WHY ARE OUR CARS SO SLOW???
10-26-2007, 05:16 PM
#71
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 761
RE: WHY ARE OUR CARS SO SLOW???
ORIGINAL: 68CSTANG
Most people drop 4th gen F-Body motors from the bottom...
Most people drop 4th gen F-Body motors from the bottom...
10-26-2007, 05:27 PM
#72
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,123
RE: WHY ARE OUR CARS SO SLOW???
i have a 94 stang with only some 373s, o/r h-pipe, slowmasters, and a CF DF clutch. oh, and an mgw shifter.I have had absolutely no problem beating the third gen 350s that ive come across, not to mention the 305s. LS1s leave me in a quick sort of way, and i dont really have much experience racing LT1s.
price is a factor too. i dont expect to beat ls1s, or lt1s for that matter, theyre newer and thats that. LS1s only beatmy girlfriends 97 cobra with only 410sby a little red **** hair. and yeah, she picked it up for 7g (in EXCELLENT shape), so look at the price difference. Sure the ls1s have great heads, but they also have great compression ratios, therefore not liking boost. 300$ set of used 03/04 cobra rods and a 3k supercharger kitboosting the **** out ofmy girls cobraand im going to be beating ls1s bloody..... all for the cost of what a usedls1 f-body would cost.
03/04 cobras? straight merkin ls1s. a cheap little pulley and u will beat them even harder.
u guys just arent comparing apples to apples, you cant compare the ls/lt1s to GTs.
price is a factor too. i dont expect to beat ls1s, or lt1s for that matter, theyre newer and thats that. LS1s only beatmy girlfriends 97 cobra with only 410sby a little red **** hair. and yeah, she picked it up for 7g (in EXCELLENT shape), so look at the price difference. Sure the ls1s have great heads, but they also have great compression ratios, therefore not liking boost. 300$ set of used 03/04 cobra rods and a 3k supercharger kitboosting the **** out ofmy girls cobraand im going to be beating ls1s bloody..... all for the cost of what a usedls1 f-body would cost.
03/04 cobras? straight merkin ls1s. a cheap little pulley and u will beat them even harder.
u guys just arent comparing apples to apples, you cant compare the ls/lt1s to GTs.
10-27-2007, 08:12 AM
#73
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Westchester NY
Posts: 358
RE: WHY ARE OUR CARS SO SLOW???
Just love both of them hell thats what i did i need to update i got a 2002 ls1 six speed camaro, sorry guys still got lots of love for the mustang but even the new ponys still cant take care of a ls1 its hard to beat the valuestock for stock ... minus the cobra saleen... etc but in certain cases its a drivers race and a few decent modifications to the mustang and you can run with the crazy chicken and Camaro... towards the end of production the f body cars were not on the same level as the mustang your basically comparing a corvette to a mustang.
10-31-2007, 08:57 PM
#75
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,460
RE: WHY ARE OUR CARS SO SLOW???
ORIGINAL: 86GT 93LX
i would be quite while u still just sound ignorant dude, back your opinion with some sort of half azz facts
i would be quite while u still just sound ignorant dude, back your opinion with some sort of half azz facts
ORIGINAL: 8banger
305=600 RWHP....Thats funny....theres not a 305 block thats a 4 bolt main...even a studded bottom end wouldnt hold that kinda power...at least not for more than 3 or 4 runs....maybe the extra material would help around the cylinder walls but wouldnt do crap around the mains...and stock rods would never hold 600 RWHP...even with floating pins,polished beams and good arp bolts....and weight matched.....and the small bore 305 is 2 restrictive to make any real power..above 350 RWHP...maybe at most 400 @ the crank....OMG...
