[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by R.C. Collins

I miss my '89 5.0 LX notchback w/5 spd. It sure felt fast in it's day. I raced my buddy's '87 Trans Am GTA between Sacramento and Lodi. It was a dead heat all the way until he blew a tire at 135mph. I don't know how he managed to keep it under control.

As do I! I may end up picking another one just for fun.

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Notchbacks in negative da and free mods clipped high 13s.

The average foxy body was mid to high 14s.

Totally agree with that...although I did run mid 14's totally stock with 150k miles on my 89 (with 2.73 gears) in indianapolis with temps in the 90's.

Some cars (and drivers) were just much better than others. And the stock 225 rear tires was likely a large reason why 1/4 times varied so much between magazine times and the track...where they laid down VHT.

The poor souls stuck with the slush box autos however were total dogs stock...and if you had a vert....eeek!

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

As do I! I may end up picking another one just for fun.



Totally agree with that...although I did run mid 14's totally stock with 150k miles on my 89 (with 2.73 gears) in indianapolis with temps in the 90's.

Some cars (and drivers) were just much better than others. And the stock 225 rear tires was likely a large reason why 1/4 times varied so much between magazine times and the track...where they laid down VHT.

The poor souls stuck with the slush box autos however were total dogs stock...and if you had a vert....eeek!

My buddy only ran his 90 gt 5 speed one track day stock. 14.7 was his best time. He could drive too. I think his 60 was 1.9 but it’s been years since I seen that slip. He could hang with poor driven lt1 manual cars. Made some people mad back then lol. With equal driving though the lt1 was clearly faster

The later 350 L98 when optioned with a decent rear gear was a mid 14 car with hero times in low 14s. Especially the later speed density 245/345 powered cars. Those would beat all but the best 5.0 and driver more times than not being auto. Too bad they only came with the slush box though. It would have hit 13s with a manual and great driving. The corvette did it easily

The 230 hp years of the 305 tpi with a 5 speed would compete well with the GT stock fir stock as well. Some years 305 were neutered such as 1986 with 190 hp

Yeah the auto 5.0 wasn’t much. Knew people with both of them as well. A 1990 formula 350 will beat an auto fox pretty easy. That car would even sometimes beat stock lt1 cars if they didn’t drive it right

[1295/SS]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Man, it's going to be EPIC when they test the A10 GT against the camaro. Look forward to it.

OH, by the way...why didn't you ever respond to this?



How about a 12.8

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ford/...gt-first-test/

Edit: another question for you. How much faster do you think the A10 mustang is than the M6?

Did you really say EPIC?

[1295/SS]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

I'm sorry, 87-93 foxbodies were quite a bit quicker than the camaro...going as fast as 13.9X stock.

Just when I think you can't embarrass yourself any more, you come up with this gem. You obviously never spent any time at the track in those days.
A 5 spd 305 camaro with the G92 option was a driver's race with the 5.0. Mustang. THE 5.7 cars made easy work of the 5.0. My bone stock '87 GN embarrassed all of the above.

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by 1295/SS

Just when I think you can't embarrass yourself any more, you come up with this gem. You obviously never spent any time at the track in those days.
A 5 spd 305 camaro with the G92 option was a driver's race with the 5.0. Mustang. THE 5.7 cars made easy work of the 5.0. My bone stock '87 GN embarrassed all of the above.

Sorry bro, your wrong...I was there and 305 camaros were total dogs. The 5.7 was even slower than the 5.0. Everyone except maybe you knows it.

[1295/SS]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Sorry bro, your wrong...I was there and 305 camaros were total dogs. The 5.7 was even slower than the 5.0. Everyone except maybe you knows it.

Please continue embarrassing yourself.

[1295/SS]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

Sorry bro, your wrong...I was there and 305 camaros were total dogs. The 5.7 was even slower than the 5.0. Everyone except maybe you knows it.

I'm not going to cherry pick articles like i'm sure you will. I owned all of the above and drove them extensively and hard.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by 1295/SS

Did you really say EPIC?

It was an EPIC fail when the A10 GT ran the same et as the M6 SS for Edmunds

...the GT had the wrong tires.
...they didn’t know how to drive.
...the GT didn’t have * option package.

[GotSSmoked]

Originally Posted by oldman

I figure with the Pray ported heads, Pray tune and headers 560 to the wheel as measured on a dynojet. Pray tossed in a TSP special supercharger cam, that I could do with fuel Pray is saying 700 or more engine HP... but if I did that I'd do the dropped in pistons, rod bolts, studded mains, new clutch just for starters. I'm a street fighter so from my perspective it is not a HP thing. I was going stoker cause I don't want any more weight, I wanted 90 ft-lbs in the mid range; however, there are issues with the center trust bearing and the stroker that I did not want to deal with... till I retire (next year).

