86whitetpi

I raced my 86 T/A, 305 TPI, 700R4 on the weekend, the car only has a K&N filter and a Flowmaster 80 series muffler. First run was a 15.9 @ 83 mph followed by a 16.1 @ 82 mph (spun off the line) then a 15.8 @ 85 mph then the car fell off to a 16.0 @ 84 mph ( it was atleast 90 out by then). Does this seem slow or about right ? Should my car be faster than this ?

LB9GTA

iTrader: (1)

unfortunately that seems right. My car stock was about a 15.8

86whitetpi

Yea seems slow but I guess for a car that weighs 4300 lbs it isn't bad. My buddies 04 Ford F350 turbo diesel 4X4 4 door ran a 14.3 @ 99 mph, I took him off the line until the 60' mark he flew by me. Car will be for sale soon !!

rockit

iTrader: (3)

4300? in a camaro? while i can't tell you exactly what our cars weigh, i know a gta, the heaviest is around 3700.
my tbi 305 92 rs with a posi and cat back ran 15.6-7 a couple years ago, my mystery machine gta ran 15.1 with a l98 and stock everything a couple weeks ago.next outing ought to break me into the 14's. my camaro was trappin higher at 86 mph, you sure there isn't something wrong there, plugs, timing, something? you're seriously down on power from stock.

then again just for a bit of reference, my freind is hopin to lay down a 16 flat with his 90 240sx manual 5 speed, for cars of our era we're pretty d*mn quick, fast enough to be competition for todays cars, that says something 20 years later.

and sorry for a rant but 1/4 mile time aren't everything. on the street 3rd gens kick serious *ss because we have power where we need it to leave people in the dust at the lights. im sure at an 1/8th mile track the 3rd gens get way more respect. h*ll my last outing to dragway 42 i took out a mustang running 13.8's on drag radials, to the 1/8th mile. reaction time, and my 60 ft, were enough to keep him behind me till he rocketed past me just after the 1/8th, and he had me by 1.3 seconds in et. get my drift? i wish i coulda heard what he said when i left him behind at the start in my multi color 20 yr old beater.

rockit

iTrader: (3)

one other thing, some of these new trucks with turbo diesels are beasts! i drove my father big horn 2006 ram 4x4 with the 5.7 ish turbo diesel and a 6 speed. redlines at like, 3500 or 4000 rpm and is a complete sleeper, think man a truck that fast coulda taken out most muscle cars in brand new shape. big turbo plus big displacement and 4 wheel drive with low gears, even with a freaking heavy truck thats a recipe for speed. my father put a challenge to me that when i can take out his truck with one of my f bodies i'll get a shot at his 425 hp 1970 charger r/t 440. gonna be a fun summer

Rayvan

[quote=86whitetpi;3370054]Yea seems slow but I guess for a car that weighs 4300 lbs it isn't bad. My buddies 04 Ford F350 turbo diesel 4X4 4 door ran a 14.3 @ 99 mph, quote]



The 6.0-liter Power Stroke® V-8 Turbo Diesel delivers 325 horsepower at 3,300 rpm and 560 foot-pounds torque. Not bad, however.

Edmunds tested this truck at 17.1 QM at 79 MPH.

Rayvan

Mine ran a 15.02 @93 MPH.

rockit

iTrader: (3)

i gotta say he's prob right, those trucks are faster then that. think, 4 wheel drive with 560 ft lb's of torque, the reason hp is down is because of the low rpm's these trucks run at. the gears however match that power band. at least on the dodges, you reach peak torque right off idle, and then you hold that all the way to redline. the magic of turbos... i've seen cummins td dodges on propane injection hit 12's at dragway 42.. kinda scary.

Rayvan

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta.../pageNumber=11

rockit

iTrader: (3)

i only worked at a dragstrip for three years, and drove a comparable truck... oh well. the original poster never said that ford was stock either, a power puck or similar tuning device nets huge hp out of those turbo diesels. believe what you like, i wouldn't line up against my fathers truck yet.

86whitetpi

Rockit, I don't have a camaro , I have a Trans Am and if the factory sticker is wrong ( maybe) it states the car weighs 4286lbs. My 89 mustang ran a 14.5 stock with a horrible 60' time because of traction issues but it only weighed 3100lbs. Maybe its time to get another stang and sell the T/A

Rayvan

LOL! That's likely the GVWR. (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating). That means the car + the *full payload capability!* Most third gens are under 3,500 lb. My own '89 Formula (w/o me) is 3,334 lb. I weighed it.

86whitetpi

OH maybe, I really can't read the sticker properly as 21 yrs has taken its toll on it. Thanks for the heads up.
----------
What I don't understand then is - if a Trans Am/ Camaro weighs around 3350 and my old mustang weighed 200 pounds less. why is ther such a difference in performance ? I used to eat up GTA's , Z28's, Formula's etc.

MARO-MAN

You time is probably right on the money, depending on a couple things:
How many miles on your motor?
What rear end gears you running?
What 60' times did you get?
Are you leaving the car in "D"?

Also the 1986 TPI motor has the worst cam in it, if I remember correctly.

MidnightBlue07

Yeah I also have a 1986 LB9 Iroc-z which still has the peanut cam in and this may be a dumb question but I just want others input, would my car have a decent gain in performance with the hotter cam and headers installed that are listed in my sig below?

(only cam & headers not Installed yet) (rest of the mods are installed)

86whitetpi

The motor is a GM crate factory replacement 305 that was put in 4 yrs ago and now has approx. 50 000 kms. The woman that owned it before me put it in as I would have put ATLEAST a 350 in it. I did leave it in drive ( I was running brackets) and I was told it was a 3.73 but it doesn't look like the rear end cover has ever been off and my 60' was a blistering 2.16. It seems like it takes the car along time to get the up to 4800 rpm's which I imagine is because of the small cam. I really think my 2002 Chev venture with a 3.4 could beat it.

8T9 BANDIT

find out what that t/a has in it, then come to a conclusion. after that u can make it faster.

rockit

iTrader: (3)

stangs(fox body) weigh in under 3000 at the track quite often. it's known to be one of the easiest cars to get into the 12's. the gt's aren't the ones to worry about its the lx notches with no gfx's and the lighter a** end that are the real killers. stangs are tiny for muscle cars, it's like a miata with a v8 and that's why companies like factory five use that era of stang to build their repro cobra kits, which can out accelerate vipers with mildly built 5.0 liters.. check out their website it's a pretty cool deal. there's also quite a few guys who have been stuffing sbc's in the engine compartment

it's too bad that 9 out of 10 mustangs look like crap, they aren't a bad platform at all..

Steve89GTA

for perspective sake, my kid brother in law's 92 integra GS with a GSR motor swap (not type-r) runs 15.3

Rayvan

Not all of them are that light. Many were heavily optioned and could easily weigh close to 3,600.

86whitetpi

I know mustangs are a great drag racing platform, I have a 89 coupe in my garage with a 650 hp 514 cui big block with a small 175 shot. There are a couple stangs around here with SBC's in them and one runs 8.80's with a 408 SBC on motor. Maybe I should do the opposite and put a SBF in my Trans AM . I just put my Trans Am up for sale 3 hrs ago and have had 4 calls on it already. Shouldn't take long to sell it really is a decent car for $1500.