Food for thought
Thread Starter
I ♥ Acer
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 774
From:
Food for thought
I just came across this article in the new MM&FF. Makes me want to go and get some cams and long tubes. And of course a little weight reduction. But take a look guys I thought this was pretty interesting.
[IMG]local://upfiles/7043/7B98ADB60C85415A92515C16252D3119.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/7043/7B98ADB60C85415A92515C16252D3119.jpg[/IMG]
Pro. B.S. caller outer
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,644
From: IL
RE: Food for thought
It's not that he has alot of power, he is light and has his suspesion set up right. 90% of the people (both Stang and F-body guys) who try and build cars get the suspension wrong. Why do you think the Factory Stock cars go so fast? It's not because they make a ton of power (My friends put out 310 to the tire) but he has been 11.7's with the car. Here check this out
http://home.comcast.net/~nmrastocker/NMRA_Stocker.html
http://home.comcast.net/~nmrastocker/NMRA_Stocker.html
I ♥ Acer
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 9,172
From:
RE: Food for thought
But wait a minute! According to this quote...
... it doesnt matter what susppension you run. The car will always be slow. 
Am I missing something here or what?
ORIGINAL 66chevyIISS
Your car is making 750 crank HP based on a 15% drivetrain loss and you can only trap 117-120 mph and have the nerve to call US IGNORANT?! bahahahahahahaha
Fix your clutch and show us some trap speeds. I don't care if your 60 ft is 4 seconds if your not trapping over 130mph then your Dyno man is awesome at padding numbers. you can put a $20,000 suspension under that car its not going to make the MPH go up. Ignorant hahahaha good one!
Your car is making 750 crank HP based on a 15% drivetrain loss and you can only trap 117-120 mph and have the nerve to call US IGNORANT?! bahahahahahahaha
Fix your clutch and show us some trap speeds. I don't care if your 60 ft is 4 seconds if your not trapping over 130mph then your Dyno man is awesome at padding numbers. you can put a $20,000 suspension under that car its not going to make the MPH go up. Ignorant hahahaha good one!
Am I missing something here or what?
Thread Starter
I ♥ Acer
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 774
From:
RE: Food for thought
No, thats how it sounded to me JDan. The guy is only putting down 299rwhp and he goes bottom 12's lets see an LS1 go bottom 12's with stock hp cause they put down about that much stock. Aren't they like right around 3000lbs anyway just like the stang in the article? I will be buying cams and gears next for my car.
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 265
From: Yukon, Oklahoma
RE: Food for thought
ORIGINAL: 01GT
No, thats how it sounded to me JDan. The guy is only putting down 299rwhp and he goes bottom 12's lets see an LS1 go bottom 12's with stock hp cause they put down about that much stock. Aren't they like right around 3000lbs anyway just like the stang in the article? I will be buying cams and gears next for my car.
No, thats how it sounded to me JDan. The guy is only putting down 299rwhp and he goes bottom 12's lets see an LS1 go bottom 12's with stock hp cause they put down about that much stock. Aren't they like right around 3000lbs anyway just like the stang in the article? I will be buying cams and gears next for my car.
Pro. B.S. caller outer
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,644
From: IL
RE: Food for thought
What about it, Jdan drug it here from another thread just make this a mess and about him. Jdan just needs to drop it already, every thread he posts in now is polluted. *I* never said that his car would not do alot better with the proper suspension. Oh yea F-bodies are 3500-3600 lbs without driver, mine is 3780 with me in it, I am 200lbs, this is on certified scales at Route 66 Raceway so I would say that is an accurate weight. Now back to this tread before it gets jacked anymore, I think what that guy did with his Stang is great, and people should pay attention to cars like that. Does anyone know if that 3000lbs is with driver, cause he looks like a big dude.