heres another one biting the dust. i have to say the 5.0 was pretty shocked considering its a 13.2 sec car. final run was me 13 secs flat @ 106mph vs him at 13.5 101 mph
right click save as

 

Good vid! Way to go

 

nice. What size shot and pulley were you running?

 

thanks mike. i posted a while back after the track him and a couple of other mustangs tried to run me on the highway stating i only had a 1/4 mile car. let me tell you from 50 we pulled off and i hit the juice immediatley pulling 10 cars plus then shut down. then he wanted to go home and get another car to race but i refused and continued home. chrismax when i ran that nite i was truly pushing the limits. i was running a 3.125 and 50 shot dry, my final run being a 12.8 @ 111mph with no issues. recently after that i blew it racing a S4turbo with a 60 shot dry and 11lbs. i detonated from lack of fuel. i recently rebuild the whole motor converting to wet a 35 shot. i havent tested it yet becasue of 02 issues but as soon as i clear it up im off and running thanks.

 

I could not view your video, but what tires are you running?

 

Vid not working, says the link is down.

 

HAHA! How can a mustang owner even attempt to call a fwd maxima "1/4 only car"?????? Yeah my rwd solid axled V8 muscle car got a beat down by a fwd V6 4 door family hauling 1/4 "only" car. hehe.

 

i checked the site the vid is gone, it was a free site and it looks like after a few downloads it erases. this is my first attempt at posting vids i'll try and get it back up.

 

omg! that was a crazy day c max. man i remember when we were leaving that one guy with the suped up mustang and his gf was riding your bumper all the way to the hgwy. i knew something was going down when yall lined up together. evrybody was doing about 50 then the 5.0 takes off with his gf waving to come hahahaaha then c max pulled away like he was standing still i mean left him gone. they were so mad they wanted him to race a ferrari for 5,000 dollars. yo c holler on the connect.

 

nitto 555 extreme drags 225/50/16. man cardana i could never break 13.5 with my pole positions. when i put these on 13's flat and a 12.8. those suckers give good traction my best mod for the dollar. hardly any tire spin if you can view the vid takes off hard with just a slip or two before tracking. also i have lsd and a automatic which probably helps also.

 

yeah, I have only made three passes on the 1/4 and the best I did was 13.64 @107.xx, I do not have N20 and I am running the 3.125 but I am five speed. I have the open diff tranny and I was running millenia wheels with G-Force drag radials at 15psi. On my first two runs I could not get traction launching around 4 grand so I launched from idle and pulled my best 60' which was 2.2x. I know if I can get better traction off the line then I could get well down into the 13s. Good kill, I was just wondering how you were laying your power down. What about suspension? Have you ever replaced your motor mounts? Mine are shot, so I think I am going to do that, and I have D2s on the way so maybe that will help a little....I will probably have to brake down at some point and get an lsd tranny.

 

interesting i was running 16lbs of tire pressure seemed to top off around there. i was launching at about 2500rpms before the car started to creep then as it switched into 2 i hit the switch and im off, that seems to work the best for me. im surprised i still have a front end i had to have the front radiator suppport welded because i ripped it apart. as far as other mods check out my site too many to list. the d2's i see on my list of to get, to keep the car from rising when i take off. http://members.cardomain.com/whoamax

 

When I ran on the slicks last time out, I sprayed out of the hole, and had very mild tire spin, but I was running 13lbs. I didn't heat them enough, as I still spun through them til about 25mph, then they hooked.

 

What was your ET?

Gotta agree. If the 'stang gets beaten in the 1/4 mile, it gets murdered on the highway.

Sucks that the video doesn't work.

 

You need to drop to 15" wheels/drags. I think that would help your launch a bit more (not that it's bad or anything...)

 

cough, cough, 12.1, cough, cough.

 

your right, but i got these for a steal 150 bucks from one of my boys. he had brought them for his car and totaled it at the track. drags would allow me to almost spray immediately and the 15" would give me a better ratio, hummn maybe low 12's.

 

hahaha, that dont count dont have a timeslip for that one

 

CMAX, your rad support ripped too? You are the only other person I know that has had that happen. I was going after the body shop that fixed my front end after an accident. I feel better about this now.

 

13.73@99.75mph

 

when i see some of the hp others are putting down, i've always wondered if this has happened to them too. thats why a lot of gusy dont like front wheel drive and hp its causes a mess. i ripped it up right around the front motor mount.

 

Which part ripped? My actual lower rad support ripped. The big black steal part is fine but the sheet metal radsupport ripped right out. That was with basic bolt-ons. I'm actually glad it ripped now rather than wait till the boosted torque.