ORIGINAL: whitelightning5.0
lol,350 blocks are stronger then 305 blocks huh?
do some research dude,just because they normally have less power,doesnt mean there weaker. in fact a 305 block is stronger because of more casting material due to the smaller bore of the 305.
we built a 305 bored .o30 over,put in a set of ****ty trw forged pistons and stock rods with arp bolts,it had afr heads with extensive porting,huge solid roller cam,and all the supporting mods,carbed with a 350 wet kit on it...it made the camaro we put it in run 12.40s on motor and 10.70s on spray making WELL over 600 rwhp on nitrous.
and i find it hard to beleive...you put 3k into your car,your sig pic claims a 14.2 and you hang with 30k dollar cars? i hope your talking about minivans and suv's
my 5300 pound jeep grand cherokee runs a `14 flat
ORIGINAL: 93 LX FiveO
woah woah....
the "whimpy" 5.0 block (made of nickel and cast iron) has proven to handle close to 500rwhp. i'd like to see a chevy 305 handle 500rwhp. the 350 is a stronger motor in all area's but the 5.0 motor is definitely not whimpy.
when i go to the dragstrip, i see 10x more mustangs than f-bodies.
the people have spoken.
and i agree with the guy above. i dont even got $3k into my car but it has a nice list of modications and hangs with alot of $30k+ cars
ORIGINAL: 88white5.0
Here is my view. F body gm cars are better then Mustangs hands down. I would like to call myself a "car guy" and not a "ford guy" or "chevy guy". so my opinion expressed here isnt biased. and before all of you get youre undies in a uproar remember this is just my opinion. Yes i do own a 88 hatch GT. i love it, always been a fan of fox body's. Ford has been playing the catch up game since as long as i can remember. chevy came out with the Z/28 back in the 60's and boom a year later the boss 302 came on the scene. yes the boss was a bad *** car. but it was also late. 2002 mustang Cobra, no match for the LS1 powered SS camaro or WS6 trans am. then after the F bodys were killed, what do ya know the 03 04 terminator came out. indeed one of the badest mustangs ever built "imo" but again a year to late.
what about the fox platform running from 1979-2004 wtf. i can take my upr pro sieries rear susp. and throw it under my buddy's o4 mach 1. what about ****ty torque boxes that we have to weld up just so they dont rip off the car after a hard launch. F body guys dont have to do that.
Yes the F bodys cost more. when we are paying 6-8 g's for a very nice fox body or sn95, they are paying 10-13g's for a nice 4gen lt1/ls1 f body. But you can build 350s hella lot cheaper then ford motors. parts are a lot more available. and chevy blocks dont blast apart when they rwach 400whp like our whimpy 5.0 blocks do.
thats just my opinion on the whole thing. so dont come yelling at me saying im wrong. thats just how i view it. I do have a foxbody. i love it and am prolly not selling it anytime soon.
Here is my view. F body gm cars are better then Mustangs hands down. I would like to call myself a "car guy" and not a "ford guy" or "chevy guy". so my opinion expressed here isnt biased. and before all of you get youre undies in a uproar remember this is just my opinion. Yes i do own a 88 hatch GT. i love it, always been a fan of fox body's. Ford has been playing the catch up game since as long as i can remember. chevy came out with the Z/28 back in the 60's and boom a year later the boss 302 came on the scene. yes the boss was a bad *** car. but it was also late. 2002 mustang Cobra, no match for the LS1 powered SS camaro or WS6 trans am. then after the F bodys were killed, what do ya know the 03 04 terminator came out. indeed one of the badest mustangs ever built "imo" but again a year to late.
what about the fox platform running from 1979-2004 wtf. i can take my upr pro sieries rear susp. and throw it under my buddy's o4 mach 1. what about ****ty torque boxes that we have to weld up just so they dont rip off the car after a hard launch. F body guys dont have to do that.