The real problem with the manual is the lack of gears and a whimpy first gear. The new 7 speed manual should fix it... but I fixed it with a supercharger. My goal is consistent mid 3 second 0-60 times on 220 wear summer tires. My only nemeses as I see it is: A8 LT1s and LT4s and this new GT with PP1 and an A10. I knew that a manual would be the underdog in the stop light wars, but choose to carry on. I ordered my LS1 with an auto cause I knew I was going to race it (street and strip). I chose the M6 gen V to just have fun, I lose I lose. My neck of the woods has had 20 years of non-stop construction, so the lonely highway open road is leaving my part of Texas. All this is talked about in my M6 vs world thread.

The oldlady wants to get back into racing, she is definitely auto only, so I may look into a 2018 GT a10, probably NOT pay for the PP1 look at craigslist for what I need... shafts for sure.

Oh. It’s not done.

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by 1295/SS

Just when I think you can't embarrass yourself any more, you come up with this gem. You obviously never spent any time at the track in those days.
A 5 spd 305 camaro with the G92 option was a driver's race with the 5.0. Mustang. THE 5.7 cars made easy work of the 5.0.

LoL, No.

-The entire internet.

[1295/SS]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

LoL, No.

-The entire internet.

Reality sucks huh? Mustang guys love to ignore the '88 through '92 Camaro vs Stang days but love prior years. In '93 and up it just got ugly.

[BlaqWhole]

So now the Fox Mustangs were high 13s and the 5.7 TPI IROCs were slower than the 5.0 TPI IROCs...

[BlaqWhole]

Some things people say are soo stupid that they don't even deserve a response.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

So now the Fox Mustangs were high 13s and the 5.7 TPI IROCs were slower than the 5.0 TPI IROCs...

You are so right. Here is an example, my LS1 with the GS-C and 3.23s which also meant it came with the aluminum driveshaft. The best it ever did bone stock was 13.2 or 13.3 ( I forget). With free mods and there were not that many and a converter I did 12.8X on a prep track same GS-C tires. The car looked and sounded 100% stock, ran like stock, any body ask about it, it was stock right down to the blinker fluid. I'm sure the few LS1 M6 that I saw in Texas in the high 12s probably had some free mods. The 2001 with the better intake and cast exhaust manifolds probably could do high 12s right off the show room floor. So yep LS1 go 12s stock... well the truth is, it depends.

So I'm sure a notch LX, with a strip tune, remove baffle to the air filter, toss in off road pipe, maybe some better tire the a RE-71 Potenza, good air 5 speed, toss out the jack tire, 26 PSI rear, 50 PSI front, just before a snow storm.. I could believe 13.9X at 100 MPH.

Off the showroom floor, no strip tune, same car as above but before free mods: mid to low 14s. road test using 5th wheel non-prep surface, the 1/4 starts at zero roll out, mid to high 14s. Add in auto convertible, high 15s. So great a prep ringer that the owner insist is "stock" probably could do a high 13, but at the local stop light, they were mid to high 14 second cars, even the slightly modded ones.

Same goes with the 340, I loved that engine, I purchased every magazine test that came out with a 340 anything. There is no published test of a 340 in any body A,B or E that ever ran a 13.99 or better ET, or ran better than 100 MPH. The only non-official test is Roni Sox, saying his full strip prep but stock 340, 4 speed, 3.91 Dart, no a/C , manual steering 3.91 gears, sox said they got 13.98 at 99 MPH, considering Dodge gave him several Darts to run and he is Roni Sox, well that did not make a full optioned Challenger with an auto and 3.23 gears a "13 second car", they clocked high 14s, low 15s at 96 MPH.


For the TPI, GM did a good job at the time to bring performance back, the long runners and fuel injection really broaden the torque for the much heavier F Body. The F Body suspension in the rear was light years better than the Ford. As I noted Ford ran a short 4 link with no lateral control, it was crazy, F Body ran the same three link that the stayed with us to the end of the LS1 in the early 2000s and then Ford picked up the EXACT same design for the Mustang all the way to 2014 I think? Not a big Mustang guy so excuse me, I had a supercharged Challenger. I absolutely loved that 3 link with panhard rod live axle. One reason I'd be interested in a 2013 5.0, good engine, and a great live axle 3 link. Sorry but we all know GM outside of some strange F Bodies like the Firehawk ran the 7 and 3/4 grenade 10 bolt, while Ford had the 8.8, a strong, light rear, dare say the best diff ever produced.