RACINg a 1988 gt mustang

[strunk]

thanks dsmeclipse and to everyone else..peace

 

[deusxmachina]

Strunk, if you do a google search for "5.0 GT torque" etc, you'll see 225hp and 300lb-ft all over the place. In fact, here: http://www.google.com/search?q=5.0+torque+gt&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Click on that and look at pretty much any site that comes up. Sometimes I have seen 285lb-ft like Storm said, but I'm not sure why at the moment. Might be an emissions thing for some places. Here's another, Road and Track, March 1988, 225hp and 300lb-ft. Page 46. Do people think I make this stuff up?

DSMeclipse, I honestly don't know how you can say you study and work on these cars for a living and then say some of the things you've said. If you are going to tell people to research, then put up some of your own. I already asked once for ANY internet reference of 202lb-ft. You haven't provided any. I've been trying to be polite about some of the things you've said, but since you are pushing the issue, I will now ask again. Please post the links to any site that says an '87+ Fox-body Mustang has 202lb-ft. A stock DSM has as much torque as a 5.0 Mustang? DSM owners wish!

If your 5.0 with lots of bolt-ons could barely run with a stock GST, then something was wrong with the 5.0, plain and simple, or maybe you're leaving out that it was an automatic convertible or something. And the 270 wasn't for horsepower. It was the torque for that year.

 

[strunk]

aright thanks desu ex machina so how am i ever gonna be able to beat him when he has 300 lbs of torque?

 

[DSM Storm]

Originally posted by strunk
aright thanks desu ex machina so how am i ever gonna be able to beat him when he has 300 lbs of torque?

Dont worry about what he has for power, he can be beat, I beat a 88LX badly when the talon was completely stock exept for the 4 extra pounds of boost I was running at the time,but like I said, concentrate on the launch and be sure to take it out of the hole, rail those gears and be sure that you dont get caught sleeping on his 3rd gear, dont overrev the engine either, most DSM owners and mustang owners tend to spin the motor to engine speeds that drop in power. Remember, you win some you loose some, just be cool either/or.


let us know the outcome, Good luck.

Storm

 

[deusxmachina]

You feel torque, but horsepower wins races. The 300lb-ft doesn't matter. Well, it does in the overall scheme of things, but torque alone doesn't mean much other than tire-spinning fun. A Honda S2000 has basically no torque, but it has 240hp and will do around 14.0@100 if launched hard and revved like it's supposed to be.

It might be a tough race if you're still on stock exhaust at the time. A catback really opens things up. With a K&N, catback, and 15psi, you shouldn't have much problem at all. With less mods than that, it'll probably be up to driver skill more than the cars themselves. The current mods you described probably won't help a whole lot. The car really needs non-stock exhaust and stable higher boost to start getting into that "hey, I can run with V8s now" stage.

 

[strunk]

Aright well ill probably race him this weekend....ill let you all know how it goes thanks everyone...lata

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

http://modelreports.cars.com/modeld...79&myid=3282&acode=USA30FOC052B0&aff=national
-thats cars.com for the 1993 lx 5.0

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/ford-mustang/ford-mustang-history-3.shtml
-here are some more numbers for the fox body

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/ford-mustang/ford-mustang-history-4.shtml
- here is 1994-2002 info

It appears we are both wrong 275 is what the tourque spec for those cars. I thought I would give you some of the sites since you want to continue to fight. Either way the question at hand was would his dsm beat that stang I said that I voted for him beating the stang. So thats all can we now leave it at that.

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

DSMeclipse, I honestly don't know how you can say you study and work on these cars for a living and then say some of the things you've said. If you are going to tell people to research, then put up some of your own. I already asked once for ANY internet reference of 202lb-ft. You haven't provided any. I've been trying to be polite about some of the things you've said, but since you are pushing the issue, I will now ask again. Please post the links to any site that says an '87+ Fox-body Mustang has 202lb-ft. A stock DSM has as much torque as a 5.0 Mustang? DSM owners wish!

If your 5.0 with lots of bolt-ons could barely run with a stock GST, then something was wrong with the 5.0, plain and simple, or maybe you're leaving out that it was an automatic convertible or something. And the 270 wasn't for horsepower. It was the torque for that year. [/B][/QUOTE]

Look the reason I could beat it is cause of driver skill...stang 5.0 run low 15s stock(close to dsms) with minor bolt ons they run mid 14s with a giod like driver, but in reality high 14s. I run that stock so do the math and there you have it.... Oh yeah have you ever owned a mustang or driven one?(just a question)

 

[deusxmachina]

It's interesting you posted the link for the rerated power of the 1993 year. Did you do that on purpose to disregard the previous six years, or is it merely a coincidence? The second link for the Fox bodies, I see no torque figures at all other than it says the 1979 5.0 had 245lb-ft @1800rpms. (And numbers for the SVO.)

Here's another link from me. Edmunds. 1990 GT, 225hp and 300lb-ft.
http://edmunds.com/used/1990/ford/m...l?tid=edmunds.u.standard.leftsidenav..6.Ford*

And, yes, if you put the rerated 1993 in there, it says 275.

I've driven 5.0s. That's why I asked if yours was an automatic or a heavy-ass convertible, because those can be pretty slow, especially depending on what the rear gears are. Never was interested in owning one.

It's no surprise to me most people can't get a good e.t. out of a 5.0 without practice. But to say it's not possible, especially considering the mph they put up...

Do you think DSMstorm is lying about his friend's 14.2 in a stock 5.0 LX?

Do you think my buddy "NoOption5L" of the Mustang newsgroup is lying when he posted this: "Again, I special ordered mine brand new back in '87 and raced it at Suffolk dragstrip in Virginia in the spring of '88. Every run was between a 14.2 and a 14.5 unpower shifted with 60 footers in the crappy 2.2/2.3 range. I'm quite sure with a little practice and with a more aggressive driving style the car was capable of 14 ohhs."

It's just plain common sense that a RWD car trapping in the mid-90s stock is going to run faster than a 90-91mph 15.0 DSM. What mph did your Mustang do at the track?

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

First off I never took my 5.0 to the track, second I ran 14.8 at 94 the other weekend stock. I was just going by how many 5.0 I beat at the beach and at home(yes they were race when they said to me you wanna go), besides you can refer to times when some one ran a super time when you know that everyone else run much higher times. If so then 5.0 would be refered to as mid to low 14s and dsm would be low 14 sec cars...just dosent work that way. 5.0 are low 15 sec cars yes people who can drive will get them in the mid 14s stock but you can also do that in a dsm. If someone ran a 14.2 in a lx I wouldnt be too suprised...although Id like to see it to fully believe it. But a guy who only did the bcs restrictor mod to his 96 gst ran a 14 right in front of me so it goes both way. Anyways I am still a mustang fan so we are arguing for no reason...in fact I am about to purchase an 86 svo and strip it to do all out racing.