[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Zeke.Malvo

There's no such thing as an official test seeing as there is no governing body to regulate it.

You must be thinking of the iron head/block LT1's in the Caprices and Impalas, which I also had at one point (bored/stroked to a 383). Those were rated at 265 hp.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Then what do you and your friends call it on M6G when someone other than some kid on YT or FB or someone other than a random person in a bar who knows a guy who's GF's father's dentist had one tests these cars to see what it can do? Or do you just go by what everyone says they heard "quite a few" people did?

[oldman]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

nice job digging up a head to head of the '86GT. They were slower than the 85's and 87-93's because the swirl heads were terrible, but you knew that. hell the 85 gt was a low 14 car stock if you could drive.

Thanks, I was pointing out that light meant super poor handling and a flex chassis, sure it goes fast in a straight line, but the rear setup was bout the worst ever to appear on a car since the Corvair. But since you are fixated on a GT which was slower than a notch, you keep citing few, which already makes my point. Ford, you gotta pay to play and many times even then you ain't playing with much.

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Then what do you and your friends call it on M6G when someone other than some kid on YT or FB or someone other than a random person in a bar who knows a guy who's GF's father's dentist had one tests these cars to see what it can do? Or do you just go by what everyone says they heard "quite a few" people did?

What?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Zeke.Malvo

What?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I'll re-word it for you. Take all the time you need reading it.

You said "There's no such thing as an official test seeing as there is no governing body to regulate it." as a smart-ass reply to my comment about the 99-04 GTs not breaking into the 13s.

Are you following me so far?

So my question to you is: what do you and your little buddies over on M6G go by to determine what a car does stock? Do you take the word of some kid on YT? Do you go by what someone on FB says? Do you go by what some random stranger says his GF's dad's dentist does in the quarter mile? If there is no governing body to regulate what these cars do stock, then WTF do you consider to be the authority?

Do you understand now?

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I'll re-word it for you. Take all the time you need reading it.

You said "There's no such thing as an official test seeing as there is no governing body to regulate it." as a smart-ass reply to my comment about the 99-04 GTs not breaking into the 13s.

Are you following me so far?

So my question to you is: what do you and your little buddies over on M6G go by to determine what a car does stock? Do you take the word of some kid on YT? Do you go by what someone on FB says? Do you go by what some random stranger says his GF's dad's dentist does in the quarter mile? If there is no governing body to regulate what these cars do stock, then WTF do you consider to be the authority?

Do you understand now?

They aren't my buddies over there, you must have me confused with someone else. I'm not sure who you're confusing me with.

I definitely don't take magazine times and reviews from them as seriously you do, apparently LoL. Lighten up, none of this online stuff is worth getting your blood pressure up about.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[newmoon]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I had an 83 or 84 4cyl 3sp manual Camaro, an 84 Z28 auto 305, an 86 Z28 5sp manual 305, a 87 Z28 auto 305, an 87 IROC auto 5.7, and a 90 Formula auto 5.0 TBI. This was back in the mid to late 90s. The 5.7 TPI IROC was wicked fast. The only thing faster back then were the Vettes and GNs. The 5.0 Mustangs were a driver's race with the 5.0 TPI IROC but they could not beat the 5.7s. Funny thing is that my buddies all had Camaros Trans Ams, and Firebirds, back then and the only way Mustangs could beat us was if they had strokers or forced induction. Mustangs needed the aftermarket back then and they still need it all these years later.

My stroked 86 GT ran very low 11s NA, and on 100-shot went 10:30s. There was no competition from a Camaro unless it was full race setup. The 5.0s were so easy to mod and made ridiculous gains. Modified GNs were running mid 11s. Camaros were few and far between, they were too busy cruising with their mullet haircuts, and hip hop blasting.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Zeke.Malvo

They aren't my buddies over there, you must have me confused with someone else. I'm not sure who you're confusing me with.

I definitely don't take magazine times and reviews from them as seriously you do, apparently LoL. Lighten up, none of this online stuff is worth getting your blood pressure up about.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

My BP is perfect. And you didn't answer my question. I asked you how you would know how a car performs since there isn't a regulating authority. How do you know what a Mustang or Camaro can do in the quarter mile? Do you just take someone's word?

[2012 IngotSilver 5.0]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

My BP is perfect. And you didn't answer my question. I asked you how you would know how a car performs since there isn't a regulating authority. How do you know what a Mustang or Camaro can do in the quarter mile? Do you just take someone's word?

I'm a long time Ford fanatic and have been driving/racing new GT's since 1982, and I agree with you 100%.

