3800 And I thought my times pissed me off......

[Fish]

I would be uber pissed if I was this guy. I feel bad for him, but I also laughed my ass off cause he is still running 15s with a supercharger. :lolsign:

Click to read more...

 

[horist]

My best is a 15.0 w/a supercharger

 

[Fish]

True, but this was the group of people that told me yesterday in a post that if they added a supercharger to a V6 mustang, that it would blow away a GTP.

 

[toastyj]

Horist:
Your times will get better in the '04 man. There are other issues with our cars, but I know yours has more in it because I was running 14.8s on stock pulley, and I know my car has more in it.

People talk about the fueling systems in the 04, but the more important issue is the timing retard. The fueling won't come into play until you're going REALLY fast anyway, so whiddle down your numbers with a PCM, tires and a launch (thats my plan at least, and I turned 14.8s also with the stock computer) The truth is if we could eliminate the pulled timing a stock 04 would take just about any other year GTP without any trouble, probably even take any year GTP that was -slightly- modded without trouble.
IMJ

 

[MIKES3]

Originally posted by toastyj@Nov 3 2004, 02:25 PM
Horist:
Your times will get better in the '04 man.  There are other issues with our cars, but I know yours has more in it because I was running 14.8s on stock pulley, and I know my car has more in it.

People talk about the fueling systems in the 04, but the more important issue is the timing retard. The fueling won't come into play until you're going REALLY fast anyway, so whiddle down your numbers with a PCM, tires and a launch (thats my plan at least, and I turned 14.8s also with the stock computer) The truth is if we could eliminate the pulled timing a stock 04 would take just about any other year GTP without any trouble, probably even take any year GTP that was -slightly- modded without trouble.
IMJ

[snapback]59039[/snapback]​

I agree with you 100% considering I nailed a 14.6 with just a CAI and I know I could of got better times with a better 60.

 

[horist]

I've also only drag raced the car twice heh (not 2 trips to the track... 2 time runs... needless to say it was Byron)

2.1x 60ft yielded 15.0@90 or 93 forget which.. i think 90

Maybe I'll race it again a few times next year ... would be interested to see what my PCM tweaks have done... if anything

 

[RareGMFan]

Originally posted by Fish@Nov 3 2004, 01:19 PM
True, but this was the group of people that told me yesterday in a post that if they added a supercharger to a V6 mustang, that it would blow away a GTP.   

[snapback]59036[/snapback]​

...and why would they think this? Just because they are both 3.8 liters? The majority of the Mustang V6's from that era put out 145 - 150 hp. They didn't start hitting 190 + till '99. The naturally aspirated 3800 Series II has had 200 hp since it debute, and the original 3800 had 160 prior to that. So, in a good portion of the cases, the Mustang is going to be 40 hp in the hole to begin with.

Hell, even the n/a GM 3.1 put out 145 hp, and the turbo takes it up to 205 on 7 psi. So there's only a 5-10 hp difference between a GM 3.1 from '90 with a tiny ass turbo and a Ford 3.8 from '94 with a brand new technolodgy supercharger? Hmmmm.....either he has a lot of tuning to do, or Ford really does suck...

 

[Mike K]

If you're going to rip on Ford, at least play both angles.

Back in 90' we had a naturally aspirated 3.0 liter V6 pulling 14.5's out of the box and 220hp out of that package. It went by the name of SHO.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Mike K@Nov 4 2004, 01:01 AM
If you're going to rip on Ford, at least play both angles.

Back in 90' we had a naturally aspirated 3.0 liter V6 pulling 14.5's out of the box and 220hp out of that package.  It went by the name of SHO.

[snapback]59103[/snapback]​

I always though they had some form of boost.

You gotta admidt though mike, V6 stangs suck.

 

[RareGMFan]

Originally posted by Mike K+Nov 4 2004, 01:01 AM-->

If you're going to rip on Ford, at least play both angles.

Back in 90' we had a naturally aspirated 3.0 liter V6 pulling 14.5's out of the box and 220hp out of that package.  It went by the name of SHO.

[snapback]59103[/snapback]​

[/b]

Yes, but....

A. That was a Yamaha motor, not a Ford. 220 hp/200 ft-lbs tq.

B. GM had the DOHC 3.4 to compete at 210 hp/215 ft-lbs tq.

As for the 1/4 mile times, I'm not doubting a few factory freaks dialed in in the 14s, but most of them did low to mid 15s in the quarter, while most of the DOHC equipped GMs did mid to high 15s. Also, save for a very rare few, the GMs didn't have the manual advantage. Those that did were in the low 15s, as well.


<!--QuoteBegin-Kyle@Nov 4 2004, 01:20 AM
I always though they had some form of boost.

[snapback]59105[/snapback]​

No, sir. Never boosted. Oh, and speaking of 'Stangs sucking, I was ringing up a customer today and heard a motor reving a way outside when I look up and what should I see? A GP Pace Car storming down Chicago Ave, with a silver Mustang desparately struggling to catch up. LOL! Damn, Kyle. You're reckless! In a hurry to get home? :lol: