S60R vs Mustang GT
11-15-2006, 11:51 AM
#12
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 793
RE: S60R vs Mustang GT
S60R faster than a S197 GT from a dig......probably not (unless they launch at 3500rpm)
Faster from a roll.......close.
Faster in anything short of perfect weather.......absolutely.
Faster around a race track......probably.
Nicer car all around......definitely.
I don't know about you guys.....but I am fine with cars costing $20K more being faster and better. If I had $40-50K to spend on a car it wouldn't be a Mustang. I love my stang......but it's not the greatest car ever made.
Faster from a roll.......close.
Faster in anything short of perfect weather.......absolutely.
Faster around a race track......probably.
Nicer car all around......definitely.
I don't know about you guys.....but I am fine with cars costing $20K more being faster and better. If I had $40-50K to spend on a car it wouldn't be a Mustang. I love my stang......but it's not the greatest car ever made.
11-17-2006, 12:22 PM
#13
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4
RE: S60R vs Mustang GT
ORIGINAL: bascho
S60R faster than a S197 GT from a dig......probably not (unless they launch at 3500rpm)
Faster from a roll.......close.
Faster in anything short of perfect weather.......absolutely.
Faster around a race track......probably.
Nicer car all around......definitely.
I don't know about you guys.....but I am fine with cars costing $20K more being faster and better. If I had $40-50K to spend on a car it wouldn't be a Mustang. I love my stang......but it's not the greatest car ever made.
S60R faster than a S197 GT from a dig......probably not (unless they launch at 3500rpm)
Faster from a roll.......close.
Faster in anything short of perfect weather.......absolutely.
Faster around a race track......probably.
Nicer car all around......definitely.
I don't know about you guys.....but I am fine with cars costing $20K more being faster and better. If I had $40-50K to spend on a car it wouldn't be a Mustang. I love my stang......but it's not the greatest car ever made.
11-26-2006, 01:35 PM
#14
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location:
Posts: 361
RE: S60R vs Mustang GT
ORIGINAL: johnnyv8
[sm=noooo.gif] way that car even does 165; and ur saying limited at 165...i mean; how much up top do you think we have?
ORIGINAL: cyberjock4hire
I have a V70R which is basically the S60R in a wagon. From a roll it will be close, the turbo is already spooled up and the car has much less drag. The engine is a 5cyl turbo that puts out 300hp and 300 ft/lbs torque and has a computer limited top speed of 165.
It is certainly a real sleeper, and has more performance suspension components and tires with more stick than our mustangs.
From a dig, it does not stand a chance.
I have a V70R which is basically the S60R in a wagon. From a roll it will be close, the turbo is already spooled up and the car has much less drag. The engine is a 5cyl turbo that puts out 300hp and 300 ft/lbs torque and has a computer limited top speed of 165.
It is certainly a real sleeper, and has more performance suspension components and tires with more stick than our mustangs.
From a dig, it does not stand a chance.
All the recent testing on the new MazdaSpeed3 shows the thing can do 155/165......
11-26-2006, 01:59 PM
#15
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location:
Posts: 3,758
RE: S60R vs Mustang GT
ORIGINAL: cyberjock4hire
I have a V70R which is basically the S60R in a wagon. From a roll it will be close, the turbo is already spooled up and the car has much less drag. The engine is a 5cyl turbo that puts out 300hp and 300 ft/lbs torque and has a computer limited top speed of 165.
It is certainly a real sleeper, and has more performance suspension components and tires with more stick than our mustangs.
From a dig, it does not stand a chance.
I have a V70R which is basically the S60R in a wagon. From a roll it will be close, the turbo is already spooled up and the car has much less drag. The engine is a 5cyl turbo that puts out 300hp and 300 ft/lbs torque and has a computer limited top speed of 165.
It is certainly a real sleeper, and has more performance suspension components and tires with more stick than our mustangs.
From a dig, it does not stand a chance.
edit: they are quick, but if he kept up that well, either he was modded, or you didn't drive very well.
11-27-2006, 07:08 PM
#16
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location:
Posts: 7
RE: S60R vs Mustang GT
ORIGINAL: johnnyv8
[sm=noooo.gif] way that car even does 165; and ur saying limited at 165...i mean; how much up top do you think we have?
ORIGINAL: cyberjock4hire
I have a V70R which is basically the S60R in a wagon. From a roll it will be close, the turbo is already spooled up and the car has much less drag. The engine is a 5cyl turbo that puts out 300hp and 300 ft/lbs torque and has a computer limited top speed of 165.
It is certainly a real sleeper, and has more performance suspension components and tires with more stick than our mustangs.
From a dig, it does not stand a chance.
I have a V70R which is basically the S60R in a wagon. From a roll it will be close, the turbo is already spooled up and the car has much less drag. The engine is a 5cyl turbo that puts out 300hp and 300 ft/lbs torque and has a computer limited top speed of 165.
It is certainly a real sleeper, and has more performance suspension components and tires with more stick than our mustangs.
