
Mechanical revisions include:
air intake silencer -- 5-7 hp loss
small camshaft profile change in 1989 -- 3 hp loss
addition of restrictive 55mm mass air flow meter in 1989 -- 4-5 hp loss
also some small exhaust system revisions between 1987-1993
new rating system used in 1993 involving changes in the processes of selecting engines to be tested and also the engine’s state of dress (power steering, alternator, water pump, smog pump)
Horsepower and torque ratings dropped for ‘93.
The reduced ratings were influenced by a stack-up of minor mechanical changes and by changes to Ford’s engine evaluation processes.
The changes made were mainly due to emissions, fuel economy, customer satisfaction requirements, a series of mechanical revisions.
Mechanical revisions include:
air intake silencer -- 5-7 hp loss
small camshaft profile change in 1989 -- 3 hp loss
addition of restrictive 55mm mass air flow meter in 1989 -- 4-5 hp loss
also some small exhaust system revisions between 1987-1993
new rating system used in 1993 involving changes in the processes of selecting engines to be tested and also the engine’s state of dress (power steering, alternator, water pump, smog pump)
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
From: Hillsborough, NJ & SJU in Philly
Car: 1986 Trans Am
Engine: carb 305 LG4
Transmission: TH700-R4
Sorry about the loss. I lost really bad to a buick t-type my first run at the track ever. He came in on a trailer so i knew i was screwed. He ran like a 12.7 to my 16.5..... Talk about embarrasing.
~Matt
so i knew i was screwed. He ran like a 12.7 to my 16.5..... Talk about embarrasing.~Matt
Supreme Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
From: CT
Car: Mustang
Engine: Bolt Ons
Transmission: Stock
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Yes those are the changes through the years, although I didnt know about the minor exhaust changes. My friend Eric has gone 12.9 in his 1993 coupe with little more than suspension, xpipe, catback, gears and tires. From my experience the 1993s were no slower and actually the pistons were lighter than the forged peices, which if anything migh free up a hp or two!
Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Car: 91 1LE
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MM5
Axle/Gears: GU6
Originally posted by 25thmustang
Yes those are the changes through the years, although I didnt know about the minor exhaust changes. My friend Eric has gone 12.9 in his 1993 coupe with little more than suspension, xpipe, catback, gears and tires. From my experience the 1993s were no slower and actually the pistons were lighter than the forged peices, which if anything migh free up a hp or two!
Yes those are the changes through the years, although I didnt know about the minor exhaust changes. My friend Eric has gone 12.9 in his 1993 coupe with little more than suspension, xpipe, catback, gears and tires. From my experience the 1993s were no slower and actually the pistons were lighter than the forged peices, which if anything migh free up a hp or two!
Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Car: 91 1LE
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MM5
Axle/Gears: GU6
Originally posted by F-Body Tim
hey demonspeed... did you have an auto? if so that is y your times were not as good as the other fox-body times.
hey demonspeed... did you have an auto? if so that is y your times were not as good as the other fox-body times.
Supreme Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
From: Milan, MI
Car: 1999 Z28
Engine: LS1
Transmission: A4
My first loss at the track was to a 10 second camaro.............yep I hit the 1/8 when he hit the 1/4..........how embarassing.
Everytime I would stage, I would look over and see a full cage and helmut............everytime.
Made my 16.5 look 100 times worse than it was...........even tho it is bad.
Everytime I would stage, I would look over and see a full cage and helmut............everytime.
Made my 16.5 look 100 times worse than it was...........even tho it is bad.
Supreme Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
From: CT
Car: Mustang
Engine: Bolt Ons
Transmission: Stock
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Switching in a tremec would hurt the car. They are heavier, and have stronger parts, which is more of a drag on the driveline. The T5 would have been a better choice for a stock or near stock motor. Maybe it was beat on or something, who knows?
As for the 16.5 yes my dad had the same thing, smoked the tires, ran a 16 and was racing a tubbed nitroused 69 Camaro. He ran a 10.6 1/8th to the Camaros 10.6 1/4.
As for the 16.5 yes my dad had the same thing, smoked the tires, ran a 16 and was racing a tubbed nitroused 69 Camaro. He ran a 10.6 1/8th to the Camaros 10.6 1/4.
Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Car: 91 1LE
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MM5
Axle/Gears: GU6
Originally posted by 25thmustang
Switching in a tremec would hurt the car. They are heavier, and have stronger parts, which is more of a drag on the driveline. The T5 would have been a better choice for a stock or near stock motor. Maybe it was beat on or something, who knows?
Switching in a tremec would hurt the car. They are heavier, and have stronger parts, which is more of a drag on the driveline. The T5 would have been a better choice for a stock or near stock motor. Maybe it was beat on or something, who knows?