Car & Driver has been my go-to journal for consistent, reliable test results. They normalize for weather, altitude, amount of fuel, etc.:
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...-c-d-test-cars

I take "private" drag test results with a serious grain of salt, as my years on the quarter mile track taught me a couple of things:

• the only people who lie more than drag racers are fishermen ("It was THIS big!")
• what some people consider as "stock" varies as much as what ice cream people prefer

I remember one guy explaining to me how is car was "stock", only to look inside and find the only thing remaining of the interior was the instrument panel and the driver's seat.

lol

[keon718nyc]

Originally Posted by newmoon

My stroked 86 GT ran very low 11s NA, and on 100-shot went 10:30s. There was no competition from a Camaro unless it was full race setup. The 5.0s were so easy to mod and made ridiculous gains. Modified GNs were running mid 11s. Camaros were few and far between, they were too busy cruising with their mullet haircuts, and hip hop blasting.

Why does it have to be "Hip Hop Blasting"? No Ford Mustang driver back in those days ever had a Mullet cut either huh?

[oldman]

Originally Posted by 2012 IngotSilver 5.0

I'm a long time Ford fanatic and have been driving/racing new GT's since 1982, and I agree with you 100%.

Car & Driver has been my go-to journal for consistent, reliable test results. They normalize for weather, altitude, amount of fuel, etc.:
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...-c-d-test-cars

I take "private" drag test results with a serious grain of salt, as my years on the quarter mile track taught me a couple of things:

• the only people who lie more than drag racers are fishermen ("It was THIS big!")
• what some people consider as "stock" varies as much as what ice cream people prefer

I remember one guy explaining to me how is car was "stock", only to look inside and find the only thing remaining of the interior was the instrument panel and the driver's seat.

lol

I can't agree with this more


One thing I do not like about normalized testing, is it tends to favor traction limited cars, if definitely favors FI cars under poor DA conditions. For instance Sports Compact Car did a test of a JapanDomesticMarket STI, before the STI came to the USoA, I think the test was at Palmdale, where many / most of the Petersen pub test were done. Well after their adjustments the STI was both quicker and faster that I believe a LS1 Firebird benchmark (something like high 12s at 105 MPH for the adjusted STI) vs a 13.6 or so for their bench mark merican muscle, well no sorry, the 1998 up LS1 was easily a drivers race (advantage to a well driven LS1) vs the much improved STI (bigger engine, variable valve timing) when it came to our shores much later. Nutshell since many test were done at Palmdale and adjusted: FWD, FI, and traction limited cars all tend to perform better on magazine test vs what they actually could do at the local stoplight near sea level.

As an aside the same goes for FI dyno testing and correction factors, the CF was supposed to be very small like under 1.5% and applied to NA engines. When the fictional STD factor from a hub dyno is applied to a FI engine the results are less then meaningful. Swings of + 50 HP can easily be found. Note that what the actually applied CF is always removed from STD dynos runs cause some of them are laughable in the extreme.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by newmoon

The 5.0s were so easy to mod and made ridiculous gains.

Actually with the light weight Fox, the 5.0 just achieved parity with what Mopar and Chevy had from the 60s. With market support, the lighter chassis is probably the way to go fast for cheap. I really think the world class t5 really helped here it was a light, strong good shifting trans. So for drag racing, and for street fighting the Fox was the better chassis: light, many built with a good 5 speed, good 8.8 diff in terms of strength and light too.

But please anybody that ever raced a Windsor anything using what the car left the showroom in terms of an OEM block, crank and heads, even tossing in the very late production, limited GT 40 stuff, the Windsor came up 50 to 100 HP short vs any other comparable SB from any other OEM, mod for mod (OK not the 301 for Pontiac). It comes down to the engine does not care who made it, it is breathing and engine size, the 5.0 had the worst of both period.


https://www.americanmuscle.com/cylin...-upgrades.html

The "stroker" 331 was aftermarket, for a SBC, I could do 400 cid OEM right from a wrecked station wagon, and yes the same 2bbl station wagon could supply heads that breathed both stock and with some mild work better than even the GT40 stuff. That pretty sad if you think about it, a 1972 Chevy had 98 cid more, and better heads than a late limited production GT40.

http://www.allfordmustangs.com//Detailed/630.shtml

Ford you gotta pay to play, and even then you might not be playing with much. GT40 head Cobra production was about 5000 a year, while EVERY Z/28, IROC et all got a decent head and an easy build engine. Yep the F body was heavier and had a FAR weaker rear end, this led to a mass exodus to the Fox body cheap, light and had a good 5 speed with 8.8 diff out back.
Once again my point is made from 1967 when the Camaro hit the scenes, one had to pay to play with the Ford just to have parity with what was rolling out of other OEM. Rough parity for a few years (with a major handling short coming), and then it was a blowout again all the way to 2018. That is 50 years of a solid spanking, with a brief break to get a new swish.