Yes the F bodys cost more. when we are paying 6-8 g's for a very nice fox body or sn95, they are paying 10-13g's for a nice 4gen lt1/ls1 f body. But you can build 350s hella lot cheaper then ford motors. parts are a lot more available. and chevy blocks dont blast apart when they rwach 400whp like our whimpy 5.0 blocks do.
thats just my opinion on the whole thing. so dont come yelling at me saying im wrong. thats just how i view it. I do have a foxbody. i love it and am prolly not selling it anytime soon.
the "whimpy" 5.0 block (made of nickel and cast iron) has proven to handle close to 500rwhp. i'd like to see a chevy 305 handle 500rwhp. the 350 is a stronger motor in all area's but the 5.0 motor is definitely not whimpy.
when i go to the dragstrip, i see 10x more mustangs than f-bodies.
the people have spoken.
and i agree with the guy above. i dont even got $3k into my car but it has a nice list of modications and hangs with alot of $30k+ cars
do some research dude,just because they normally have less power,doesnt mean there weaker. in fact a 305 block is stronger because of more casting material due to the smaller bore of the 305.
we built a 305 bored .o30 over,put in a set of ****ty trw forged pistons and stock rods with arp bolts,it had afr heads with extensive porting,huge solid roller cam,and all the supporting mods,carbed with a 350 wet kit on it...it made the camaro we put it in run 12.40s on motor and 10.70s on spray making WELL over 600 rwhp on nitrous.
and i find it hard to beleive...you put 3k into your car,your sig pic claims a 14.2 and you hang with 30k dollar cars? i hope your talking about minivans and suv's
my 5300 pound jeep grand cherokee runs a `14 flat
Heres my 422 with afr's domi
car it was in
Well hell..heres a few more of MY cars..this was a 355 dart II junk motor.
http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j4...nt=olboo-1.flv
Heres my Chevelle with another 422 cube motor
http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j4...ycity_0001.flv
http://media.putfile.com/10112005
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4...F0024email.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4...a/DSCF0033.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4...000_0136-1.jpg
a motor or 2
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4...nslowerend.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4...rfordigger.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4.../bottomend.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4...F1048email.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4...a/DSCF0576.jpg
splayed capped and knotched for3.875 inch stroke
Just to clear up..I do know alittle about SBC motors!!...ignorant?Ithink not!..
10-31-2007, 09:12 PM
#76
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,460
RE: WHY ARE OUR CARS SO SLOW???
[quote]ORIGINAL: 86GT 93LX
thank u , the 305 is the bastard that gets ignored but its as strong if not stronger than the 350, people just dont want to mod them, but they can be modded for cheap and be bad azz[quote]
Prove your point..SHOW me a 305 that has any REAL Horsepower(I'm still waiting on those vids and pics.....The reason NO one builds a 305 ..is just that ,,,,Smart enough to KNOW a 305 is waste of time and money..
thank u , the 305 is the bastard that gets ignored but its as strong if not stronger than the 350, people just dont want to mod them, but they can be modded for cheap and be bad azz[quote]
Prove your point..SHOW me a 305 that has any REAL Horsepower(I'm still waiting on those vids and pics.....The reason NO one builds a 305 ..is just that ,,,,Smart enough to KNOW a 305 is waste of time and money..
10-31-2007, 09:44 PM
#77
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,460
RE: WHY ARE OUR CARS SO SLOW???
305 lovers..READ this...
Especially this part
HARD TO MOVE AIR through a SMALL bore with a restricted valve area.....FACT...
Alsoa great reason a ford 302 doesso well...4 inch bore!.....
http://www.goingfaster.com/spo/343hp305.html
Especially this part
HARD TO MOVE AIR through a SMALL bore with a restricted valve area.....FACT...
Alsoa great reason a ford 302 doesso well...4 inch bore!.....
http://www.goingfaster.com/spo/343hp305.html
11-01-2007, 01:21 AM
#78
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 50
RE: WHY ARE OUR CARS SO SLOW???
Ok guys, I've owned several of the cars being talked about in this thread. Maybe I could shed some light, in order from slowest to fastest of the cars I owned...
1987 Trans Am, 305 4bbl carb, 700R4 auto...slow *** car!
1989 Mustang LX 5.0 Convertible, AOD....another slow *** car!
1989 Mustang GT 5.0 Convertible, AOD....slow but looked damn good!
1992 Mustang GT 5.0 Convertible, AOD with GT40 intake....faster than my other Stangs.
1989 IROC-Z, 350TPI (5.7 L98), 700R4, not much faster than my 92, would run out of steam around 3000 RPM thanks to small TPI intake runners.
