ford vs. chevy
#4
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Someone owes me 10,000 posts
Posts: 7,164
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 99 Formula
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 342
This belongs on the str race board doesn't it.
Oh, and the Stang would rape the Camaro, all things being equal, hell even a bad driver in the Stang would kill the Camaro.
Oh, and the Stang would rape the Camaro, all things being equal, hell even a bad driver in the Stang would kill the Camaro.
#5
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Someone owes me 10,000 posts
Posts: 7,164
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 99 Formula
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 342
Originally posted by demonchild
Fords usually have a pretty decient chance of winning because stock the weigh a lot less the a f body car.
Fords usually have a pretty decient chance of winning because stock the weigh a lot less the a f body car.
It's not the weight, it's the fact that the 302 was far superior to most stock 3rd gen engines.
#6
Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: W.P.B. FL. U.S.A.
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing "superior" about the ford 302 is its bore/stroke compared to a 305 sbc. The bigger bore shorter stroke gives it an advantage at higher rpm [with right heads], It is in no way superior to a 350sbc and should be compared to a 302 sbc . Remember the 302 ford start as a base econo engine, the 302 sbc started as a high perf. engine with all the right parts. The 302 fords success was due in large part to the mustangs light weight.
Last edited by E-Z Rollin; 09-11-2002 at 08:42 PM.
#7
Supreme Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pitman, NJ
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: '89 IROC-Z
Engine: Canfield 195 headed 358ci
Transmission: TH350, Art Carr 9.5"
Axle/Gears: 3.92 Dana 44
I agree with Mark on this one. 88 GT would RAPE a 83 camaro stock for stock. 302's are one of the best motors ever made.
Trending Topics
#8
Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: W.P.B. FL. U.S.A.
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 88IROC350TPI
I agree with Mark on this one. 88 GT would RAPE a 83 camaro stock for stock. 302's are one of the best motors ever made.
I agree with Mark on this one. 88 GT would RAPE a 83 camaro stock for stock. 302's are one of the best motors ever made.
#9
haha shoot! guess i got sum work to do on my z28 then huh. reason i asked this question is cuz i was challenged by one of my friends and he says he has an 88 stang..now the 2nd challenge i got was from my other friend who wants to test me with his 90 honda accord...say he'll kick my *** with his accord..i almost pissed myself laughing.
Last edited by techniqu3; 09-11-2002 at 08:52 PM.
#12
Supreme Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kensington, CT
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 5.0 was a good motor, but you are right the 305 isn't a good comparison, even the 305 TPI with a stick fell short of the 5.0 with a stick. The 350 vs 302 was a great match-up and the outcame was basically a drivers race!
In this case the 5.0 should win unless he does what I did at the track, and run a 2.6 60' (wow these DRs SUCK) and miss second (I had been driving stick for 1 week), then it would be a race. I went 16.06 at 93!!!
In this case the 5.0 should win unless he does what I did at the track, and run a 2.6 60' (wow these DRs SUCK) and miss second (I had been driving stick for 1 week), then it would be a race. I went 16.06 at 93!!!
#13
I agree the stang will win but, I disagree that a stock 88 stang vs a stock 305 tpi 5 speed bit because I have seen several races where the 305 tpi 5 speed wins this is a true all stock race I am talking about and it only makes sense because 9 out of 10 tpi 305 5speeds got the 3.42 gears and the stang has the 308 or what ever they are ratio.
#14
from what i've been told the 302 engine is a 350 w/ a shorter stroke. i think it's a 3'' stroke w/ a 4'' bore. as a 305 is a 3.48'' storke w/ a 3.75'' bore. i think? the shorter stroke helps w/ the faster rev and thus faster acceleration. esp in the higher rpms. the bigger bore helps out alot too. only difference (short block wise) from a 305 and 350 is the bore...same crank used. and ford lied, it's not a 5.0L engine, it's actually 4.9L... but 5.0L sounds better, more marketable i guess. and im sure it's got a better set up as to see, ford's only perfromance car is the mustang. as gm's main performance car is the corvette... the f body was second shelf. if we got the vette engine, we would own the mustang no contest. although if gm doesnt like having anything faster then vette, why was the GN made??? i think stock it would beat a vette, or give it a good run for it's money.
