ways to make 1/4 mile times better
05-01-2010, 07:29 AM
#21
6th Gear Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 5,232
Yeah. A car with a tight suspension and a few hundred pounds less dead weight is a lot more fun to drive. Besides, unless you are doing all the upgrades at once, it would be foolish to upgrade the engine first, and the suspension later.
05-01-2010, 10:17 AM
#23
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 6,417
true. i followed that philosophy as well. started with front suspension, then braces, then rearaxle, brakes, transmission, rear suspension then the engine ... nice to know that the car will hold up even a bit more engine no problem
05-02-2010, 09:14 PM
#24
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 172
Getting rid of the front sway bar is good for a 10th or two off of your 60ft times. Your car already weigh's only 2500lbs or so. Do what I did and put a 2.3 turbo motor in it. We have 300+ rwhp with an A4ld trany and get around 30 mpg.
The second picture shows 270 hp. That was after we fried the converter at 25 lbs of boost. Put a better converter in it and pulled 300 rwhp on the first pull with 22 lbs of boost. The 2.3 is built to take 25lbs of boost all day.
I do have an 9 inch in it though. I do know guys that run early mustang with 8 inch rear end that run in the 12's and one in the 10's and they have never had any problems. The axles in an 8 inch are the same as a 9 inch. Some even have the same bearings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_z9Yq4Rq8E
The second picture shows 270 hp. That was after we fried the converter at 25 lbs of boost. Put a better converter in it and pulled 300 rwhp on the first pull with 22 lbs of boost. The 2.3 is built to take 25lbs of boost all day.
I do have an 9 inch in it though. I do know guys that run early mustang with 8 inch rear end that run in the 12's and one in the 10's and they have never had any problems. The axles in an 8 inch are the same as a 9 inch. Some even have the same bearings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_z9Yq4Rq8E
Last edited by Angliagasser; 05-02-2010 at 09:39 PM.
05-03-2010, 12:29 AM
#25
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 62
2.3T huh, that would be an familiar engine choice.
ive been fighting with a 2.3T for the last few years. i love how simple the 289 is. not that i dont love my xr4ti, but the mustang needs that rumble.
your 2.3t is sweet though, are you running megasquirt. mine just has a turbocoupe computer and a big VAM. its a really fun car though.
good work on your car. thats quite a swap.
ive been fighting with a 2.3T for the last few years. i love how simple the 289 is. not that i dont love my xr4ti, but the mustang needs that rumble.
your 2.3t is sweet though, are you running megasquirt. mine just has a turbocoupe computer and a big VAM. its a really fun car though.
good work on your car. thats quite a swap.
blasphemy! lol
05-03-2010, 09:36 PM
#29
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 172
I am running a FAST computor in ours. A stock hipo 289 had 275 hp at the crank and got "maybe" 15 MPG. My daughters 66 Mustang with a 2.3 turbo has around 375 hp at the crank and gets around 30 MPG. Hard to believe, but true!
I do not see the blasphemy! LOL! The blasphemy would be putting anything else but a Ford in it. I was going to do this to a 66 Mustang Fastback I had 10 years ago, but I had to sell the car before I got around to it.
I do not see the blasphemy! LOL! The blasphemy would be putting anything else but a Ford in it. I was going to do this to a 66 Mustang Fastback I had 10 years ago, but I had to sell the car before I got around to it.
