RACINg a 1988 gt mustang

[strunk]

my friend has a 1988 mustang gt that has headers with a flowmaster exhaust..i think he also has a cone style air filter and thats it. He thinks that he will be able to kill my car..I just wanted to know if anyone has raced any gt mustangs in the past and won...thanks lata

 

[98TsiAWD]

What are your mods, if you have exhaust/intake and your boost set to 15psi you should beat him.

 

[strunk]

i have the free mods a K&n intake ported heads and a 1g intake housing 550cc injectors and thats basically it i run at 12-13 psi i dont have a boost controller yet but sometimes the boost spikes to like 14 or 15 then back down to 12 and 13 where it usually is. I am pretty sure i can beat him the 1988 mustang gt has 245 stock i think and there ar emuch heavier than my car and with all my mods i think i can take him besides h ecant drive it for shit....lata

 

[fastfive0]

AWD launch him and run a couple extra pounds of boost and you will walk him.

 

[GstRacer]

well i have a turbo back exhaust intake plugs and wires with a BOV and i killed a 50 mustang that had at least and exhaust and said it had other things in the engine. my boost was 10-12psi

 

[13secGST]

Since you still have the stock BOV just replace that...you'll walk him...just atleast get a 1g valve or something anything is better than that POS 2g valve

 

[strunk]

i didnt know the bov could effect performance that much...damn well that is the next thing i am gonna replace..peace

 

[deusxmachina]

A typical stock Mustang GT of that year will do mid to low 14s if the person can drive decent. You don't even have exhaust, so I doubt you'll have much of a chance against him unless he can't drive at all. Do you really have 550s in there with no fuel control?

 

[strunk]

yeah i just put them in and i ordered an apexi s-afc it is upposed to ocme some time this week so ill put that in and then it wil be good no i dont have any exhaust in it yet...i am gonna replave the downpipe then but some cat backs on it and that is prolly gonna be it for my exahsut i dont like the sounds that the big coffecan rice mufflers make so ill prolly not get one...lata

 

[FourG63 97GST]

most of those old GTs bark harder than they bite
what do they have like 215hp stock?
just race him

 

[vertGST]

Originally posted by FourG63 97GST
just race him

i 2nd that

Brendon

 

[blaster1812]

I raced my bro 1990 mustang gt and i won. But i have a lot of mods.

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

you will beat him pretty bad....you stock against what he has is a even race. Just race him..get back to us.

oh yeah heres the stang low down:
1980-1993 the 5.0 v8 225hp 202lb/ft 15.5-15.0 stock
1986 svo turbo inline 4 stang 15.5-16.0 stock
1994-1998 4.6l v8 215hp 202lb/ft 15.5 approx stock
1994-1995 302 edition same as 1980-1993 5.0 give or take a tenth
1999-2003 approx 260-290 hp and 14.5 give or take a tenth...no they cant touch the srt-4.
This info I got from years of hotrodding stangs and classics. You will walk him, I have cat back cone filter and free mods at 11-12 psi and I walked a pretty mooded 5.0. Like said before much much more bark than bite...I owned a 1987 5.0 with alot of bolt ons for 2 years and it could barley run with my stock gst.

 

[deusxmachina]

Don't believe the (lack of) hype from magazine times on the old 5.0's. You'll see stock or near-stock ones at the track doing in the neighborhood of 14.4@94mph. My first time ever at a track I got beat by one that did just that, with a 2.0 60-foot. The LX's are pretty light at around 2800lbs, the GT's are a little heavier because of the ground effects, but 3000lbs and 225hp = mid-14s no problem. Also, it's pretty easy to get high-90mph's out of them with some basic/free mods. Magazine times have never done 5.0's justice. The new 260hp '99+ GT's are capable of high-13s stock on street tires.

Of course, if you have exhaust and a bit more boost by the time of the race, it shouldn't be too hard to beat him. And an old 'stang may have a tired engine, too, so that would probably explain many of the slower ones you might see nowadays.

DSMEclipse, some of those numbers are pretty generic. The 202lb-ft for a 5.0 might be for an earlier year, but '87+ have 300lb-ft.

 

[DSM Storm]

Originally posted by DSMeclipse4G63
you will beat him pretty bad....you stock against what he has is a even race. Just race him..get back to us.

oh yeah heres the stang low down:
1980-1993 the 5.0 v8 225hp 202lb/ft 15.5-15.0 stock
1986 svo turbo inline 4 stang 15.5-16.0 stock
1994-1998 4.6l v8 215hp 202lb/ft 15.5 approx stock
1994-1995 302 edition same as 1980-1993 5.0 give or take a tenth
1999-2003 approx 260-290 hp and 14.5 give or take a tenth...no they cant touch the srt-4.
This info I got from years of hotrodding stangs and classics. You will walk him, I have cat back cone filter and free mods at 11-12 psi and I walked a pretty mooded 5.0. Like said before much much more bark than bite...I owned a 1987 5.0 with alot of bolt ons for 2 years and it could barley run with my stock gst.

