Sounds to me your the slow one...saw many mustangs run tonight, high 14s, low 15s...hmmm must be something wrong there.

 

My bad, your right... When I said 4th Gen, I should have mentioned (like I did in the 2nd paragraph right above that line) that I was talking about basically stock 4th gens... Why would you hold it against me if you new what I was kinda' talking about? I didn't say that every Max is slow no matter what, so stop taking it to heart... Stock vs. stock, my money is on the GT... That's all. How come everyone attacks everyone else for the slighest discrepencies? This isn't English/Grammar class... The flaming on this site is ridiculous...

 

It seems you missunderstood me, all I was saying is that my car{s} have beaten every Mustang I ever went up against. You on the other hand replyed to my post talking about eating second hand human feices out of a bucket if there were left overs for you and you basicaly said I was full of B.S. making the statement my I30 can run low 5's.. SO you tell me who is the one who started what you call a "flame war", hmm? Also I have no idea why you think I am taking this to the heart? I am just replying to strange post of yours, thats all no bad feeling on this side of the keyboard. BTW when are you coming down to R.I. with your borrowed Mustang? I would love to get a little race together, win or lose I love a good challenge.

 

Cool, no hard feelings here either... And I am in SoCal... No plans to come down there... Even if I had a Stang to borrow, I wouldn't wanna. I think I am done with them... NO climate control, no sunroof and no comfort in those things... Plus the Stang can't do that cool sunset reversal thing...

 

As of now, I have about $600 in engine mods done to my Max. Right off the top of my head, I've beaten a 92 GT AOD (automatic), 95 GT 5M, 90 LX notch, 96 GT AOD, and 98 GT 5 convert. The 92 and 90 were beaten in front of a crowd at KCIR. About a month ago, I had 3 races with a red 99+ GT AODE. The only time the GT EVER pulled away was after 95mph. I actually got her (yes, her) off the line a little. From a 40mph roll, we were neck and neck. I saw her run at KCIR and she was in the consistent 14.5s@96mph. Her boyfriend owns a 90 LX hatchback and he had been talking a bunch of trash on my car that day at the track. What was funny was she was running 14.5s, I was running 14.7s, and he was running 15.3s. Let's just say he hasn't attempted to race me lately.

Do I think Mustangs are pieces of junk. Nope. I love'em. I'm a musclecar guy at heart. I use to have a 94 Z28 and I avidly raced my buddies 90 LX notchback (3.73s, advanced timing, mufflers, no baffle). What's funny is a I posted his LXs best time of a 14.0@98mph. However, for the most part and from what I've seen at my track OVER and OVER, "most" street 5.0 Mustangs (simple mods) are in the mid to upper 14s, the 94-98 GTs are in the mid 14s to mid 15s and the 99GTs are in the low 14s to high 14s. This is what I see at my track and I know how I race at my track.

Do I shake in my boots when I come up against a Mustang? No way. You never know what you are gonna get, but this family sedan has shown many Stangs tail lights on more than one occasion.

Finally, let me add that torque give the sensation of hauling butt. HOWEVER, you must look at the power to weight ratio, gearing, and powerbands. The Maxima might not "feel" as fast, but that's because of it's much lower torque. A mostly stock 5.0 looses power after 4800rpms with a powerband from 3500-4800. A mostly stock 4th gen Maxima makes power to 5700rpms with a powerband from 4200-5700. Also to be noted is that the 5 speed Max has perfect gearing which makes for great acceleration at all speeds.

BTW, the 5.0s weren't UNDERRATED from the factory. Actually in 92, Ford changed the hp rating for the 5.0 from 215-225 (depending on year) down to 205 due to a change in the way they tested hp. Stock 5.0 5M made about 175-180 rwhp. Not exactly a ton more hp than a stock 4th gen 5M (~165fwhp).