 

[QUOTE=Broaner]Which part ripped? My actual lower rad support ripped. The big black steal part is fine but the sheet metal radsupport ripped right out. That was with basic bolt-ons. I'm actually glad it ripped now rather than wait till the boosted torque.

yep thats how mines look. thats the A frame which i ripped out both ends. had it modified instead of just screwing it in, they slit the frame and put nuts on top to hold it also. plus i ripped the radiator support which it attaches to it right down the seam as shown in your pics. be prepared for many things. i actually snapped my tranny mount straight off its resting place, the heads of the bolts snapped right off. i now have heat treated bolts to hold them.

 

Well, I'm welding the **** out of it next week. I'm putting a long 1/8" plate of steel accross the top of the support and welding around the edges. Then I'm going to drill a huge hole through everything and send a bolt all the way from below the cross member to the top of the new plate I'm welding in. I'm also gonna weld the crossmember to the support on the bottom side and along the seam. It will be beefy. I hope that works.

That is bad to hear about the tranny mount issue too. I just filled three of the mounts so I the rocking of the engine is going to be severly limited.

Have you had any more issues? Please make any suggestions to what I'm planning to do.

 

thats about it. since i welded and bolted those few things the car seems to handle the power much better. just make sure the two bolts in the back of the a frame or secured with nuts on top to hold it together other than that you should be alright

 

I wanna check that vid......

 

Thanks. I agree that removing this movement from the geometry greatly increases stiffness and handling. As you can see I did a very minimal amount of welding on there to hold it together until I fixed it properly. After only three months of driving it ripped to shreds again.

 

heres another link hope it works
right click save as [/QUOTE]

 

mustang 5.0 and 4.6 gt's are fairly easy to beat with a few mods done to the 4th/5th gen - ford really has no power for these unless they are supercharged - cobra or saleen for that matter - but even with more mod $$$$ dumped into the vq 3.5 6 speeders im sure we can find a way to topple over the cobra and the saleen -

 

Yeah ok, so why are there NA 302-based Mustang's in the 10's?

 

Because in stock form, they are underpowered for Big V8's. 225 hp out of 302 cubic inches is nothing to write home about, we get 300 out of 212 CI.

The problem? The mustang's exhaust system sucks. The gears suck too. Get some headers, exhaust and 3.73's you're running 12s all day long. I have no idea why Ford had to choke them up like that.

 

Ummm unless the VQ35 was made back in 1995, your argument is retarded. How much hp/tq did a godamn 95 Maxima make? I'm actually asking, I dont know.

And your estimation of a 302 with headers, gears, and slicks running 12's is way off. If you knew anything about the cars you would have already known that. Sorry.

BTW 1994 Corvette's only made 300hp, and the BMW M3 only made 240hp, so its not like it was severely underclassed FOR ITS TIME. The Mustang has NEVER been about crazy insane amounts of hp (in GT form anyways). Its more about performance value and a sporty nature. It just so happens that the yrespond very well to mods and have a relatively stout drivetrain.

Try again.

 

Shut up. Before I begin, let me say I'm using your power numbers so if they are incorrect its your fault. The Corvette was a 350 CID engine; correct? If it made 300HP on that displacement then it made 33% more power than the Stang while only being 15.9% larger. The fact is that it(302) was a very underpowered engine.

In 94 the M3 had a 2.3 liter engine. If it made 240HP thats pretty amazing. I know it didn't make that much but it came d@mn close and I like making fun of you. So, an engine which was under half the size made more power. Hmm...

FYI, the 95 max made 190HP on 3 liters which was no big thing but that is more effecient than the Stang. In the 95 1HP/CI was roughly attained as opposed to the Stang which made .745HP/CI.

Finally, if you say the Mustang was about performance value and sporty nature then why did Ford make a 3,500+ pound car? Hmm... It was always my impression that sporty cars were lightweight. Your right, the Mustcank has NEVER been about crazy insane amounts of anything(HP, Class, Handling, Etc...)

You are truely dumb. Go to sleep now.


Ahhh, its funny how rednecks always try to defend their POS cars. It was a valiant effort sir.

 

i'll admit that stangs in the 5.0 era respond well, the 4.6's sucked. and to let you know the 4rth gen maxi's 95-99 had 190hp out of the box, not too shabby for a 4 door luxury sedan. the maxi's respond well to mods as well. they are light in the 4rth gens, and in my 2k se i have no problem handling 5.0's or 4.6's that i have encountered, all i got is exhaust. so don't dog the maxi, i'm not doggin on the stangs, they are fun to drive, but i'd rather have a maxi, unless you want to give me an 03 sonic blue cobra

 

Hmmm, this is why I don't come here often....stock for stock, fox body five-ohs and 4th gen maximas are about even...however, mustangs responds much better to mods than the maxima...a modded maxima wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell against a modded mustang, end of story.

