Indy 500 Pace car ...

MightyBobo · 03-04-2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidZ

Let me ask you this, if the Mustang is such a paltry competitor, then why is Ford not on the verge of bankruptcy? It works.

The Mustang has had no competitor since 2002 or whenever the Camaro croaked. There wouldn't even be a new Camaro if it wasn't for the S197's success. That is the reason why the 4.6 lasted as long as it did, because there was no need to upgrade.

Now with GM's LS3 that they seem to throw into everything, Ford is bringing back the 5.0. Don't even pretend that its not going to be a reality. Just do some research.

Plus, look at the new 2010 mustang test from Motor Trend. The car stops in 108 ft, pulls 0.95g on the skidpad, and accelerates to 60 in 4.9 sec. It even does a 13.5 quarter with this archaic engine that you talk about. This all with $1495 track pack. That will only improve when the new, LIGHTER, 5.0 comes out. If a 5.0 is not your thing, then you have the 3.5L Ecoboost producing 365hp. Talk about a tuner's dream with all forged internals and direct injection to boot. This engine will be even lighter than the 4.6L

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a reason why the Mustang has never ceased production. Its fast, fun, and affordable. Now

You must be delusional...the others are correct. Ford was successful because of the V6 one, not the V8. It had nothing to do with the performance at all - it had EVERYTHING to do that it was cheaper.

But, lets not even discuss price here, lets stick to performance. In which case, I will say that F-bodies were able to run high 12's in the quarter mile with a good driver and stock tires. The vast majority, however, ran really low 13's with a decent driver/track.

Fun and affordable, sure I wont argue that. Thats what kept it alive: the fact that they are cheap.

But fast? Don't lie to yourself - until the 5.0 comes out, a 13.5 in the quarter is something that F-bodies did back in 1998 with a shitty *** driver. Just like Crash said, Mustangs have been dominated by anything LSX (or even LT1) powered since its inception. The ONLY reason its still around, is because its so cheap. If GM brought the price of their F-bodies down to about the price of the Mustangs, name one PERFORMANCE reason to choose the Mustang over the F-body? And luckily, thanks to ever-predictable GM depreciation, you can get a used F-body for cheaper than an equivalent Mustang, all thanks to how popular the Mustang is.

The people who come on here thinking a 13.5 quarter mile is FAST, are the same people who finally moved out of the "under body neons with NAWZ" phase of their life.

LiquidZ · 03-04-2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MightyBobo

You must be delusional...the others are correct. Ford was successful because of the V6 one, not the V8. It had nothing to do with the performance at all - it had EVERYTHING to do that it was cheaper.

But, lets not even discuss price here, lets stick to performance. In which case, I will say that F-bodies were able to run high 12's in the quarter mile with a good driver and stock tires. The vast majority, however, ran really low 13's with a decent driver/track.

Fun and affordable, sure I wont argue that. Thats what kept it alive: the fact that they are cheap.

But fast? Don't lie to yourself - until the 5.0 comes out, a 13.5 in the quarter is something that F-bodies did back in 1998 with a shitty *** driver. Just like Crash said, Mustangs have been dominated by anything LSX (or even LT1) powered since its inception. The ONLY reason its still around, is because its so cheap. If GM brought the price of their F-bodies down to about the price of the Mustangs, name one PERFORMANCE reason to choose the Mustang over the F-body? And luckily, thanks to ever-predictable GM depreciation, you can get a used F-body for cheaper than an equivalent Mustang, all thanks to how popular the Mustang is.

The people who come on here thinking a 13.5 quarter mile is FAST, are the same people who finally moved out of the "under body neons with NAWZ" phase of their life.

The Mustang isn't fast? I'm delusional? It is fast. Maybe not as fast as others, but it is a fast car.

MightyBobo · 03-04-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidZ

The Mustang isn't fast? I'm delusional? It is fast. Maybe not as fast as others, but it is a fast car.

Alright, maybe I was a little harsh in saying a 13.5 stock isnt fast. But it certainly isnt amazing when stock 98-02 F-bodies ran better times years ago. Stock.

Maybe I'm just tired of B16-swapped Honda Civic Hatch douche bags who think breaking into the 14's is an accomplishment, when any kid can go grab mommy's Nissan Maxima 3.5 and run a better time.

Either way, my point remains the same on the performance aspect of the LSX. The block is stronger. The bottom end is stronger. It responds to mods better (go find a cam-swap kit for it that will up your WHP by 50+ for $1000, please). And the final slap in the face, its better on gas. Until the 5.0 comes out, stock 98-02 F-bodies will still beat stock new Mustangs. Unless its a crappy automatic without a stall, of course.

Why the hell doesn't ford slam the 5.4L in it and call it a day?

LiquidZ · 03-04-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MightyBobo

Alright, maybe I was a little harsh in saying a 13.5 stock isnt fast. But it certainly isnt amazing when stock 98-02 F-bodies ran better times years ago. Stock.

Maybe I'm just tired of B16-swapped Honda Civic Hatch douche bags who think breaking into the 14's is an accomplishment, when any kid can go grab mommy's Nissan Maxima 3.5 and run a better time.

Either way, my point remains the same on the performance aspect of the LSX. The block is stronger. The bottom end is stronger. It responds to mods better (go find a cam-swap kit for it that will up your WHP by 50+ for $1000, please). And the final slap in the face, its better on gas. Until the 5.0 comes out, stock 98-02 F-bodies will still beat stock new Mustangs. Unless its a crappy automatic without a stall, of course.

Why the hell doesn't ford slam the 5.4L in it and call it a day?

I totally agree with you on the LSX. I'm begging my dad to do some serious mods to it.

MightyBobo · 03-04-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidZ

I totally agree with you on the LSX. I'm begging my dad to do some serious mods to it.

Heads + cam + intake + headers-back = 450+ WHP in an LS1. Toss in a little shot of giggle juice and its a joke. It used to be hard (read: expensive) to hit 500 WHP. Now, not nearly as much. You can do that with $3000 or so. Cam grinds just keep getting better and better.

Even without heads and a baby cam, mine put down about 400 WHP (dynojet btw - I would have preferred a Mustang dyno if I could find one...) off the juice. It was at that point that I realized...."what is up with all these people wanting 600+ HP in their street cars?" Nobody needs that, unless they just want to burn a lot of rubber, really.

Anyway, whats the dad have?

LiquidZ · 03-04-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MightyBobo

Heads + cam + intake + headers-back = 450+ WHP in an LS1. Toss in a little shot of giggle juice and its a joke. It used to be hard (read: expensive) to hit 500 WHP. Now, not nearly as much. You can do that with $3000 or so. Cam grinds just keep getting better and better.

Even without heads and a baby cam, mine put down about 400 WHP (dynojet btw - I would have preferred a Mustang dyno if I could find one...) off the juice. It was at that point that I realized...."what is up with all these people wanting 600+ HP in their street cars?" Nobody needs that, unless they just want to burn a lot of rubber, really.

Anyway, whats the dad have?

He has a C6 Z06. Love it.

MightyBobo · 03-04-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidZ

He has a C6 Z06. Love it.

Hell, not much needs to be done to those. Although I find it ironic that the ZR1 was said to be easier to control than the Z06. Go figure.

Some people ran 10's with some DR's on those, bone stock. Ridiculous.