Dave

 

well, this in not jdawgx,
i am a friend of his, and a late model camaro Z28 owner. I enjoyed reading this thread. While I am not a huge fan of import cars, I do respect my friend's maxima, it is a great car, great performance, great reliability, and it certainly kicks a$$ in the four door import sedan class. but, as a service technician for Ford, I drive all kinds of mustangs (I am not a mustang lover, to say the least), and while they arent the fastest cars out there, they are faster than maximas, even brand new ones. I have driven my friends maxima, and there is just too much of a difference in torque between it and the stang. most members on this board seem like great people, but for those of you who seem steadfast on the fact that you can beat a mustang, care to a race a Z28 camaro?, and like many of you, I'm not quite stock

 

I have beaten a few GT's. By a decent distance to know I won outright. 99 GT's no, they are faster. bu 94,95 and 96 yes. It is possible. The older 5.slows are not as fast as their owners wished. Me and my 3100 pound 4 door family car with infant seat have left a few of them with puzzled/ashamed/pi**ed off looks on their faces. Lets face it....american cars suck. In my own opinion.

This is my 2 cents....tired of hearing this crap of how a max cant beat a stang. Every max owner here knows they can.
Period.

 

I use own a LT1 and I know how inconsistent they are. Some are really quick and some struggle to run mid 14s. My 94 Z28 A4 with a 2.73 gear clicked off a 13.9 stock. With a few simple mods, I hit 13.4. I don't feel threatened by LT1s because I've hung pretty well with them before. I haven't beaten one yet, but I've had 3 close races with them. Last time out at the track I ran a 93-95 Z28 A4 with a real nice set of 17" Boyds. We both got 2.2 60's and he beat me by half a car length. He ran a 14.59@96 to my 14.75@94mph. Not exactly what you call a blow out. The guy wouldn't even look at me when I walked over to say hi to my local F-Body friends.

As for torque winning races. I hate to be so blunt, but that's BS. Torque is a factor, but it doesn't win races. If torque was the deciding factor in races then a 98 Dodge Ram dualie sporting 550 ft/lbs of torque should lay waste to all of us. But that isn't the case. The Ram makes a ton of tq, but not much hp. This means the Ram makes a lot of power down low, but little past 2800. The same thing happens in the Mustang (not including the 4.6 DOHC). The torque hits hard, but the hp doesn't hold on for very long. In the Maxima, the tq doesn't hit hard, but the hp hangs on to accelerate you longer. It all evens out.

I'm not saying the Mustang is a slow car at all. It is quite quick, but to say a every model V8 Mustang is quicker than the Maxima stock, I completely disagree. The AOD Mustangs before 99 were slugs, pure and simple. You can get them to run real hard, but it takes a build up, torque converter, and some much needed gears. The 5.0 and earlier 4.6 were so undergeared it wasn't funny. Most AODs 98 and below would be lucky to run lower 15s. In 99 the tranny was revised, gearing changed, and power increased quite nicely. It turned the auto into a quite competitive car.


Dave

 

Hey dave,
this is the same person who wrote about the Z28 camaro. Auto camaros with the 2.73 rears are the slowest gen 4 camaros (Z28s). I have a 6 speed with 3.42 rears, and they are much quicker than the autos. The guy you raced who had the 2.2 60 ft time sucks! 2.2 is terrible, especially with the auto trans, I have seen those cars with autos hit 1.90's. this guy cant drive, i have seen the auto cars running 1/4s in the low 14s and high 13s. Also, you do know that horsepower is simply a calculation based off of torque. Also, A dodge truck or any other truck for that matter, will be much slower, as their cams are designed for low revving, low speed torque, not speed. the truck weighs over 4500 lbs! trucks also have more driveline loss with t-cases and gears which do not embody speed. As for the mustangs, it is a case of simple numbers, everyone tests them, and the numbers always say the stang is quicker. all I can think is that the mustang drivers didnt know what they were doing, which may be the case.

 

The original post said that no max can even compete with any Mustang GT of any year stock for stock. NOW that we know that this is NOT true. Can't we just drop it. I've yet to meet a mustang that can beat me (haven't raced a 99+ GT or any Cobras). I have been badly beaten by a good bunch of F-Bodys...and hung with one Trans Am and one Z28 on the highway. To say that a max wouldn't even come close to keeping up with a Mustang GT is complete crap, but does it really matter if we sit here online and argue about it.....we get NO WHERE, and we convince no-one of anything. So please....let some other more meaningful posts dwell at the top of the forum.

