fastest non-turbo

[1TuffRS]

well 98clips if you really ran the 14.4 you are the fastest 2GNT that I know of. Jake now has more mods though and when he recently went to the track he was running like 15.6's but his mph was in the upper 90's. I personally have run a 15.9 with nothing but an exhaust, gutted cat, and AFX UDP. I removed my air filter as well, but dont know how much good it did since Im using a K&N filter. If I was to go again and take off these heavy GSX rims off the front and put my 14's up there I should definitely be running mid 15's.

 

[xhypno]

GET RID OF THE WEIGHT, AND MAKE A PASS WITH 1 GALLON OF GAS IN THE TANK, YOU WILL BE BETWEEN 14.9 AND 15.4.

 

[xhypno]

1TUFFRS, I have a friend that has a 95 rs, with p7p everything, cam gears, pullies, exhuast, headers, race cat, full cold air intake, Apexi SAFC, And a chip. And with his Blitz body kit on, system in the car, and metal wing, at moroso, he ran a 14.2 (his best), with an average of 14.6. If he got rid of the weight, he would be in the high 13's.

 

[1TuffRS]

you should get your friend to post over at 2gnt.com, that is amazing that his car is that fast NA, especially for a heavy 2G. Im definitely impressed

 

[xhypno]

see most people don't realize it, with a car that is 3200lbs and dynoed at 198hp has a weight to power ratio of 16.16. and with that and a good driver, the car can run low 14's and possibaly more.

 

[lo eclipz]

so my car which will be dunod at around 300 thats what he thinks, but others think around 250whp. My car should easily run 13's according to weight/power ratio. If 200whp will get low 14's, i should be able to easy run mid to low 13's. But either way we will see what actually comes out.

 

[eclipse96nt]

.

 

[HITNRUN]

Apperently Mike Hamilton of Toronto Ontario has a 91 Talon that weighs just over 2000lbs. He has modifications from his power steering removed to a VPC. It was seen running 14.4. All motor. He races DSM rally cars. He also put a supercharger on and already turbocharged TSi. The supercharger was of a 3.8 Ford motor. A friend of mine modified it to bolt to a 4G63.

 

[xhypno]

13'smight be pushing it, at least at first. Learn to drive with more hp first. Get down your shifting and your hole shot, and 13's can be reached. If you think about a few of my friends with 4g63t's that dynoed around 290hp, run 13.2's and around there, one even ran a 12.8. So a non-turbo at 290hp, would run mid 13's to low 13's easy, if not more. But getting a non-turbo motor to 290-300hp (while staying all motor) is almost impossible, in fact, it would probally cost in the 10000 dollar range, just for the parts, not including labor or machining costs.

 

[lo eclipz]

well if i do dyno at 290-300 hp while being all motor and of course can run low 13's to mid 13's. Everyone will enjoy the fact that i did go 13's all motor 420a and the fact that it cost a fifth of the projected cost you guys put on here. Just research a little better.

 

[xhypno]

the cheapest way to go 250 hp in the 420a is to turbo it, for 2300. To build it all motor will cost a lot more, trust me I have researched it.

 

[lo eclipz]

no trust me it will cost less than that trubo kit, i have researched it. And, how can you know so much when you have differrent engine. And, the engine build i have described i am doing for alot less than 2300.

 

[Tallen]

congrats 98clipse

 

[a13secTsi]

I'm sorry guys. I don't buy this 14 second story out of a N/T car. If you go to the time slip page with hundreds of DSM cars the fastest time is in the mid 15's. Much more believable

 

[Gyger]

naaaah sorry guys I just don't believe that any of you have a N/A
second generation Eclipse running 14's let alone 13's
I have sat at the track and raced at the track countless hours
and watched one after another modded first and second generation
eclipse run 16's 17's and 18's
A heavily modded Eclipse or Talon (N/A) "might" get into the 15's
but so far I haven't even seen one single time slip.
And if you have a N/A Eclipse running 14's you'd keep the slip!!!!
If you have a N/A Eclipse running 14's I wanna race ya.

 

[littlemilla3]

xhypno: a stock Mustang GT runs a 14.0, unless its an auto, look it up. Also, you've got to be crazy if you think you can have a N/T get into mid 13's. Most guys are lucky to hit 15's. Also, you will never get high 10's or low 11's. It's hard for turbo guys to do that...you need to do some research and don't say anything unless you know what you are talking about.

 

[a13secTsi]

Car and driver ran a Mustang GT at 15.1 in the quarter mile( yes it was a five speed). This was a stock 2003 Mustang edition GT with 260 h.p. in the November 2002 issue of Car and Driver magazine. This info can be found in the back of most the Car and Drivers magazine issues "Road Test Digest" column at the back of the magazine. Motor Trend ran a 14.7 Quarter mile in an identical car last December. The Mustang Mach 1 with 305 horepower(basically the old SVT cobra engine used in the last few years) did indeed run a 14.0 Quarter(December 2002 edition of Car and Driver page 52). The all new SVT Cobra (supercharged) ran a 12.9 with 390 hp in the May 2002 edition of Car and Driver. I find everyone is exaggerating by at least a full 1 second in this thread by shouting out numbers and no facts to back them. Even the guys who think their facts are right are wrong. come on guys. Please... A friend of mine has a 2001 Cobra SVT and runs a 14.0- 14.2 second Quarter mile. The car is stock except for the air filter.

 

[98eclipseRS]

^^^^yes you are right gt's dont run no 13's i high 14 yes. And the cobra's are the ones that run low 14's my friend has one and his best time so far is a 13.8 with off road h-pipe, gears, intake, and mufflers. As for a n/t not being able to make it into the 15's when i had my n/t i could almost beat my friends truck who ran a 15.7 almost consistantly at the track, and i only had intake and exhaust. And yes i think 13's in a n/t is pushing it, it just doesn't seem possible the only way i could see that happening would be with a turbo or a fat shot of nitrous but then it wouldnt be all motor.