Opha
Opha
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Stevens Point Wisconsin
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1991 Formula
Engine: 350 firebreathing inches of Small Block Chevrolet
Transmission: A 700R4 that has trouble handling the formentioned 350.
You think that a 5.0 Mustang and a 5.7 TPI car is a drivers race??? The 5.7 is a Mustang killer the little stangs can't hang with a 350 TPI. I actaully would think that a 305 TPI HO car w/ 3.42 would beat a Mustang. But no way can the 302 fords hang with our 350 chev's, Sorry.
Later, Garrett
Later, Garrett
#17
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Someone owes me 10,000 posts
Posts: 7,164
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 99 Formula
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 342
Originally posted by CamaroFreak406
You think that a 5.0 Mustang and a 5.7 TPI car is a drivers race??? The 5.7 is a Mustang killer the little stangs can't hang with a 350 TPI. I actaully would think that a 305 TPI HO car w/ 3.42 would beat a Mustang. But no way can the 302 fords hang with our 350 chev's, Sorry.
Later, Garrett
You think that a 5.0 Mustang and a 5.7 TPI car is a drivers race??? The 5.7 is a Mustang killer the little stangs can't hang with a 350 TPI. I actaully would think that a 305 TPI HO car w/ 3.42 would beat a Mustang. But no way can the 302 fords hang with our 350 chev's, Sorry.
Later, Garrett
#18
Supreme Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pitman, NJ
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: '89 IROC-Z
Engine: Canfield 195 headed 358ci
Transmission: TH350, Art Carr 9.5"
Axle/Gears: 3.92 Dana 44
Originally posted by E-Z Rollin
The only thing "superior" about the ford 302 is its bore/stroke compared to a 305 sbc. The bigger bore shorter stroke gives it an advantage at higher rpm [with right heads], It is in no way superior to a 350sbc and should be compared to a 302 sbc . Remember the 302 ford start as a base econo engine, the 302 sbc started as a high perf. engine with all the right parts. The 302 fords success was due in large part to the mustangs light weight.
The only thing "superior" about the ford 302 is its bore/stroke compared to a 305 sbc. The bigger bore shorter stroke gives it an advantage at higher rpm [with right heads], It is in no way superior to a 350sbc and should be compared to a 302 sbc . Remember the 302 ford start as a base econo engine, the 302 sbc started as a high perf. engine with all the right parts. The 302 fords success was due in large part to the mustangs light weight.
Lets say we take a 302 and a 305 both from the same year and place them in cars that are identical in weight and suspension. Now lets do all the usually bolt-ons to the car/motor: exhaust, gears, intake, etc. Now lets do heads and a cam. Which motor is going to be faster? I'd bet my paycheck on the 302.
The 302 is successful because it is designed well (some years even had forged pistons stock). A Mustang GT only weighs slightly less than a Camaro
#19
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Someone owes me 10,000 posts
Posts: 7,164
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 99 Formula
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 342
Originally posted by 88IROC350TPI
You just said exactly what Mark said and I agreed on. A 302 *is* superior to a 305 ...but not a 350.
You just said exactly what Mark said and I agreed on. A 302 *is* superior to a 305 ...but not a 350.
#20
Supreme Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1993 Ford Mustang
Engine: 5.0L
Transmission: T5
You think that a 5.0 Mustang and a 5.7 TPI car is a drivers race??? The 5.7 is a Mustang killer the little stangs can't hang with a 350 TPI. I actaully would think that a 305 TPI HO car w/ 3.42 would beat a Mustang. But no way can the 302 fords hang with our 350 chev's, Sorry.
#22
Supreme Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tucson, Az, USA
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 3.1L V6
Transmission: T5
Originally posted by 88IROC350TPI
A Mustang GT only weighs slightly less than a Camaro
A Mustang GT only weighs slightly less than a Camaro
#23
Supreme Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kensington, CT
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(You think that a 5.0 Mustang and a 5.7 TPI car is a drivers race??? The 5.7 is a Mustang killer the little stangs can't hang with a 350 TPI. I actaully would think that a 305 TPI HO car w/ 3.42 would beat a Mustang. But no way can the 302 fords hang with our 350 chev's, Sorry.)
