88 gt vs. 94 gt
11-08-2007, 09:14 AM
#31
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: chicago
Posts: 875
RE: 88 gt vs. 94 gt
[/quote]
my cobra. stock engine, tranny, and gears. made 253rwhp with exhast and a cold air intake..
add a tune to that, and I made 276rwhp
Most GT's whether they be a fox or SN, only make about 190whp-200 at the most (stock)
so cobra's are not slow
[/quote]
how the hell did you pull that off??? exhuast and intake usualy give like what like 10hp at most if that. was it a full exhaust headers back? and what cai did you use?
my cobra. stock engine, tranny, and gears. made 253rwhp with exhast and a cold air intake..
add a tune to that, and I made 276rwhp
Most GT's whether they be a fox or SN, only make about 190whp-200 at the most (stock)
so cobra's are not slow
[/quote]
how the hell did you pull that off??? exhuast and intake usualy give like what like 10hp at most if that. was it a full exhaust headers back? and what cai did you use?
11-08-2007, 09:21 AM
#32
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lil' Rhody
Posts: 22,376
RE: 88 gt vs. 94 gt
cold air intake, under drive pullies, 15° timing, BBK Equal length headers, BBK O/R X pipe, Mac Pro Dumps 2.5"
made 253rwhp, 294tq, with a 15:1 AFR
I put a Tweecer in my car and did some adjusting, got my AFR to 13.3:1, did some timing changes in the ECM and made 276rwhp, 323tq
made 253rwhp, 294tq, with a 15:1 AFR
I put a Tweecer in my car and did some adjusting, got my AFR to 13.3:1, did some timing changes in the ECM and made 276rwhp, 323tq
11-08-2007, 11:39 AM
#35
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location:
Posts: 3,145
RE: 88 gt vs. 94 gt
ORIGINAL: 86GT 93LX
you mean heavier right???
and oh yeah the handle alot better!!!!foxs handle like shyt, too light in the rear
ORIGINAL: 91hatchgt
WOW. A lot of bad info in this post.
As was already stated, ford just changed the way that they rated HP in 93. So in 93 they were rated at 205 from 225hp, but they made the SAME hp, only difference was the piston material. Ford began testing the engines with all of the accessories installed. It had nothing to do with emissions.
Yes the SN's are a little bit lighter, but my 94 actually ran .4 tenths faster in the 1/4 than my 91 stock, so a lot of factors play in that whole deal. 91- (15.2 @ 89)124k 94 - (14.8 @ 94)198k
SN's handle much better than a Fox, if you don't believe that, then you have never driven or owned both cars at the same time.
WOW. A lot of bad info in this post.
As was already stated, ford just changed the way that they rated HP in 93. So in 93 they were rated at 205 from 225hp, but they made the SAME hp, only difference was the piston material. Ford began testing the engines with all of the accessories installed. It had nothing to do with emissions.
Yes the SN's are a little bit lighter, but my 94 actually ran .4 tenths faster in the 1/4 than my 91 stock, so a lot of factors play in that whole deal. 91- (15.2 @ 89)124k 94 - (14.8 @ 94)198k
SN's handle much better than a Fox, if you don't believe that, then you have never driven or owned both cars at the same time.
and oh yeah the handle alot better!!!!foxs handle like shyt, too light in the rear
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Diode Dynamics
Vendor For Sale / Group Buy Classifieds
28
05-26-2022 12:02 PM