I went to the Tremec because I blew up my T5. I had big plans for the car, but I wanted to get back into a Camaro. Nonetheless, I wanted the tranny to handle a blown/h/c/i 306. Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Car: 91 1LE
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MM5
Axle/Gears: GU6
Originally posted by 25thmustang
Yeah, I see what you mean a Tremec is a lot stronger, and will last behind the 306, HCI car...
But the LS1 mist be nice!
Yeah, I see what you mean a Tremec is a lot stronger, and will last behind the 306, HCI car...
But the LS1 mist be nice!
Supreme Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
From: CT
Car: Mustang
Engine: Bolt Ons
Transmission: Stock
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Originally posted by F-Body Tim
hey this is not a ford trany tread!.......... thank you. :lala:
hey this is not a ford trany tread!.......... thank you. :lala:
Yes thats why I dont have one, too much to mod them, but they are awesome cars!
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
From: Round Lake,IL
Car: 1986 IROC-Z
Engine: 305 T.P.I.
Transmission: 700R4
i love both 4th gens and 5.0 fox-bodys too. i think ford & chevy guys should all just get along......... we all have one resone to mod witch is to KILL R!CE!:rockon: :rockon:
but lets talk about our loses.
but lets talk about our loses.
Member
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Car: 91 1LE
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MM5
Axle/Gears: GU6
Originally posted by F-Body Tim
but lets talk about our loses.
but lets talk about our loses.
I haven't lost in the 2001 yet
I haven't really raced anyone except a 96-98 Cobra.I lost to a SS, Maxima SE, and 89 LX with my Mustang. I'm sure there are more losses, but I can't remember.
I don't remember anything from my IROC.
The Grand Am lost to a modded Integra GSR
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
From: Snellville, GA USA
Car: 90 Formula
Engine: 350
Transmission: 700R4
Every time my brother (99 Camaro SS bolt ons-12.1's @113+) leaves work the same time I do, I get beat. EVERY time. And for some reason I keep trying...stupid LS1's j/k
I did get beat bad in my Regal GS not long after I bought it. It was against a highly modified Grand National, and this was on the street. I wish I could have had a video camera for that one...what an awesome car.
I did get beat bad in my Regal GS not long after I bought it. It was against a highly modified Grand National, and this was on the street. I wish I could have had a video camera for that one...what an awesome car.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
From: Revere, MA
Originally posted by demonspeed
Full exhaust, cold air, pulley's, and 3.55's on a 2.0 60' were only good for a 14.3.
Full exhaust, cold air, pulley's, and 3.55's on a 2.0 60' were only good for a 14.3.
But it is speed density
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
From: Revere, MA
Originally posted by 25thmustang
but then again I have never been in a Mustang that nosed over at 4000 rwpm, maybe yours had issues?
but then again I have never been in a Mustang that nosed over at 4000 rwpm, maybe yours had issues?
Using a better flow exhaust can help, but these motors general suck ***** at high RPM stock.
Now port the exhaust ports and you got a different story. I've ported a set of E7 heads for a friend's mustang and the car revs effortlessly to 5800RPM. Completely different qualities than stock 5.0's.
I liked the results so well i'm doing a set for my '85.
Last edited by Mustang5L5; Feb 15, 2004 at 11:05 AM.
Supreme Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,839
Likes: 0
From: CT
Car: Mustang
Engine: Bolt Ons
Transmission: Stock
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Originally posted by Mustang5L5
Actually, most stock Mustangs do nose over around 4500RPM. It has to do with the head design. The exhaust ports on the heads cannot flow well enough to keep up with the intake designs at that RPM. So when the car noses over it's because of the poor flowing head design.
Using a better flow exhaust can help, but these motors general suck ***** at high RPM stock.
Now port the exhaust ports and you got a different story. I've ported a set of E7 heads for a friend's mustang and the car revs effortlessly to 5800RPM. Completely different qualities than stock 5.0's.
I liked the results so well i'm doing a set for my '85.
Actually, most stock Mustangs do nose over around 4500RPM. It has to do with the head design. The exhaust ports on the heads cannot flow well enough to keep up with the intake designs at that RPM. So when the car noses over it's because of the poor flowing head design.
Using a better flow exhaust can help, but these motors general suck ***** at high RPM stock.
Now port the exhaust ports and you got a different story. I've ported a set of E7 heads for a friend's mustang and the car revs effortlessly to 5800RPM. Completely different qualities than stock 5.0's.
I liked the results so well i'm doing a set for my '85.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
85 TRANSAM WS6
Theoretical and Street Racing
44
Nov 19, 2002 12:01 AM
85 TRANSAM WS6
Theoretical and Street Racing
63
Nov 18, 2002 11:57 PM