From a dig, it does not stand a chance.
11-28-2006, 03:43 PM
#18
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denver, CO.
Posts: 281
RE: S60R vs Mustang GT
hell i dont think you could get an accord to go 157 in a free fall...
maybe if it wings to keep it pointed straight down...
I call BS on that one...what does an accord have like 175hp maybe? 157 seems like a wet dream for a ricer to me
maybe if it wings to keep it pointed straight down...
I call BS on that one...what does an accord have like 175hp maybe? 157 seems like a wet dream for a ricer to me
ORIGINAL: johnnyv8
did you fall off a cliff w/ ur accord doing 157?
did you fall off a cliff w/ ur accord doing 157?
11-28-2006, 04:04 PM
#19
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Babylon, NY
Posts: 3,031
RE: S60R vs Mustang GT
Jesus! An '86 Accord had a 2.0L engine producing either 98 or 110 HP. Wind resistance alone would stop that thing at about 105mph.
1986-1989
Accord took a big jump up-market with the introduction of the 1986 version. Bigger and better was the theme, with an increase of nearly 6 inches in the wheelbase and 3 inches in overall length. Weight for an LX Sedan increased nearly 200 pounds; from 2,341 lbs. for a 1985 to 2,529 lbs. for the new 1986. The new Accord also had a much sleeker look, with pop-up headlights (unusual on a sedan) and much better aerodynamics. Even the rain gutters were flush with the body in order to make the car quieter and more aero-efficient. Sedans came in base DX, luxury LX and loaded LXi trim levels. The two-door hatchback came in either DX or LXi guise. The top dog LXi included all the features of the LX (such as air conditioning and power everything) and added fuel injection, alloy wheels and, on the sedan, a power moonroof.
To handle the bigger, heavier Accords, the engine was increased in size, from 1.8 to 2.0- liters and produced either 98 horsepower (in the carbureted DX and LX trims) or 110 ponies in the fuel-injected LXi. An all-new suspension featured "double-wishbone" design at all four wheels. Derived from Formula 1 racecar chassis design, this setup allowed precise handling (by always keeping the tire perpendicular to the road surface) while still delivering a comfortable, slightly firm ride. As the family sedan battle between Toyota and Honda heated up, it seemed that those interested in sporty handling went for the Accord, while those who weren't looking for a poor man's BMW and who preferred a softer ride chose the Camry.
Pricing for the 1986 Accords ranged from $8,429 for a DX Hatchback Coupe to $12,675 for the LXi Sedan.
1987 saw no changes to the wildly popular Accord.
1986-1989
Accord took a big jump up-market with the introduction of the 1986 version. Bigger and better was the theme, with an increase of nearly 6 inches in the wheelbase and 3 inches in overall length. Weight for an LX Sedan increased nearly 200 pounds; from 2,341 lbs. for a 1985 to 2,529 lbs. for the new 1986. The new Accord also had a much sleeker look, with pop-up headlights (unusual on a sedan) and much better aerodynamics. Even the rain gutters were flush with the body in order to make the car quieter and more aero-efficient. Sedans came in base DX, luxury LX and loaded LXi trim levels. The two-door hatchback came in either DX or LXi guise. The top dog LXi included all the features of the LX (such as air conditioning and power everything) and added fuel injection, alloy wheels and, on the sedan, a power moonroof.
To handle the bigger, heavier Accords, the engine was increased in size, from 1.8 to 2.0- liters and produced either 98 horsepower (in the carbureted DX and LX trims) or 110 ponies in the fuel-injected LXi. An all-new suspension featured "double-wishbone" design at all four wheels. Derived from Formula 1 racecar chassis design, this setup allowed precise handling (by always keeping the tire perpendicular to the road surface) while still delivering a comfortable, slightly firm ride. As the family sedan battle between Toyota and Honda heated up, it seemed that those interested in sporty handling went for the Accord, while those who weren't looking for a poor man's BMW and who preferred a softer ride chose the Camry.
Pricing for the 1986 Accords ranged from $8,429 for a DX Hatchback Coupe to $12,675 for the LXi Sedan.
1987 saw no changes to the wildly popular Accord.
11-28-2006, 05:04 PM
#20
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location:
Posts: 7
RE: S60R vs Mustang GT
Since there seems to be people that doubt my account of what an '86 Accord can do. Since I don't own one anymore, if anyone has access to an '86 Accord DX with a 5 speed that still runs decent, and wants to bring it out to SLC for a little thrashing. I'll show you first hand what they can do out on the Salt Flats, or the same road I got clocked at 157 on, if you have the ***** to go for a little ride. As for the wind resistance killing it's speed, have you ever seen what the '86 accord looks like? Sadly, it's far more aerodynamic than any mustang has ever been and has no problem with wind resistance. I'm not a rice fan either. I haven't owned a non-american vehicle for a decade. I just know what I've seen, done and been clocked at. I have no reason to doubt the cops radar either since the speedo stops at 135 and the needle was way past it and against the peg at the bottom pointing straight down.