1989 Corvette, 350TPI (5.7 L98), 700R4, faster than the IROC but slow by today's standards.
1999 Trans Am WS6 Ram Air Convertible, LS1, Auto, fast as hell for a vert and fastest of the cars listed here. Some simple bolt-ons to a 5-speed 5.0 would hold it's own against that car though.
I have driven a couple stock 5.0 with 5-speeds and they are noticeably faster than the AOD and would probably place somewhere between the IROC and Vette. No doubt that the weak point in the 5 liter is the AOD.
Just for clarification, the Trans Am GTA was just a fully loaded version of the Trans Am, most came with a 350TPI and auto but you could get a 305TPI with auto or 5-speed. Same engine choices in the IROC, though earlier IROCs could be had with a 305 with a carburetor! The fastest 3rd gens (besides the 89 Turbo Trans Am) were typically the Formula 350s, they can hit mid 13s stock because they are stripped down, kinda like a 5.0 notchback. There were no IROC or GTAs came from the factory with 3:73s. Gear choices for the 350 were either 2:73 or optional 3:23. For the 305TPI with 5-speed you got 3:42s standard. 5-speed 305TPI cars can easily hang with 350 cars.
To answer the question about the 1989 Turbo Trans Am, yes that car is scary fast. It's the Grand National 3.8 turbocharged engine with the GNX intercooler. It was underated at 250hp, really it had well over 300. Fastest American production car in 1989 and only the fastest exotics could beat it. All of them are white with tan interiors and they have Turbo Trans Am badges on the fenders and rear end. If you see one on the street, you better be modded up or you will be left in it's dust, they are still fast by today's standards.
1987 Trans Am, 305 4bbl carb, 700R4 auto...slow *** car!
1989 Mustang LX 5.0 Convertible, AOD....another slow *** car!
1989 Mustang GT 5.0 Convertible, AOD....slow but looked damn good!
1992 Mustang GT 5.0 Convertible, AOD with GT40 intake....faster than my other Stangs.
1989 IROC-Z, 350TPI (5.7 L98), 700R4, not much faster than my 92, would run out of steam around 3000 RPM thanks to small TPI intake runners.
1989 Corvette, 350TPI (5.7 L98), 700R4, faster than the IROC but slow by today's standards.
1999 Trans Am WS6 Ram Air Convertible, LS1, Auto, fast as hell for a vert and fastest of the cars listed here. Some simple bolt-ons to a 5-speed 5.0 would hold it's own against that car though.
I have driven a couple stock 5.0 with 5-speeds and they are noticeably faster than the AOD and would probably place somewhere between the IROC and Vette. No doubt that the weak point in the 5 liter is the AOD.
Just for clarification, the Trans Am GTA was just a fully loaded version of the Trans Am, most came with a 350TPI and auto but you could get a 305TPI with auto or 5-speed. Same engine choices in the IROC, though earlier IROCs could be had with a 305 with a carburetor! The fastest 3rd gens (besides the 89 Turbo Trans Am) were typically the Formula 350s, they can hit mid 13s stock because they are stripped down, kinda like a 5.0 notchback. There were no IROC or GTAs came from the factory with 3:73s. Gear choices for the 350 were either 2:73 or optional 3:23. For the 305TPI with 5-speed you got 3:42s standard. 5-speed 305TPI cars can easily hang with 350 cars.
To answer the question about the 1989 Turbo Trans Am, yes that car is scary fast. It's the Grand National 3.8 turbocharged engine with the GNX intercooler. It was underated at 250hp, really it had well over 300. Fastest American production car in 1989 and only the fastest exotics could beat it. All of them are white with tan interiors and they have Turbo Trans Am badges on the fenders and rear end. If you see one on the street, you better be modded up or you will be left in it's dust, they are still fast by today's standards.