 

Hmmm....the 2.73s were the slowest? NOT!!! WHen you've got all that torque plus a 3.06 first gear, you don't need the torque multiplication of deeper gears. The difference between a Z28 A4 with a 2.73 and a 3.23 is very insignificant. What do you run? I ran a 13.9@99mph with a 1.98 60', stock. Later on, I added a Borla Y-pipe, Flowmaster 3" single catback, Whisper MAF, JET Stage II, JET intake pipe, K&N filter, and 16" Centerlines. I ran a 13.45@103.5mph with a 2.01 60' on street tires. You call that slow? Even the LS1s at my track are stuck in the higher 13s and lower 14s. The only LS1s in the low 13s and 12s are NOS'd. I know that LS1s are capable of running low 13s stock, but not at my track. I watched over 15 LS1s run last week and none came close to mid 13s NA.

A 2.2 60' for the LT1 I raced is pretty bad, but that's pretty much a typical 60' for a RWD musclecar on street tires at my track, KCIR. The ONLY way you'll hit 1.9s or lower, is with drag radials. I consider myself to be doing extremely well with FWD and pulling higher 2.2s. You do realize that IF I pulled off a 1.9 60' in my Maxima, I'd be very close to a 14.2. Are you gonna still sit there and say the Maxima can't compete with most street Mustangs?


Dave

 

yeah, I'm another former 'Stang owner (sure are a lot of us in here, hmmmmmmm) '89 and '90 LX 5.0's modded and a stock '96 gt. The bottom line is, LX's = quick, stock '96, not. New mustangs can be trouble for us Max owners, especially the Cobra

 

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------
Now for my I30, Stock and some what modded Mustangs
--------------------------------------------------------

Sorry - I thought he was saying his I30 was stock. Sorry for the confusion.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------
BTW, the 5.0s weren't UNDERRATED from the factory. Actually in 92, Ford changed the hp rating for the 5.0 from 215-225 (depending on year) down to 205 due to a change in the way they tested hp. Stock 5.0 5M made about 175-180 rwhp. Not exactly a ton more hp than a stock 4th gen 5M (~165fwhp).

---------------------------------------------------------

Right. The HP rating stayed the same for the 5.0, but the output dropped. Ford had started making slight mods to the engine to meet slightly stricter emmissions regs. Over the course of the 5-6 years, Ford kept shaving off 3-4 hp each year until they changed the HP rating in 1992 (i believe) to reflect the changes.

Now I know whey I could beat a stock 1992 GT and lose to a stock 1987 GT. Turns out the 1987 was making 225hp, my 1990 was making approx. 215 and the 1992 was approx. 205. Thanks, Ford.

 

94,95 Mustang GT: 5.0 V8, 225hp, 0-60: 6.7
96-98 Mustang GT: 4.6 V8, 215hp, 0-60: 7.0
99-up Mustang Gt: 4.6 V8, 260hp, 0-60: 5.5
95,96 Maxima SE: 3.0 V6, 190hp, 0-60: 6.6
97-99 Maxima SE: 3.0 V6, 190hp, 0-60: 7.1
00-up Maxima SE: 3.0 V6, 222hp, 0-60: 6.7
Yes, it might be a rare occurence, but the numbers show that a 95-96 Maxima could beat a 94-95 Mustang, but with only a 1/10 sec difference, it's pretty much up to the drivers. Same for the 97-99 Maxima and the 96-98 Mustang. Only when you look at the latest models do you see a really clear difference. For consistency purposes, these are all from Motor Trend, and it shows that both the 'Stang and the Max have had their bad years and Goodyears(couldn't resist).

 

If I remember correctly, MT tested a 1990 LX 5.0 at 6.2 sec 0-60. I have since thrown out that magazine, but I remember the figure.

 

Yeah, the Maxima SE at the time hit 60mph in 7.3 secs. Bad years, and Goodyears.[sorry, had to do it again]

 

Whats up with the 97-99 Max losing so much 0-60 as compared to the previous years, but maintaining the same HP? Emissions regulations? Exhaust? Or more like added weight? Sweetsound2001 knows how that weight gets in there... Sound deadening...