HAHA, a while ago I posted a race at the track where a stock (cat-back) L98 went 14.8. Remember this is at the track I race at and not sea level, or perfect prep, so 14.7-15.0 I would think is average. My dads LX when it was bone stock went 14.7, and now goes 13.3 and he has not touched the engine. It is a BONE STOCK 5.0 motor!!! I have never seen or heard of a stock L98 in a Camaro go 13.3 or even close! The only 305 I have seen do that was a Procharged TPI!!!
There have been many Mustangs going 14.2-14.5 BONE STOCK, so read up before you make those stupid and unthought out claims!!!
Now tell me to go back to my Rustang site, because I post proven facts from the track!
HAHA, a while ago I posted a race at the track where a stock (cat-back) L98 went 14.8. Remember this is at the track I race at and not sea level, or perfect prep, so 14.7-15.0 I would think is average. My dads LX when it was bone stock went 14.7, and now goes 13.3 and he has not touched the engine. It is a BONE STOCK 5.0 motor!!! I have never seen or heard of a stock L98 in a Camaro go 13.3 or even close! The only 305 I have seen do that was a Procharged TPI!!!
There have been many Mustangs going 14.2-14.5 BONE STOCK, so read up before you make those stupid and unthought out claims!!!
Now tell me to go back to my Rustang site, because I post proven facts from the track!
#24
Supreme Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tucson, Az, USA
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 3.1L V6
Transmission: T5
Originally posted by 5.0mustang
(You think that a 5.0 Mustang and a 5.7 TPI car is a drivers race??? The 5.7 is a Mustang killer the little stangs can't hang with a 350 TPI. I actaully would think that a 305 TPI HO car w/ 3.42 would beat a Mustang. But no way can the 302 fords hang with our 350 chev's, Sorry.)
HAHA, a while ago I posted a race at the track where a stock (cat-back) L98 went 14.8. Remember this is at the track I race at and not sea level, or perfect prep, so 14.7-15.0 I would think is average. My dads LX when it was bone stock went 14.7, and now goes 13.3 and he has not touched the engine. It is a BONE STOCK 5.0 motor!!! I have never seen or heard of a stock L98 in a Camaro go 13.3 or even close! The only 305 I have seen do that was a Procharged TPI!!!
There have been many Mustangs going 14.2-14.5 BONE STOCK, so read up before you make those stupid and unthought out claims!!!
Now tell me to go back to my Rustang site, because I post proven facts from the track!
(You think that a 5.0 Mustang and a 5.7 TPI car is a drivers race??? The 5.7 is a Mustang killer the little stangs can't hang with a 350 TPI. I actaully would think that a 305 TPI HO car w/ 3.42 would beat a Mustang. But no way can the 302 fords hang with our 350 chev's, Sorry.)
HAHA, a while ago I posted a race at the track where a stock (cat-back) L98 went 14.8. Remember this is at the track I race at and not sea level, or perfect prep, so 14.7-15.0 I would think is average. My dads LX when it was bone stock went 14.7, and now goes 13.3 and he has not touched the engine. It is a BONE STOCK 5.0 motor!!! I have never seen or heard of a stock L98 in a Camaro go 13.3 or even close! The only 305 I have seen do that was a Procharged TPI!!!
There have been many Mustangs going 14.2-14.5 BONE STOCK, so read up before you make those stupid and unthought out claims!!!
Now tell me to go back to my Rustang site, because I post proven facts from the track!
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hillsborough, NJ and SJU in Philly
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stock for stock would still be a little unfair because some Mustangs got headers from the factory and froged pistons. That's not fair, but it was stock...
~Matt
~Matt
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Stevens Point Wisconsin
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1991 Formula
Engine: 350 firebreathing inches of Small Block Chevrolet
Transmission: A 700R4 that has trouble handling the formentioned 350.