11-01-2007, 01:29 PM
#79
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,424
RE: WHY ARE OUR CARS SO SLOW???
i didnt know he meant 4th gen, i was talking 3rd gen f body. never worked on a 4th gen so i wouldnt know, but it makes sense cus they do look like a mess!!
ORIGINAL: golden_eye
That's what I've seen for the most part. The engine bay in those cars is so tight they are a major pain to work on. Most people just drop the K-member and the engine along with it.
ORIGINAL: 68CSTANG
Most people drop 4th gen F-Body motors from the bottom...
Most people drop 4th gen F-Body motors from the bottom...
11-14-2007, 10:13 PM
#80
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location:
Posts: 54
RE: WHY ARE OUR CARS SO SLOW???
I own an 02 Camaro SS, the only time I ever worked on it fromthe bottom is to put headers on it, it's impossible from the top! As for the argument, I've owned or owna 89 firebird (305 auto) 89 formula (350 auto) 86 Trans am (350 auto) an 02 SS(350 M6) and a 87 Lx 5.0 (302 m5)
I really don't see why everybody is arguing on here, seems to me like mostlyevrybody sticks up for what they drive (typical) butthe 82-92 f-body 305 autos are a good race for auto 302's. the 350'sare really not to much faster than the 305's until the late 80's and early 90's. Don't feel bad to losing to LT1's and LS1, they are corvette engines, just detuned from the factory so they wont competewith the vette. And for the people whosay they have beaten f-bodies, its prob. because your a lot ore modded then they are.F-bodies with the 350's are just faster than the mustang stock.period.but you have to factor in that a lot of people can'tdrive out there so you have to factor that in.....I've beaten an 03 Cobra with my maro at the dragstrip and an 07 S281 just because they couldn't drive. But I will say this, hands down, the 02-03 cobra in my opinion is better than the 4th gen f-bodies. Ford built them right and strong. I would trade my camaro anyday for an 02-03 cobra. And yes 350's are hella cheap to mod because alot of gm vehicles use them so there are alot of parts (Trans am, camaro, corvette, gto, etc.) Ive only put about a grand into my camaro and im already in the high12's, but my car did cost 15,000. If you bought a fox body for 5k and put 10k in it, it would have no prob. beating vettes. Its all really just prefence, as I wanted a newer car. But i just bought an 87 5.0 (It needs alot of work!!! look at the pic[:'(]) and now I have the best of both worlds! Well that was my 0.02 and I m gonna get off my soapbox now
I really don't see why everybody is arguing on here, seems to me like mostlyevrybody sticks up for what they drive (typical) butthe 82-92 f-body 305 autos are a good race for auto 302's. the 350'sare really not to much faster than the 305's until the late 80's and early 90's. Don't feel bad to losing to LT1's and LS1, they are corvette engines, just detuned from the factory so they wont competewith the vette. And for the people whosay they have beaten f-bodies, its prob. because your a lot ore modded then they are.F-bodies with the 350's are just faster than the mustang stock.period.but you have to factor in that a lot of people can'tdrive out there so you have to factor that in.....I've beaten an 03 Cobra with my maro at the dragstrip and an 07 S281 just because they couldn't drive. But I will say this, hands down, the 02-03 cobra in my opinion is better than the 4th gen f-bodies. Ford built them right and strong. I would trade my camaro anyday for an 02-03 cobra. And yes 350's are hella cheap to mod because alot of gm vehicles use them so there are alot of parts (Trans am, camaro, corvette, gto, etc.) Ive only put about a grand into my camaro and im already in the high12's, but my car did cost 15,000. If you bought a fox body for 5k and put 10k in it, it would have no prob. beating vettes. Its all really just prefence, as I wanted a newer car. But i just bought an 87 5.0 (It needs alot of work!!! look at the pic[:'(]) and now I have the best of both worlds! Well that was my 0.02 and I m gonna get off my soapbox now