Ben. Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 So you found and raced one of the slowest Mustang GT's ever built. 94/98's were PATHETIC.
Tubbith Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 If the mustang didnt spin 1st all the way out, im sure you wouldnt have seen anything but his tail lights.
wannaBstuntin Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 .....annnnd an essentially stock Prelude is comparable. Point?
Pballer2005 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 lol @ everyone slamming him. a 2.2 kept up with a 5.0, not bad.
wannaBstuntin Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 My comment was directed toward Ben. Tubbith sniped me though. My point was that if a stock Honda keeps up with a Mustang GT, it makes the GT look bad no matter how you angle it.
Ben. Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 lol @ everyone slamming him. a 2.2 kept up with a 5.0, not bad. 4.6. 5.0's were 94/95. In any case, pathetic. Even the 2v 4.6's in 99/04 GT's are vastly superior. Cams don't do much on 2v motors.
alex37211 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 4.6. 5.0's were 94/95. In any case, pathetic. Even the 2v 4.6's in 99/04 GT's are vastly superior. Cams don't do much on 2v motors. I thought the gearing on the stang would be more prudent.
Ben. Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 3.73's aren't much better than stock. Were he to gear it with 4.10's and have actually used a sticky tire the Prelude wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell; HOWEVER, that's not what happened. In any case, sad sad stuff.
Pballer2005 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 4.6. 5.0's were 94/95. In any case, pathetic. Even the 2v 4.6's in 99/04 GT's are vastly superior. Cams don't do much on 2v motors. really i thought they helped a lot. most of the v8's i've seen out there have mostly porting, airflow, and cam work and make pretty big numbers (well big to me)
Shanebot90 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 bah. not that i condone street racing. But i've wrecked 5.0's, old 4.6's, and newer 4.6's. mustang gt's are nothing when stock. I've had harder races against a lexus sc400 with i/h/e... but he didn't do much either. I think my toughest race was an 08 si. I still can't understand how this little 2 litre can wreck so hard with just a t25 at 7 pounds. Low end torque is good, but not so much to spin tires all the way through 1st, and boost kills all the V8's i've raced. lol
Ben. Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 bah. not that i condone street racing. But i've wrecked 5.0's, old 4.6's, and newer 4.6's. mustang gt's are nothing when stock. I've had harder races against a lexus sc400 with i/h/e... but he didn't do much either. I think my toughest race was an 08 si. I still can't understand how this little 2 litre can wreck so hard with just a t25 at 7 pounds. Low end torque is good, but not so much to spin tires all the way through 1st, and boost kills all the V8's i've raced. lol Stock 99/04 GT's were known to go as low as a high 13 @ 100+ through the quarter. I strongly doubt you've "wrecked" any if you haven't done some moderate work with your 240.
lceah Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Comparing their driving, nice job to the Prelude guy! Did you guys notice how the Mustang guy wasn't keeping it straight at all?!
Ben. Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 That's what happens when you're countersteering while the ass end of your car is sliding and spinning.
Shanebot90 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Stock 99/04 GT's were known to go as low as a high 13 @ 100+ through the quarter. I strongly doubt you've "wrecked" any if you haven't done some moderate work with your 240. and stock sr20's can get into low 14's. Remove power steering, clutch fan, and a/c, free up some hp. A couple of bolt ons, and wider tires to make up for the lack of top end traction. I'm quite confident i can get into the 13s, especially with my boost controller actually plugged in and me making 13 pounds, like i did when i took on said 2000 mustang gt. on top of that, most people here can't drive worth crap. Those 4.6's just blow smoke out their tires and can't get any traction.
Ben. Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 and stock sr20's can get into low 14's. Remove power steering, clutch fan, and a/c, free up some hp. A couple of bolt ons, and wider tires to make up for the lack of top end traction. I'm quite confident i can get into the 13s, especially with my boost controller actually plugged in and me making 13 pounds, like i did when i took on said 2000 mustang gt. on top of that, most people here can't drive worth crap. Those 4.6's just blow smoke out their tires and can't get any traction. Guy from town here pisses people off. He's got a plain jane '03 GT with basic bolt on's. Mid/low 13's barely breaching a 100+ mph trap speed. 60' was awesome.
Shanebot90 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 sure, I bet that bolt on GT is nasty. Slap some bolt-ons to any V8 and they get decent gain from them. I still think the fact that my tires are wide enough to the point they don't lose traction under boost, like a couple of other SR's i know do, have a big role in me actually beating these cars. I keep my power to the ground.
Ben. Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 You're missing the point. He's not spinning, barely trapping in a car with a small v8 with only 2 valves per cylinder is sad, it's the fact he's utilizing what he has in such a manner he's moving to mid 13 second runs at the track. Bolt on's wield minimal gain on 2v 4.6's.
Shanebot90 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Ok, so he's a good driver. No doubt that the mustang GT's are fast. When stock, they just aren't a match for my sr20. Or maybe the person i raced can't drive worth crap. Back to the topic at hand, which i kind of caused us to lose track of: Good job keeping up with that mustang. Speed really doesn't matter to me too much anymore. I'm trading my car for a 98 civic ex. I need something comfortable with a/c that actually looks decent.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.