OK before everyone and there brother jumps on the Garrett's an idiot band wagon, listen. I based that comment on previous performance. I have run several races with 5.0 Mustangs and yes some where close but I never a loss. I don't think I'm a better driver than all the Mustang guys (I'm not) my 5.7 TPI cars have always been faster than any 5.0 Mustang around here.
So before another 100 people go and throw the flag at me give me a chance to tell you why I said that. I was going to continue on the first post with evidence but had to run off to class so I cut it short.
I have even beat 4.6 which are supposed to be faster with my 5.7 TPI (But those guys I know can't drive).
Can I bring myself out of the gutter by saying what i really meant was "2002 5.7 Liter F-body's vs. 2002 Mustang GT's" those are Mustang Killers, Now that's what I really meant .
My bad I shouldn't have posted with limited experience in Mustang vs Camaro races.
Sorry, Garrett
So before another 100 people go and throw the flag at me give me a chance to tell you why I said that. I was going to continue on the first post with evidence but had to run off to class so I cut it short.
I have even beat 4.6 which are supposed to be faster with my 5.7 TPI (But those guys I know can't drive).
Can I bring myself out of the gutter by saying what i really meant was "2002 5.7 Liter F-body's vs. 2002 Mustang GT's" those are Mustang Killers, Now that's what I really meant .
My bad I shouldn't have posted with limited experience in Mustang vs Camaro races.
Sorry, Garrett
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Stevens Point Wisconsin
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1991 Formula
Engine: 350 firebreathing inches of Small Block Chevrolet
Transmission: A 700R4 that has trouble handling the formentioned 350.
eleviro what with the attitude, I'm not going to tell you to go back to your Mustang site and I'm the one that's getting ripped on. So you guys don't see things my way, I don't hate you for it.
Later, Garrett
Later, Garrett
#28
Supreme Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tucson, Az, USA
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 3.1L V6
Transmission: T5
Attitude? Is this really directed at me or 5.0mustang? I don't have attitude! I am a really jolly guy I guess you could say! All I did was post some facts about mustangs and asked 5.0mustang what his definition of stock was. None of it was directed towards you. I understand you about the 5.0's though. These guys on this site say that 5.0's should run in the 13's with minimal amounts of mods but my friends can't get in the 13's with more than mild mods! But I believe these guys, they seem VERY knowledgeable.
#29
Supreme Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tucson, Az, USA
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 3.1L V6
Transmission: T5
Originally posted by Matt86t/a
stock for stock would still be a little unfair because some Mustangs got headers from the factory and froged pistons. That's not fair, but it was stock...
~Matt
stock for stock would still be a little unfair because some Mustangs got headers from the factory and froged pistons. That's not fair, but it was stock...
~Matt
#30
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Someone owes me 10,000 posts
Posts: 7,164
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 99 Formula
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 342
Originally posted by CamaroFreak406
I have even beat 4.6 which are supposed to be faster with my 5.7 TPI (But those guys I know can't drive).
I have even beat 4.6 which are supposed to be faster with my 5.7 TPI (But those guys I know can't drive).
#31
Supreme Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1993 Ford Mustang
Engine: 5.0L
Transmission: T5
They are Mark. The 99+ GT's are a different story though.
Notice he said bone stock motor, not bone stock car. There's a ton of guys running around with 12 second 5.0's with bone stock motors intake to oil pan. Heck, my heavy *** AOD convertible ran 14.23 with a bone stock motor from the paper air filter all the way to the oil pan.
For those of you interested in how this is done, check out Bob Cosby's site...he has a pretty simple recipe for how to run 12's on a bone stock motor'd 5.0 and actually ran as quick as 12.52 @ 106.9 on a bone stock motor.
http://members.***.net/bobcosby/stang/12sec.html
http://members.***.net/bobcosby/stang/chrono.html
It is a BONE STOCK 5.0 motor!!!