My older bro, till he got drafted for Nam, was full into the Windsor, we did the 289 piston swap side (some strange for pin offset deal), 351 valves and or swap the whole head, stroker cranks etc all, it was "fast" about as fast as the family grocery getter 340 Duster with purple shaft and headers

Originally Posted by newmoon

Modified GNs were running mid 11s. Camaros were few and far between, they were too busy cruising with their mullet haircuts, and hip hop blasting.

Ouch, you must have watched Joe Dirt

[hotlap]

Words - Jonny Lieberman
The Camaro SS 1LE laid down a 1:20.67 lap, 3.3 seconds quicker. In other words, these two cars wouldn’t be allowed to race together. Different classes doesn’t cover it. The list of cars the Camaro went faster than should embarrass some OEMs: Porsche Cayman GT4, 2014 Audi R8 V10 Plus, Ferrari 458 Italia. I mean, come on!

The Camaro is in another league, with legitimate Supercar. A 2015 GT-R NISMO held the Streets record, 1:19.07 - meaning the gulf between the quickest car ever lapped at the track and the Chevy (1.6 seconds) was less than half the gulf between our two competitors (3.3 seconds). But then we got bored at lunch and Randy ran a lap in a Huracan Performante. Result: new champ, at 1:18.73 - making the Camaro the sixth fastest car around Streets. Yet the Chevy is still less than 2 seconds off the pace of hyper car costing six times as much. Dang.

The winner this round? The Camaro 1LE. Chevy has done the near impossible, transcending the genre and turning a once provincial pony car into an honest to goodness world-class sports car. This $46,000 miracle punches so far above its weight that I’m in danger of saying things that could be taken out of context. Such as, if I were an engineer at BMW or even Porsche, I’d clear off my drawing boards.

Where does that leave the Mustang? If you don’t care about measurable performance and are instead into the “cowboy science” side of things, you have your winner. However, in the ways that matter to car guys, the 2018 Mustang got its butt handed to it. For less money, Chevy out-engineered Ford. And this is what that galls me. Not only should Ford have done a better job, but I know they can do a better job. The Shelby GT350R - a car that’s every inch as awesome and breathtaking as a Porsche GT3 - proves Ford has the knowledge to build a better car. It remains to be seen how much the fourth coming Performance Package 2 can close the gap with the GT350R and this Camaro SS 1LE. You can expect another pony car face-off for the answer

The conclusion from the print article. Bottom line, the PP2 is going to have to run better than the GT350 non-R. And the PP1 is another example of Ford’s standard - “good enough”. The suckers will buy it anyway.

[MaxxRPM]

I don't care what hero runs the magazines posted back then. I'm in my early fifties and was right in the middle of it all in the eighties/nineties. On the street, the Fox 5 speeds could take ANY Camaro/Firebird stock if you were a decent driver. The Fox automatics sucked. That stopped in 93 with the LT1. I get a kick out of you people arguing about it when some of you weren't even driving back then and only have old magazine hero runs to go by.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by hotlap

The conclusion from the print article. Bottom line, the PP2 is going to have to run better than the GT350 non-R. And the PP1 is another example of Ford’s standard - “good enough”. The suckers will buy it anyway.

Correct, for 50 years it was pay to play, and even then one could hope for was rough parity. Still would love a 1965 Shelby though....

I'm not faulting Ford, the vast majority of Mustang buyers want an image, many of them women. The male to female ratio is roughly inverse between the Mustang and Camaro. One is a man's car, one is a more universal appeal ride that can be optioned with comparable performance at a cost. Not faulting it, just saying the average beer budget Joe Smoe for most of this 50 year rivalry, is gonna pick the FBody given the budget.

Well things are kind of hinky now, because when the gen 4 left, there were many years of Mustang production and these cars are finding themselves in all forms of racing. Heck that last road race I went to there was a don't know the year but the last 5.0 OHV chassis with a Cobra IRS, hammer bang for huge negative camber for / aft offering some serious beat down. The young man was a Honda intake manifold design engineer out of A&M. The setup was awesome and cheap, he traded his live axle to a drag race guy for the Cobra IRS.... what a deal! Heck if the car was not so ugly, I would do the same. 5.0 OHV, Cobra IRS, cheap light, dominant.