Dude, are you kidding me? Im not a big mustang fan but if you cant beat a stock GS-T with a stock 5.0 you dont know how to drive, and where do you come up with half of this shit? Ive seen stock mass air 5.0's run low 14's with the proper driver, where do you get a 15.5? You obviously dont know much about mustangs, till 93 mustangs, they made 225hp/285 torque, 94/95 GT's were 215hp and about the same torque add about 200lbs for weight difference, 94/95 SVT cobra makes about 275hp over 300 torque, the times you supply for these cars suit someone who dont know how to rail a 5spd. I dont mean to knock your post, but give credit when its due.

Strunk, take what you hear with a grain of salt, im assuming you drive a 5spd, so if you can rail that tranny and get a good launch you have a good chance of taking this guy, with a few mods and a few more pounds of boost you will have no problem walking this fellow, if you remain stock then this race is pretty much driver, all I have to say is get em out the hole and watch for his 3rd gear.

Storm

 

[kpt4321]

Strunk, for god's sake, will you learn how to speak and type properly?

You don't have ported "heads" because you only have one. You're not going to put on "cat backs" because you only have one. And don't even get me started on the spelling or the total lack of punctuation and capitalization.

Due to the fact that you have 550's and no fuel control, I get the strange idea you have no idea what you're doing.

You shouldn't run 550's with a stock fuel pump, it is doubtful if it will be able to keep up.

Do you have any idea how to tune your car once you get the SAFC? For some reason, I kinda doubt it....

I think you're going to get owned.


....Kyle T.

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

IM NOT TALKING ABOUT COBRAS!!!!! What I said is the average if 5.0s run 14.4 then there is something messed up cause I ran 14.9 STOCK and they dont give me a good run. And yes 87 5.0 have 202lbft of torque and yes they are quick but not dsm quick. Oh yeah the 5.0 cobras have 285 lb/ft not the gt and lx. Seriously Im not trying to start a flame war, I am just trying to help by giving personal experience with mustangs. I have owned stangs and I know that the new GT'S run low 14s(not 13s) the best you will get out of a 5.0 is with a lx and thats probly 14.9-15.1 with a good driver. 1993-1995 stang gt's sucked, so if you know about them you would know about how they had a huge power loss due to emmissions and the loss of the iron block 5.0...did you know that? I study and work on these cars for a living as you can see in my profile(ford mechanic) So I think I have more than enough backround to say what I said.

deusxmachina: they are basic numbers from mags(5.0) and online and just plain enthusiast knowledge learned over the years.

 

[DeezNutsForYou]

Mustangs are ####in slow. My brother waxes many in his 90 gst and all he has is a cat back and k&n. I have yet to race on myself buy I beat his car so I'm pretty sure I could take one. And as for the weight difference, I don't know what mustangs weigh, but I know my car sure weighs a shit load, so its not because of the weight difference.

 

[strunk]

damn sorry no need for violence im not ready to race him yet i was just asking a question shit...if i insulted you by not typing good oh well you #### u ass hole..to everyone else who doesnt have a long ####in stick up their ass thank you for your help...peace

 

[DSM Storm]

Originally posted by DSMeclipse4G63
IM NOT TALKING ABOUT COBRAS!!!!! What I said is the average if 5.0s run 14.4 then there is something messed up cause I ran 14.9 STOCK and they dont give me a good run. And yes 87 5.0 have 202lbft of torque and yes they are quick but not dsm quick. Oh yeah the 5.0 cobras have 285 lb/ft not the gt and lx. Seriously Im not trying to start a flame war, I am just trying to help by giving personal experience with mustangs. I have owned stangs and I know that the new GT'S run low 14s(not 13s) the best you will get out of a 5.0 is with a lx and thats probly 14.9-15.1 with a good driver. 1993-1995 stang gt's sucked, so if you know about them you would know about how they had a huge power loss due to emmissions and the loss of the iron block 5.0...did you know that? I study and work on these cars for a living as you can see in my profile(ford mechanic) So I think I have more than enough backround to say what I said.

deusxmachina: they are basic numbers from mags(5.0) and online and just plain enthusiast knowledge learned over the years.

I never said you were talking about Cobras, I threw them in as a reference. I watched a friend of mine yank a 14.2 a few years ago on a completely stock LX notch all the way down to paper filter. As for torque, you are way wrong, even down till 1982 they still made over 200 ft lbs of torque, so your specs are wrong. A 1993 mustang is still a fox body, that did not change until 1994, they used a different computer program in the 1994 & 1995 cars, that is why you will see guys with 94/95 cars running mass air computers from the earlier cars. And yes, they did stop running the 5 liter block, they have gone with this new 4.6 disaster, Ive seen that 4.6 fall apart too many times to describe, I have one shit valvetrain right in my shop.