For those of you interested in how this is done, check out Bob Cosby's site...he has a pretty simple recipe for how to run 12's on a bone stock motor'd 5.0 and actually ran as quick as 12.52 @ 106.9 on a bone stock motor.
http://members.***.net/bobcosby/stang/12sec.html
http://members.***.net/bobcosby/stang/chrono.html
#32
Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Missouri
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1986 IROC-Z28
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 700R4
Well that all in all just sucks. I've spent $6000 on my IROC and the person that just bought my best bud's old 91 GT could kick the **** outta me (both our cars are stock) and he probably didn't pay much for that car. Man, i'm losing faith more and more by the day. I've been in 2 races, one my friends 85 Camaro SC w/ 305 HO and I beat him by 3 cars. Then I raced my friends 95 GT and he beat me by 2 cars. All were stock. Man I just don't get it.....
#33
Supreme Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kensington, CT
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes a stock MOTOR, he has headers, H-pipe, pulleys, filter, gears and tires, but other than that it is off the showroom floor stock, and in mint condition! In BONE STOCK trim (paper filter no timing advance and air silencer) it went 14.7x at 94 I believe (long time ago)! And the 5.0 in mine and many others eyes is one of the best small block motors out there. Pretty much any windsor ford is a great motor!!!
The funny part is my car is doing 13.9 with all factory equipment. Sure it has an intake Tbody, and roller rockers, but so did the factory stock 93 Cobra!!! J/K this is how most Mustang guys act, in my eyes my car is far from stock, but my dads is a 100% stock 5.0 from 1991, and it went 13.31 at 101.11.
The funny part is my car is doing 13.9 with all factory equipment. Sure it has an intake Tbody, and roller rockers, but so did the factory stock 93 Cobra!!! J/K this is how most Mustang guys act, in my eyes my car is far from stock, but my dads is a 100% stock 5.0 from 1991, and it went 13.31 at 101.11.
#34
Supreme Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tucson, Az, USA
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1992 RS
Engine: 3.1L V6
Transmission: T5
to you guys! Man that's crazy! Makes me want a fox body even more! Just can't find any around here for a decent price. Everyone wants like 7000 dollars for a 120K+ notch. See what I want is a notchback then I will put on gt ground effects. Do you guys think this would weigh about the same as a regular lx hatch? I just really like those ground effects on them. The only way I would not get them is if it was a black notch. I saw one the other day at the mall and it had some massive rear wheels and skinnies up front! Looked mean as hell!!
#35
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Caldwell,ID
Posts: 5,388
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 BMW 545i
Engine: 4.4L N62B44
Transmission: 6spd auto
Axle/Gears: Rotating
Originally posted by Matt86t/a
stock for stock would still be a little unfair because some Mustangs got headers from the factory and froged pistons. That's not fair, but it was stock...
~Matt
stock for stock would still be a little unfair because some Mustangs got headers from the factory and froged pistons. That's not fair, but it was stock...
~Matt
when it comes down to racing saying this isn't fair or that it is just and excuse
what it all comes down to is running what you have
not complaining about fair or not
#36
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Caldwell,ID
Posts: 5,388
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 BMW 545i
Engine: 4.4L N62B44
Transmission: 6spd auto
Axle/Gears: Rotating
Originally posted by elevario
I'm not flaming you at all so don't get mad. But, this doesn't hold for anything. This is the reason LS1 guys are crying about losing to the 03 cobra. "It's not fair! They have a supercharger! If you put one on an LS1 it will be faster!!" Which it would but then your LS1 wouldn't be stock anymore and his would. Then the mustang guys say "Well if we had 1.0 more liters of engine we would waste you!" Which might be true but do you see what I'm getting at? It's always something, just run what you brung and all is fair in racing cars!
I'm not flaming you at all so don't get mad. But, this doesn't hold for anything. This is the reason LS1 guys are crying about losing to the 03 cobra. "It's not fair! They have a supercharger! If you put one on an LS1 it will be faster!!" Which it would but then your LS1 wouldn't be stock anymore and his would. Then the mustang guys say "Well if we had 1.0 more liters of engine we would waste you!" Which might be true but do you see what I'm getting at? It's always something, just run what you brung and all is fair in racing cars!