 

At least the 2005 4.6 makes 300 HP. Pretty good. 300 hp is a psychological barrier for cars. But a '05 350z still makes the same thing, but with a 3.5 rather than a 4.6. Also until 2004 the GTs were underpowered. I mean 260 hp out of 4.6liters, while the very same year, a four-door luxury sedan makes 265 HP out of 3.5liters. Hell, the same year, the Z had 287. 27 extra HP with a 1.1 liter deficit. Not to mention that the torque numbers, at least on the dyno, are about the same as the hp.

For some reason mustang owners seem to think that the VQ is a torqueless wonder like Honda engines. For example, when I was at the track last year (my car was bone stock) I ran a stock 1995 5.0. While waiting for our turn in the lines, the guy turned to look at my car and he just laughed. He was so sure he'd kicked my @ss that he said he'd let me an handicap until the 1/8 mile mark. I nodded and smiled. Turns out, he was indeed faster than me...

...by a whopping tenth. He ran 14.88 to my 15.00, but because he had the reaction time of a viagra-challenged geriatric getting his d*ck sucked by the nurse while thinking about something else, I crossed the finish line before him and won. Too bad he wasn't up against a 3.5 6-speed, it would've been hilarious.

 

yes, the 2004 maxima V-6 made more hp than the 2004 'stang V-8...but check the 1/4 mile times for both, and you will see the mustang is consistantly faster...it isn't always a number game, unfortunately...I would rather have the maxima of course, but I'm just pointing out that there is no replacement for displacement.

 

Actually that is partly because the 2004 maximas are freakin' boats. 3500 lbs and FWD. The mustang is like 3300 lbs and RWD.

And even there, the 6th gen will easily get mid 14s stock, hell some stock cars have done 14.1, which is pretty much what 04 GT's did. Honestly I would expect a RWD muscle car with the same HP and 200 pounds less to simply murder a family sedan. Not so. Let's see how I can hold against a stock '05 GT with my bolt-on 3.5 in my 4th gen...

 

A foxbody stang LX weighting 2750 pounds with headers, exhaust system and 3.73 gears with some nice slicks to get it out of the hole WILL dip into the 12s with a good track and a good driver. If you knew anything about the cars you would have already known that. Sorry.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumbass

Shut up. Before I begin, let me say I'm using your power numbers so if they are incorrect its your fault. The Corvette was a 350 CID engine; correct? If it made 300HP on that displacement then it made 33% more power than the Stang while only being 15.9% larger. The fact is that it(302) was a very underpowered engine.

Okay, but do you realize that is comparing the base godamn V8 that Ford made to the top of the line GM put in its world class sports car? You failed to miss my point completely. My point was that back in 94 even the highest hp V8's were not making much more than 300hp, so 225hp was not a pile of s*t rating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumbass

In 94 the M3 had a 2.3 liter engine. If it made 240HP thats pretty amazing. I know it didn't make that much but it came d@mn close and I like making fun of you. So, an engine which was under half the size made more power. Hmm...

Here's an idea, theres a web search engine, its called Google. Type in 95 BMW M3 and show me where it says it has a f_cking 2.3L, its a 3.0L I-6, yeah buddy....sure owned me. The 95 M3 was released in 94, so dont even try to get all fu**in **** about the model year, the 95 GT still made only 15hp less, and a bunch more tq. I'm not even saying the Mustang is anywhere near the level the sports car that an E36 M3 is, but if 225hp is fu**in lame for the value engine, is 240hp impressive for the top of the line engine?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumbass

Finally, if you say the Mustang was about performance value and sporty nature then why did Ford make a 3,500+ pound car? Hmm... It was always my impression that sporty cars were lightweight. Your right, the Mustcank has NEVER been about crazy insane amounts of anything(HP, Class, Handling, Etc...)

Just a little FYI, my "pig" SN95 weighs 3,285 with full interior and heavy 17's. Fox body Mustang were much lighter, dipping below 3k lbs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retard

For some reason mustang owners seem to think that the VQ is a torqueless wonder like Honda engines.

My gf (Maxceler8 on here btw) has an 03 Max, so I know it isnt a "tq-less wonder". Dont put stupid comments in my mouth. And btw, my "tq-less wonder" POS Honduh ran nearly 99mph and 14.2's with only a set of drag radials, and it weighs 200lbs more than a Maxima. Tq isnt everything, neither is hp. Power under the curve and gearing have a much higher effect on acceleration than what the peak number suggests.

[

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am slow

He ran 14.88 to my 15.00

I dont even know why I'm bothering, you're barely in the 14's, and you dog on Mustangs that are faster than you bone stock, and with $500 in mods are close to 13's? OOoohhhhhh so he underestimated your family sedan, doesnt mean your car is faster, now does it?