Like I said, I dont mean to give you a hard time, but your information is way off.

Storm

 

[deusxmachina]

I can't believe this is even a subject of debate, but, hey, I've also had a Ford tech at my local dealer ask me if my Ford Probe GT was really a Ford. Who doesn't know an '87-'93 Mustang has 225hp and 300lb-ft torque? 1985 had 270, '86 had 285. I have an '89 Road and Track sitting right here that says 300lb-ft. I have Peterson Publishing's "35 Years of the Ford Mustang" sitting right here. Says the same thing, including having just about every piece of data on them, including how many SVO's were built each year and what options they had, etc.

A quick browse of the net brings up 300lb-ft all over the place. If you're talking power at the wheels, then say so, but then your 225hp wouldn't jive because that's at the engine. If a 5.0 had 202lb-ft, it'd feel like a newer V6 or a stock DSM, and 5.0's don't feel like V6's or stock DSMs. I'd like to see any reference anywhere on the net that says an '87-93 5.0 has 202lb-ft.

If I posted those low torque numbers and high e.t. numbers on just about any Mustang group, I'd get laughed at. A 5.0 LX in a good state of tune can do mid to low 14s all day long. 225hp and under 3000lbs. A heavier GT will do at least high 14s. And Dan Bender did 13.79@98mph on street tires in his bone-stock '99 GT. He had a 1.8 60-foot, which even he was surprised at, and I don't think he ever repeated. He is/was a regular on the Mustang Usenet newsgroup. Even he'll admit 14.0 is the norm for his car, though. All '99+ GT's are capable of around 14.0@99mph.

And relax, Strunk. Kyle was just being honest. 550s with no AFC (yet), ported headS, catbackS, etc, people only know you from what and how you type, and you don't type very well. If you want to guarantee good responses and answers to questions in the future, you'll need to work on that, because most people will read posts like that and just pass them by. Lose the attitude, he was trying to help you. Perhaps a little harshly, but still.

 

[strunk]

i dont have an attitude i was just in a bad moos yesterday and i didnt really appreciated being in sultd...and he definitely wasnt helping me out by insulting me. And also so what is the final numbers for torque and horsepower for the 1988 gt i am a little confused cuz everyone keeps posting different numbers...lata

 

[strunk]

sorry my first couple of lines came out a little bit messed up. I was trying to tell you that i was in a bad mood yesterday and i didnt really appreciate being insulted...just wanted to celar that up so i dont get bitched at again..peace

 

[DSM Storm]

Originally posted by deusxmachina
I can't believe this is even a subject of debate, but, hey, I've also had a Ford tech at my local dealer ask me if my Ford Probe GT was really a Ford. Who doesn't know an '87-'93 Mustang has 225hp and 300lb-ft torque? 1985 had 270, '86 had 285. I have an '89 Road and Track sitting right here that says 300lb-ft. I have Peterson Publishing's "35 Years of the Ford Mustang" sitting right here. Says the same thing, including having just about every piece of data on them, including how many SVO's were built each year and what options they had, etc.

A quick browse of the net brings up 300lb-ft all over the place. If you're talking power at the wheels, then say so, but then your 225hp wouldn't jive because that's at the engine. If a 5.0 had 202lb-ft, it'd feel like a newer V6 or a stock DSM, and 5.0's don't feel like V6's or stock DSMs. I'd like to see any reference anywhere on the net that says an '87-93 5.0 has 202lb-ft.

If I posted those low torque numbers and high e.t. numbers on just about any Mustang group, I'd get laughed at. A 5.0 LX in a good state of tune can do mid to low 14s all day long. 225hp and under 3000lbs. A heavier GT will do at least high 14s. And Dan Bender did 13.79@98mph on street tires in his bone-stock '99 GT. He had a 1.8 60-foot, which even he was surprised at, and I don't think he ever repeated. He is/was a regular on the Mustang Usenet newsgroup. Even he'll admit 14.0 is the norm for his car, though. All '99+ GT's are capable of around 14.0@99mph.

And relax, Strunk. Kyle was just being honest. 550s with no AFC (yet), ported headS, catbackS, etc, people only know you from what and how you type, and you don't type very well. If you want to guarantee good responses and answers to questions in the future, you'll need to work on that, because most people will read posts like that and just pass them by. Lose the attitude, he was trying to help you. Perhaps a little harshly, but still.

Finally, someone that knows what their talking about!

Storm

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

225 and 202 research!!! Ive done it...oh yeah and if they are less than 3000 and have 300 lbft and 270hp and Im beating them stock...well then thats pretty damn sad! Oh yeah the ford probe isnt ford, niether is the ranger. All those cars are is mazdas with ford ovals on them. I had a svo come in the shop all they are, are thuderbird turbo coupes with a lighter stang body on them. Def a nice 15 sec car Id own...oh yeah can we please stop the flaming(all of us including myself) its whats whoring up this site. Im out.....