damn it you already beat me to it
oh well guess I shoudl read ahead before I post
#37
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hillsborough, NJ
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1990 IROC
Engine: L98
Transmission: TH700-R4
I'm not flaming you at all so don't get mad. But, this doesn't hold for anything. This is the reason LS1 guys are crying about losing to the 03 cobra. "It's not fair! They have a supercharger! If you put one on an LS1 it will be faster!!" Which it would but then your LS1 wouldn't be stock anymore and his would. Then the mustang guys say "Well if we had 1.0 more liters of engine we would waste you!" Which might be true but do you see what I'm getting at? It's always something, just run what you brung and all is fair in racing cars!
however, i do find it more impressive when i see a car running 11's N/A than one running 11's with a blower...just my 2 cents
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hillsborough, NJ and SJU in Philly
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i just meant by my post that stangs will have an even better chance stock for stock because some came with headers out of the factory. I understand the whole "run what you brung" thing. I abide by it. I don't make up excuses for losing. I was just saying that mustangs also had the factory headers advantage and the weight advantage. Sorrrry
~Matt
~Matt
#40
Supreme Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1993 Ford Mustang
Engine: 5.0L
Transmission: T5
Everyone wants like 7000 dollars for a 120K+ notch.
(new toy for me to play with!) :lala: :lala: :lala:
some came with headers out of the factory.
#41
Supreme Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kensington, CT
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nic, I know exactly what you mean, I had headers before I had gears!!! Those things SUCK. The funny part was my dad had stock headers, and H-pipe (the most restrictive parts) and went 13.67!!! The manifolds that GM has aren't much worse if at all, and forged pistons aren't a factor until you add forced induction!
I have heard recently that a lot of 350s run 15s at other tracks (from numerous people). Knowing that, I keep my statement that a 5.0 vs an L98 would basically be a drivers race!
I have heard recently that a lot of 350s run 15s at other tracks (from numerous people). Knowing that, I keep my statement that a 5.0 vs an L98 would basically be a drivers race!
#42
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western NY
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 2007 Saturn Sky Redline
Engine: 2.0 turbo
Transmission: m5
Axle/Gears: 3.91 LSD
I think we can all agree that NO thirdgen has a chance vs a 1975-1978 Mustang, can we just leave it at that? There were only 2 years that the Mustang beat the Camaro in 1/4 mile time STOCK during the 80s and never during the 90s. Why argue that point?
I know the figures are up on the internet somewhere but hell if I can find them now. Oh well.
I know the figures are up on the internet somewhere but hell if I can find them now. Oh well.
#43
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Someone owes me 10,000 posts
Posts: 7,164
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 99 Formula
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 342
Originally posted by Inwo
There were only 2 years that the Mustang beat the Camaro in 1/4 mile time STOCK during the 80s :
There were only 2 years that the Mustang beat the Camaro in 1/4 mile time STOCK during the 80s :
#45
Supreme Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pitman, NJ
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: '89 IROC-Z
Engine: Canfield 195 headed 358ci
Transmission: TH350, Art Carr 9.5"
Axle/Gears: 3.92 Dana 44
This is so stupid. Can we all just agree that
an early 80's 305: probably carbed and built for emissions is going to get BEAT by a 1988 302: probably fuel injected and built for performance.
Its simple as that..... forget about all the other crap. Question answered.
an early 80's 305: probably carbed and built for emissions is going to get BEAT by a 1988 302: probably fuel injected and built for performance.
Its simple as that..... forget about all the other crap. Question answered.
#46
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Someone owes me 10,000 posts
Posts: 7,164
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 99 Formula
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 342
Originally posted by 88IROC350TPI
This is so stupid. Can we all just agree that
an early 80's 305: probably carbed and built for emissions is going to get BEAT by a 1988 302: probably fuel injected and built for performance.
Its simple as that..... forget about all the other crap. Question answered.
This is so stupid. Can we all just agree that
an early 80's 305: probably carbed and built for emissions is going to get BEAT by a 1988 302: probably fuel injected and built for performance.
Its simple as that..... forget about all the other crap. Question answered.
#48
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Someone owes me 10,000 posts
Posts: 7,164
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 99 Formula
Engine: LS1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 342
Originally posted by Mustang5L5
As long as they both keep beating up on the ricers who deserve it...who cares!
As long as they both keep beating up on the ricers who deserve it...who cares!