 

[billy mack]

i would say it is very possible to run 14's all motor??
as i have a average of 14.6 to 14.9 all motor...

 

[Eclipse96Ryder]

i consistently run 15.5-15.7. my car is a freak tho and im a good driver (well i was) i cant get my launch down with my new tires. It's really starting to piss me off. But ne wayz im saying i think i could get my car to the 14's very easily. If i put an underdrive pulley on that will shave .1-.2 off and then a header and a test pipe and im pushing low 15's, i could get all that for about hmmmmm $500 lets say. I just cant wait to turbo my car and beat my neighbors stock GS-T. HAHAHAHAHA

 

[97eclipsedGS]

yeah, im gonna hafta raise the bullshit flag on the 13 sec n/t. lets use a little bit of logic here.... our cars run a 16.6 1/4 mile (2nd gen n/t) stock. and that is if driven by a professional driver! (these numbers are from motor trend taken from 2gnt.com). when i tracked my car before the turbo, my best was a 16.49 @89.98 at leicester, NY (NYIRP). i had a CAI and some msd ignition upgrades, but that was it. i consistently ran 16.6-16.7.

lets do a little tally here
112 WHP STOCK
+8 CAI
+5 header
+5 catback
+2 highflow cat
+8 underdrive
+12 cams
+15 FULL P&P (im talking some SERIOUS machine work)
+10 Higher compression pistons
and this brings us to a grand total of 178 whp, which for an n/t is VERY respectable.

BUT...BUT!!! you will need to spend thousands on tuning tools (afc, fuel pump, fpr, injectors, etc) and dyno time in orer to get the proper preset fuel levels, timing.....the list goes on. if you add up the cost alone of all of those parts, its astronomical. and at best, this fully built race n/t will be running a mid-high 14. again, a good time, but i have seen ONE PERSON (billy mack) close to this. and i would venture to guess he know his motor pretty well

another thing....if you guys are running 13s and even low 14s, where are your time slips??? if i were you, and i supposedly ran these times, i would be more than happy to FIND someone with a scanner and get those slips posted and make everyone eat shit. bottom line...nobody has.

and i hate to disappoint all you boys that think you are gonna build your n/t into the 13s, THEN turbo?!?!?! AND be in the high 10's low 11's!!!! you are sorely mistaken. you would have to have SICK high compression and the car would have to be professionally tuned. not to mention, your whole setup would be geared for NO BOOST. so have fun spending 10k on your car to get to your unicorn "13" time, and then have fun spending another 5k on a turbo kit and internals to run a REAL 13.... i cant believe i actually read this bullshit.

ive been where you guys are.... ive only had my turbo kit on for a few months... and i love my motor... but i REFUSE to listen to people spew bullshit about what their car can and cant do when they have NOTHING to back it up at all. post a time slip.... post a dyno chart... but dont post pipedreams that dont exist...

 

[RuBiCaNT5X]

I have to agree.. In addition to what 97eclipsedGS said about NT times, how good of track times are you thinking you are gonna get out of a 420A with heavy machine work done? It breaks the laws of physics unless you have a car that hovers around the 1 ton mark for weight. NGH on 4 cylinders!! BMW can get 300+ HP out of the 3.2L straight 6 in the M3 and that is about the limit for any non-boosted 6 cylinder engine (give or take) and that rips a 13.1 1/4 according to C&D http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=4227 . The only way you are going to get an NT into the 13's is with some sort of forced induction whether it be NO or boosted.

 

[littlemilla3]

AHHHH you are wrong!!! A 99+ STOCK 5-speed Mustang GT runs 14.0!!!

Quote from Motor Trend: "The Bullitt-spec V-8 runs pretty much like the standard GT's engine, serving up good low-end torque and a strong stream of power in every gear, right to redline. The GT we tested in 1999 recorded slightly better acceleration times, possibly due to the fact that our test Bullitt was a brand-new car lacking any sort of break-in. Still, with just 200 miles on the clock, we got a 5.6-sec 0-60-mph time, just 0.2 sec slower than the '99 GT's. The Bullitt gets through the quarter in 14.07 sec at 97.9 mph, versus 14 flat and 100.2 mph. It beat the GT in 60-0-mph braking by nearly a foot, and its slalom speed of 63.4 mph plants it firmly between the stock GT (63 mph flat) and the Roush Mustang we tested for our June '01 issue (63.8 mph)." -Motor Trend

Here's where it's at: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0108_bullitt/index1.html

I WIN

 

[4G63luvr]

it's nice to see everyone argueing about mustangs(WTF?) on a dsm tuner board and everyone calling everyone liers. At any rate, if you say you can run a 13, 14, 15, or 22, congrats, if your lying, your the one that's missing out, not us, I don't even feel like talking about what my n/t car runs now, I don't know how to use a scanner so forget it, look at my mod list and take a guess even though i didn't post hardly anything on it, whatever, I only spent 300 bucks on everything too, ok, resume argueing about nothing important,

 

[97eclipsedGS]

i dont care what mustangs run. it doesnt matter.

even still...the point remains.... a 13 sec n/t, whether 4g63 or 420a is NOT gonna happen unless you spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on internals and machinework, not to mention thousands on weight reduction and supporting mods.

i respect all motor guys a lot... but you wont see a true all-motor dsmer that says 13s in the 1/4 are realistic. cause a real all motor person would know that it is virtually impossible unless you have a bottomless pocketbook. if you can get your n/t into the low 15s, high 14s, you should be VERY pleased with your motor and setup