Whatever man. http://memimage.cardomain.net/member...36_79_full.jpg Not many 3000 pound+ RWD cars can get 13.4 timeslips with only 170whp and still get great gas mileage.

 

Oh man, you are so right. I need to convince everyone what great gas mileage maximas get and how they should really sell their rwd cars and get a fwd v6.

 

If you think maximas suck so much, why do you even own one?

Besides, is that really necessary? Can you post a reply without the whole smartass vibe? Can you just name a 3000lbs+ RWD car running mid 13's with 170whp and be done with it?

 

The '95 GT is a solid mid 14 second performer as it stands with an avg driver, probably faster, so the question you should be asking yourself is "Can I run a mid 14 second 1/4 or can I outdrive this guy?"

SN95 GTs are pretty heavy so they're not the low low 14 to high 13 second players that the Fox bodies were without some finesse. This doesn't mean they're dogs either. My '98 GT went 14.5 @ almost 97 with only a K&N and high flow cats. Any 94-98 GT is a high 14 second car stock, and if you beat the **** out of them they can do mids. With his exhaust you can expect that he's probably making 195-210 to the wheels depending on his engine condition, which is enough for a high 13 second run if he can drive (with a 2.0 60ft).

Basically, if you take all other factors out (driver, weather, traction, etc) the Mustang should easily overtake you. Fortunately for you this is the real world, so you have a good chance of beating him especially if he either bogs off the line (stock Mustang gears suck) or if he spins (again, the gears suck, he'll spin and bog.)

Good luck.

 

Are you referring to Neal? If so, I don't think his car had only 170whp. He was also running slicks and weight reduction when he pulled that run. I don't mean to take anything away from him because he is an extremely good driver as well as about to pull the fastest time ever...

 

I own TWO for the fact that I need the room for my family. But I definately do not go around disrespecting other cars thinking that my Maximas one of the fastest, cause I know what is up. I really dont know what you are talking about, no 170hp 3,000+lb anything will run mid 13s.

 

so did you race the stang...........what happened?????

 

Read my threads until you see what I' saying rather than what you want to read. I am stating that POUND for POUND, HP for HP, a RWD car will only have a REAL, SIGNIFICANT advantage in the 1/4 mile when it gets to non-streetable territory.

http://www.cardomain.com/id/nealoc187

That's neal's hompage. While I was wrong on the weight (It is actually 2840 pounds plus driver rather than 3000, my error), his dyno says 172 HP at the wheels and 182 TQ at the wheels. His best E.T is 13.43 at 102 mph. Short times are 1.8x. I doubt a foxbody stang (that's about 2850 lbs) with similar HP/TQ figures would fare much better. They put down more than that stock.

 

Jclaw, you need to realize how much better RWD is than FWD. Go get a 3000lb 170hp FWD car and a 3000lb 170hp RWD car and race them on the street, road course, track, wet track, etc. It won't matter! RWD will have traction that the FWD will NEVER see!

And no 170fwhp Maxima ever did 13.4s in the 1/4 mile. Believe it. Neal has well over 200fwhp in his Maxima.

 

haha, I read your threads and you make yourself sound VERY uneducated to me. Seriously, if you knew anything you would know that 170whp and even say 2,500lbs at best would not yield low-mid 13s with the best driver. You are clueless.

And WTF are you saying "non-streetable" haha...dude nevermind. I am out of this one, no need in arguing with someone that doesnt know what they are arguing about.

And you are a canadian? haha...done.

 

A 5.0 stang with 170 whp (give or take a few) w/ gears and slicks is capable of mid 13's.

 

Yeah, and they also have 300 ft-lbs of torque at the flywheel. No 3000lb car with 170hp and 180 ft-lbs of torque is getting anywhere near the 13s. I'm not argueing with you Lurchdogg, I am just proving to Jclaw that you won't come close to 13s with only 170fwhp and 180 ft-lbs of torque on a 3000lb car, reguardless of drivetrain.

RWD will ALWAYS be MUCH better than any FWD. It's been proven. Even if you have a RWD Nissan 240sx versus a FWD Nissan Stanza with the same weight, same powerband, same motor, the RWD will whoop the FWD anyday, reguardless if you are on the street or track. Now, if you have two identical cars at the track and both are running 18s in the 1/4 mile and traction is never going to be an issue, it is true that the FWD can run the same 1/4 mile times as a RWD car can. Even if they are severly underpowered and incredibly slow cars, you take them on a road course and you'll see how much better RWD is than FWD.

 

Sure, let's drop the dyno.

1/4 mile MPH is a generally accepted way to estimate how much power (versus weight, of course) a car is making.

I am not saying FWD cars are as good as RWD at the dragstrip but I think everyone is going way over the top with the "huge advantage" myth 'cause I'm not seeing any huge difference in the 1/4 mile mph/1/4 mile E.T. ratio.

