Was searching on Google and found this old thread..
08-27-2009, 02:50 PM
#21
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 34
True, I had a debate with a guy at a dealership that said the 99-04's GT's are faster than the s197 GT's stock for stock. I told him no way in hell and he told me I that I just want a s197 and that's why I won't admit it.
Which is not true because I like the styling of the new edge better, but I 'm not going to lie and say it's faster than it really is because I have one.
Which is not true because I like the styling of the new edge better, but I 'm not going to lie and say it's faster than it really is because I have one.Now the Mach1s/Cobras of the 99-04 years are faster than the GTs... but that is why the S197 has the GT500.
I'd still rather have a termi though.
08-27-2009, 03:24 PM
#22
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 1,306
i like how hes saying people have to put 4.88's and 5.56's in their 4.6's. i never see anyone on here at least with over 4.3's or at least its not common at all... 4.10's and 3.73s are the most common...
08-27-2009, 03:29 PM
#23
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 16
5.56 gears????? 
WTF... you be like doing 25 MPH at 7k RPM.
WTF... you be like doing 25 MPH at 7k RPM.
08-27-2009, 04:04 PM
#24
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,182
There is a moron on another board that keeps saying a stock 5.0 will take a stock NewEdge. total Moron. So I did a search and found this thread.
https://mustangforums.com/forum/5-0-...6-stock-9.html
What were they smoking back in 2005? That Quik guy sure is an asshat. He hasn't posted since 2007, so I doubt he is with us anymore. Thank God.
Who would say in their right mind that a 99-04 is slower than a old 5.0?
*shakes head*
redass02gt, if you are out there, I feel sorry for you in that thread. You tried to tell them. *sigh*
https://mustangforums.com/forum/5-0-...6-stock-9.html
What were they smoking back in 2005? That Quik guy sure is an asshat. He hasn't posted since 2007, so I doubt he is with us anymore. Thank God.
Who would say in their right mind that a 99-04 is slower than a old 5.0?
*shakes head*
redass02gt, if you are out there, I feel sorry for you in that thread. You tried to tell them. *sigh*
Sorry some of you cant grasp reality and you have to point doubt in others. DriverMod is the biggest key to any race. Do a search back in 05 for proof of a Stock motor, stock suspension 5.0 notch going deep 13s at full weight.
good day
08-27-2009, 04:12 PM
#25
4th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: MO
Posts: 1,030
I have and can't find it. Do you have any old timeslips laying around?
08-27-2009, 04:16 PM
#26
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,182
these were taken 4 yrs ago, dont have the slips anymore. You could search my name for posts. I havent posted on this site in 2 yrs easily. So late 05 you would see the info on the notch going deep 13s
08-27-2009, 04:22 PM
#27
4th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: MO
Posts: 1,030
WOW, i guess there is no way to prove the car was 100% stock when running those times, but it is just very hard to believe. And i dont even think that was the issue with the thread. I think it was the way you reacted to the person stating the new edge is faster. I mean they are obviously comparable cars, and im sure the notches were great, but looking at the overall picture, i would think the new edge would out perform your average fox more often than not. 13.2 at 108..stock?! With an OK 60 ft...
Last edited by lilcrate; 08-27-2009 at 04:29 PM.
08-27-2009, 04:35 PM
#28
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,182
WOW, i guess there is no way to prove the car was 100% stock when running those times, but it is just very hard to believe. And i dont even think that was the issue with the thread. I think it was the way you reacted to the person stating the new edge is faster. I mean they are obviously comparable cars, and im sure the notches were great, but looking at the overall picture, i would think the new edge would out perform your average fox more often than not. 13.2 at 108..stock?! With an ok 60 ft...
ive been a member since 03, i havent posted much since i left the Stang world and been toying with GMs. You can find the mods
Car at the time had 355s, K&N drop in filter, BBK H Pipe, Flows dumped. Stock trans, stock shifter, stock replacement clutch, stock suspension, Had saleen replicas 15x7 with worn QTPs. car had a 155k miles on it when it ran the times. stock timing at 10*
slipped clutch at 3500 NO LIFT SHIFTs at 4500.
There is no reason to lie about the car, nothing to prove from hiding things. I like the look of new edges but the weight of them vs the motor output is their downfall from the factory. Not saying the fox is the greatest car but it was a great platform to work off of. Quick, Light and good wheel base.
the Notch in question was 3100lbs with me in it and it was a stripper from the factory. a New Edge on the highway would destroy a fox, on the 1320 it comes down to driver.
08-27-2009, 04:39 PM
#29
4th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: MO
Posts: 1,030
So i guess the times on the right are yours. The time and mph i mentioned is on the left on the 2nd slip down. So those times were with a modded fox. ok.
08-27-2009, 04:44 PM
#30
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,182
guess you could say a filter, Hpipe and flows mods. Motor was never touched was SD car, still had the stock intake tubing from filter box.
filter, Hpipe and flows might give you 10hp on a 155k mile motor so mods and age of motor sorta cancel eachother out