 

I had a 93 5.0 auto and my 95 Max 5 speed is faster hands down. Now, I have drive a 5.0 Mustang with a 5 speed and that was quicker than the Max. Heck I ever kept up with an 88 Vette (auto) from 0-70. All I gots is a Y pipe and intake. Boy was that Vette driver ****ed!

 

I beleive it was the stricter emissions, but most of all, bigger heavier 16" rims

 

ikSardarG & SWEETSOUND2001,

I have a '99 SE-L

Thank you, you definately answered my question. I said it before. A Stang is a totally different animal! I definately prefer a Max over a Stang.

 

haha... glad to be of service...

 

lol, thanx sprintmax for the link.

ikSardarG: i have all the bolt-on on my car, test pipe, S-afc, and SOME engine work.

 

Have to be a **** poor driver not to. Lets see here:

2000 Mustang GT =260hp engine
96/97 Maxima = 190hp engine.

hp difference = 70hp I would hope that the mustang would win. Why don't you try to race a Maxima with a 75hp shot of NOS and maybe the race would be more even?

 

 

THE MAXIMA KICKS IT'S *** IN EVERY WAY. Sorry, but...you're in a Maxima forum after all. MAXIMAS REPRESENT

 

Id agree with you guys that a Max cant take a GT but my friend just got a 94 gt convert. and we raced one night, i was 1 car length ahead till about 85 mph then i saw him just catching right up and flying by me. He said he pushed his car hard but who knows. I still love my MAX though

 

Yea. Mustang GT's are fast. But who cares. I see tons of them on the road. The 2000+ ones have a big backside..like ford gave em a Ghetto *** or somethin. They are pretty ugly in my opinion.They out number maxima's one the roads by a butt-load. Im almost positive my max could handle a standard auto 'stang v-6. (not a GT) with ease...my 16 year old friend just got a '95 stang GT bought for him by his daddy. Thats no fair ! Anyways, im jealous cuzz they get all the hype and this kid always brags about it. Both our cars (my 95 max SE) and his GT (95) are auto's...When I get my tranny upgrade (valve body kit)...I am looking forward to showing him and the world the maxima deserves respect...even if i only just barely get beat (which i proly will)...but ta hell with that. Max's Still Kick Serious ***.

 

let's see here... on paper, even the 5sp V6 mustangs should be able to get by an auto max (they're spec'd at 0-60 somewhere in the 6.8 to 7.3 seconds...)

the gt is rated at 0-60mph in about 5.4 to 5.7 seconds, even s-charged max's only run in the 5.7 to 6 second range...

so even on paper, it shouldn't be too much of a competetion against the mustang gt. however, the older gt's are a bit slower, so the 5sp max's do have a chance.

just my .02.

-V

Cant remember who said this i think it was VMOK (spelling?)
Im gonna disagree here. I beat a 99 5 spd Non GT Mustang the other night by 3 cars to around 80mph. And I have an 97 GXE Auto with Intake and Exhaust. Just thought id share that. I will agree that the new GT's are a lot faster. Take Care

 

and there was a mustang club there. i got to talk to most of them and they were pretty cool. they were all old 5.0 with major mods except for one stock 97 auto GT. i made good friends with this guy and we raced about 5-6 times tonight. i won every single time pulling 9.7's-9.9's. his best run for the whole night was a 10 flat. his reaction times were very similar to mine too, .7's .8's. so thie victor is the max.

 

well for the 1994-1996 (before the 4.6) the Mustang GT 5spd was tested by Motortrend as doing 0-60 in 6.7, the 1995 MT car of the year was the Maxima and it did 0-60 in 6.6 i duno, because i usually 'beat' GTs but thats because the majority of GTs where i live are auto convertibles driven by girls...
yea any newer GT will smoke my '97 5spd... but against 94s-95s if i shift perfectly and launch it rite it'd be about dead even...
and oh yea those earlier V6 Mustangs the 94-96 before the 200hp 3.8, used to do 0-60 in 9 sumthing

the only thing i dont like about stangs, is that the F-bodies will smoke em stock in any year... the new SSs and WS6s do 0-60 in 5.0... the quickest 2000s i've heard about is 5.4
but well let me go with the Corvette Z06 0-60 in 4.24 yeeehah! and next year it gets 20 more hp and 15more lb/ft of torque... and chevy claims a 0-60 in less than 4.0