Take a look at what kind of ratios these guys (mustangs) are getting:
http://www.fordpower.net/forums/showthread.php?t=76325

With a few exceptions, most of these cars seem streetable, running 11s, 12s and 13s. For the sake of a better comparaision I will try to dig up similar numbers for LS1's (f-body or 'vette).

Since we don't have many maximas running 11s (two in fact) or 12s.

Mardi is running 11.91 and gets 117 mph trap speeds
Jime is running 12.13 and gets 113 mph trap speeds (i would think he'd get roughly 115 for a 11.9. I highly doubt he'd pick up 4mph for only .2seconds. 115 wouldn't be that far off from their lowest 11-sec mph, which are 112.5 and 113.0).
And as you can see, those two foxbodies are exceptions, since most 11.8s and 11.9s are getting 117-118 mph trap speeds.

The gap between Fwd and Rwd gets greater the faster you get.



I won't generalize though, since pretty much everyone else behaved like normal people.

 

You are still comparing apples to oranges. The Ford V8s are WAY different than any Nissan motor. The powerbands are totally different. They have insane amounts of torque also. Lets compare the old 240sx to a Stanza with the same motor. Find me some good numbers on those showing how FWD can come close to hanging with the RWD 240sx.

RWD will ALWAYS be better than FWD. It doesn't matter if you are running 9s or 19s. RWD is still better! Accept it.

 

So you're saying MPH is worthless when it comes to estimating the potential E.T of a car?

 

For every 1 Maxima in the WORLD running an 11.9 there is 1,000+ Stangs running that. Lets stop comparing here, cause a modded Maxima vs a modded Stang would be so worked, with the twisties, straight away etc... If you think the Stang does not have a huge advantage you are VERY wrong.

If you could turn your Maxima around and go down the track in reverse, then maybe it would be able to compete in the straights. BTW: I have seen 10 second Stangs that are 100% streetable and would love for you to pull up in your Maxima and even THINK you are somewhat comparable.

 

I am saying that you are still comparing apples to oranges. For example, a 100mph trap speed on a 5spd Maxima should yield mid 13s if you can get a normal 60'. And a 100mph trap speed on a 5.0 Stang will be different, due to gearing and powerband.

You can't compare a V6 Maxima to a 5.0 Stang that has about 100 more ft-lbs of torque than the Maxima does. RWD will ALWAYS be MUCH better than FWD. Yes, the difference is that great!

 

Okay, this is the last time I say this, and read every single word very carefully before you say anything else:

I never said a V6 maxima has as much potential as a V8 mustang. Get it? Good.

 

Thank you, atleast you get it. Early on, you were really trying to compare them and talking about the different advantages.

 

I now own one of each, and the Stang is way faster out of the hole, but the top end of the Max is better. If you look at the time slip for the notch on here, he only gains 16MPH in the second 1/8th. I am gaining 20mph in the second 1/8th. He launches better than I do, as a 2.06 is the best 60ft I've had so far, but I am at 80mph in the 1/8th, and right at 100 in the 1/4. There is no doubt that the mustang should jump out in front, and the Max should reel him in by the end of the track. We are also talking about fairly stock vehicles. My Stang will probably dip into the 10's with some tweaking, and there is no chance anyone in a Maxima is going to catch it. There is close to 10K in the drivetrain of my Mustang, I just don't think the Max will ever get there. I have about half of that in my Max now, and it is not even close, even with the Nitrous. I am thinking of trading in my Max for a 2k3, and starting all over again. There is no way you can overcome the cubic inches in the end.

 

think about this. fwd has nearly 15% less drivetrain power loss than a rwd car, and more than 30% on an awd car. all of you should be getting the jump on these guys- learn how to launch.

think about this. your 3 litre, 200hp, fwd with an intake exhaust on it is not taking a 5.0 or 4.6 mustang, no year no trim model- doesnt matter. if you did you got lucky or the mustang driver wasnt trying. stop fooling yourself.

think about this. yours and my 3.5 litre, 260hp, fwd might take a stock mustang- or even an x pipe with 3.73s. but power increase to cost of parts ratios arent even in the same hemisphere. you could drop 30 large- yes thats $30,000.00 on a maxima and it wont take a 5.0 with 15 grand into it. never in your wildest dreams.

if you wanted to run 12s all day, you should have gotten a small block or a 302.

 

Actually, 12s N/A might be possible with a 3.5 swap in a 4th gen. SR20 is running 13.19 NA on slicks in his 2k2. Being 250 pounds lighter, a modded VQ35-powered 4th gen with slicks might very well be able to run high 12s (5-speeds also have less drivetrain loss than 6sps). It's just that if you want to go any faster you need boost.

 

Say at BEST a 3.5 with some bolt ons will lay down around 240whp, then the 4th gen would need to weigh around 2600-2700lbs, slicks and a great driver would yield 12.8-12.9.

 

I have beaten Mustangs with my 5-speed max. A 94-96 Mustang, even with a 5 speed, was not that fast and lost to me. I'm not fooling, and the guy was driving. The fact is the Max, in stock form, can beat those Mustangs in stock form. Obvisously there are those "factory monsters" I guess that were faster than normal. The old 5.0 Mustangs were quicker and probably more of a driver's race with a 4th gen Maxima stock for stock. I see some people posting they got a 14.5 with their stock LX, which is very possible because everyone knows the LX's were lighter and quicker, while the quickest stock 4th gens came in at 14.7, so the LX would be a much tougher run. Still, for a 4 door sedan, I give it props. Top end wise though, the Mustang always lost it's pick up after 80. Again, this is all in factory stock form. The 03-04 Cobra breaks this trend though...it pulls ridiculously hard at any speed all the way to 160.


There is no doubt that dollar for dollar, the 5.0 stang is a cheap car to mod. It makes great power just by doing headers and exhaust. Same goes for a Camaro or a TA, but as fast as they are, they feel like a damn bucket when you drive them. I can't believe how much body roll the Camaro and TA has for a sports car. It's all over the place if the road is crappy, and Chicago has plenty of those roads! That's why I would rather mod the Max, so much smoother, handles just as well if not better, and nicer luxury. It's unique, and can be a great sleeper, but I personally wouldn't put more than $5-$7K into it. This is just my personal preference. The Mustang, Camaro, and TA are just like the Supra, 300ZX, and Skyline. They are made to be modded cheap.

 

Handles better? heh, until you understeer into a wall.

 

94-96? 95 is the last year of the 5.0. Just because you beat a Mustang doesn't mean Maximas are faster than 94-95 Mustangs. Read the whole thread and you'll see that some people have pulled high 13's in their stock 5.0 Fox body style Mustangs.
http://www.stangsource.com/specs.cgi?id=35
The LX's aren't that much lighter.


Bruce

 

Suspension mods? Limited slip diff?

SR20's raceweight was 3270 pounds for his 13.19 pass. Generally, 200 pounds = 2 tenths or a little more. A 3070 lbs raceweight in a 4th gen is pretty easy to achieve. 95-96 GXE strippers weight only 2885 lbs with no options.

Also, SR ran 13.1 with the stock redline I believe (6600). The tuned ECU he got changes it to 7500. He also said that 5th gens are harder to launch than 4th gens, and that he doesn't go to the track that much. He also has stock cams.



Oh, and 1994-1995 mustangs are dogs for V8 muscle cars. They were tested at 0-60 of 6.7 and 1/4 mile of 15.1, pretty much the same as the 1995 max, and a full second slower than its closest competition at the time, 1994-1995 Firebirds/Camaros. No doubt some did get 14-second timeslips stock, but 1994-1995 GT's are simply no match for Foxbody Mustangs.

 

my friend has an 00 mustang gt 5-spd bone stock and he wants to run me, i have a 98 SE automatic with SC'er, 3.125 pulley, exhaust, ypipe, vb mod, safc, 6:1 fmu and about to install the 00 VI on my car. how do you think i would do in a race against him say from a 30mph roll?

 

1999 GT's were tested with a 0-60 of 5.5 seconds and 14.1 in the 1/4 mile. A good driver would probably be able to dip into the 13s bone stock. Since you're racing from a roll he loses much of his RWD advantage. I say it really depends on how much he sucks as a driver.

 

he just got his car like 2 weeks ago and it is his first time driving a standard and he has already managed to smash the whole front end, so as soon as he gets the car back he wants to run me

 

You shouldn't have a problem if you are sc'ed.

 

 

yeah, tested at 15.1 by the girls at motortrend. they were no animals but they were high 14 second cars bone stock with even an average enthusiast behind the wheel. 14.7s to 14.5s weren't very hard after some practice.

the same can be said about the maxima though. you can't rely on any numbers that come from one of the elitist cookie-cutter car mags. most of them roll to the track, line it up, cut 2.5 60fts, shift at redline, and treat their first run as though its gospel.

 

True except for hondas. I heard they have to drop the clutch reaaaaaal high on hondas to get the numbers they are getting.

Example: S2000 tested at 0-60 of 6.3 seconds (5k dump)
350z tested at 0-60 of 6.0 seconds (granny)

Now for the 5-60 (baaaarely moving start)
S2000 0-60 is 7.6 instead of 6.3
350z 0-60 is 6.3 instead of 6.0
190HP maxima is 6.6 and 7.0 for the 5-60.

So our old 4th gens must be more fun to drive in traffic than a Honda with 50HP more...

 

you must have a turbo.

 

While we're at it. He's actually putting down 263 whp now (it was 24xwhp at the time). That is without a high-flow cat, without reprogrammed ECU, 17-inch wheels, stock redline and stock cams.

 

i think you will destroy him. i ran a 13.6 gt stang at the track and destroyed him. i have a crappy vid of it if someone wants to host. it clearly shows a butt whipping.

 

Did we ever get some results? Who won? This has been on here for a long time, and we're still waiting for an answer.

 

yeah wasn't that race supposed to have occured several weeks ago???????????
Don't leave us hangin'

 

should be close... it may just come down to who is a better driver