| From | Message |
andrew
Dodge Dakota
6/21/2001
00:37:20
|
 Subject: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
On the way home, I was lucky enough to see a race. There was this late model mustang(98 body style) that was driving like a mad man. At the next light, he was sitting next to this Toyota Corrola and the two of them were talking back and forth while they sat there. As the other light was about to turn yellow, the Mustang reved his engine and lurched forward. I got goose bumps as I anticipated. The Mustang sounded good with dual pipes out the back and the big hp producing Flowmaster sticker in the rear window, but otherwise a rich kid in a car he shouldnt be driving. Anyways, the lights goes green and I dont know if he didnt want to spin the tires or what but his reaction time was horrible. They are dead even through the quarter and then the stang' starts to pull away. They both seemed to flooring it and as I followed somewhat closely, I could hear their motors screaming. I guess speed is contagious, because this brand new Neon is coming up along side of me very fast so I lay on the gas and the 5.2 starts screaming and making me nervous(106,000mi) and that Neon with 4 people in it sails past me. So my original question is, how can a Corrola(non sports car) keep up with a Mustang(sports car)? True, I did get beat once by a Camry Wagon, but I suck at racing.
|
BMac
Dodge Dakota
6/21/2001
06:08:34
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
I saw in a magazine one time about 5 or so years ago a Nissan Sentra 2-door that was 14.6 in the quarter, STOCK! and getting high 30s for mpg.
|
kraw
Dodge Dakota
6/21/2001
16:23:27
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
the 98 mustang had about 225 hp and ran hi to mid 14's with a 5 spd.. higher with the auto.
99+ GT's have 260hp and run hi 13's to low 14's with 5 spd.
also, driver's can make alot of diff in racing, correct? So if the kid in the stang was a kid that didn't know how to drive and the one in the toy could, that could make alot of diff. I guess....
www.krawdaddy.net
|
blueballs
Dodge Dakota
6/21/2001
16:35:31
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
my girl has a 00' Nissian Sentra 2.0.I have a 01' Kota w3.9 She like to race the civics and eat there lunch. I have drove her car and I not going to talk any mess untill I get on a few more mods.
My guess is that they have very little weight vs. power.
|
Jeffster
Dodge Dakota
6/21/2001
22:23:40
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Some of those 5.0 stangs are very very slow and some are very quick. I know am always vervous against Stangs for you never know what to expect. (I always avoid the brand new GT's and Cobra's for now). I just slughtered one 5.0 which shouldn't be right. No way would I ever worry about a Corola, Preldude, Celica or any other rice wagon however.(There are some fast ones I know but 99% only look fast and that's it) I don't even bother egging them on anymore. It may have just been a badly out of tune Stang or a sleeper Corola but who would bother with such a drab car?
|
The Goto Guy
Dodge Dakota
6/22/2001
14:24:13
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
See the thing here is to a non mustang owner the 94-98's all look the same. But they came with four different v-8's. The 96-98 Gt's had a weak 4.6l that couldn't mix dough without some modifications. I test drove one and handed back the keys leaving in the wife's old 88 sentra.
Add an automatic to the mix and you have $22,000 of moms coupe on 17" wheels, (that outta irritate the 96-98 GT owners). Sorry guys I wasn't impressed. I opted for the 94 with the 5.0 and with the $10,000 I saved by getting it with an extra 25,000 miles over new I replaced the mach460 stereo, full road race solid bushed suspension, sound dampner and engine mods. I also own a 98 5.2l extra cab 4x4 and there is no way it holds a candle to MY mustang on acceleration or handling. That weak 98 I test drove. Oh yeah. It'd be all over but the cryin'.
The Goto Guy.
|
kraw
Dodge Dakota
6/23/2001
10:16:41
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree.. the 96-98 are weak.. Hell, my 01 GT has more power than some of the older Cobras!
In college, I had a friend with a 94 vert 5.0 auto, and I was never really impressed with it. Guess I don't see what all the "5.0 fanatics" see in those 5.0's. Guess they need lots of mods. =]
love my 01! It is scary fast
love my 98 Dak!
It is fast
www.krawdaddy.net
|
Jeffster
Dodge Dakota
6/23/2001
19:14:52
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Kraw have you done any mod's to your GT. I didn't really respect the Stangs untill the 2000-2001 model year. I think they are finnaly giving the Mustang name the power the name deserves. I Will race practicallly every stang I see and do very good but am quite aways away from reving it up against the new ones. The 2001 Cobra sounds terrifing!!
|
Bob
Dodge Dakota
6/23/2001
20:10:50
|  RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Jeffster-I could not hold back any longer...WHAT WHAT-you could not respect any Mustangs before 2000? What the hell is that all about?Mustangs from 87 to 93 are very quick stock!At the time they where the quickest things around{well there was the Grand-National}I wish I could show you how my 95% stock 2dr 5spd 5.0 89 Mustangs runs...it would blow the dam doors off your 4.7 !I have a quick 4.7 CC Dak...and there is know freaking way in hell my Dak is going to beat my Mustang.That statement you made is guest plain Stupid.You have to stop racing old oil burning worn out,beat to crap 1983 Mustangs Jeffster!
Zoom zoom zoom
|
kraw
Dodge Dakota
6/23/2001
21:22:11
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
no real mods.. flowmaster 40's welded in and tint. It is the wife's car and we have the extended warranty, so we prob won't do too much to it ;)
I read on stangnet that the new Cobras are running mid to low 13's from the factory. But you sure don't see many of them on the street. My local dealer has 3 on the lot, all verts... all 32k +
|
.
Dodge Dakota
6/24/2001
13:06:05
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
.
|
Bob
Dodge Dakota
6/24/2001
18:14:08
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Kraw as you know...the 2000&2001 are up to speed,Ford know's what they are doing,makem slow at first,than sell after market's part's{BIG MONEY}they have people interested in them once again,because they are quick again.
Beep Beep
|
surferpug
Dodge Dakota
6/24/2001
18:33:38
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
the fastest 0-60 mustang times, excluding the '00-'01 GT are around high 6s to low 7s
|
The Goto Guy
Dodge Dakota
6/25/2001
13:51:05
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
First off Kraw. Yeah I can see how you weren't impressed as it was the heavy vert with a weak automatic. Trust me. With the stick in a coupe I'm gone. Of course the 275 rubber with the stock suspension completely replaced so I'm not wheel hopping for the first 100 ft. does help. :)
And surferpug. 0-60 in the 7's? Ok maybe the same car Kraw was driving. But I'm in the 5's. No one in their right mind leaves these cars stock and goes out to show off.
BTW I can corner too. Some kid in his Prelude tried getting in front of me for the big downhill 270* sweeper onto the freeway. Must have just come from the theater. Yeah right. I stayed ahead and then left him in the dust during the decreasing radius of the turn. On the throttle easy out of the apex. Unwind the wheel, bye Honda boy. He was a good 100 yards back as I entered the freeway.
The Goto Guy.
|
Smokin
Dakota Enthusiast
6/25/2001
14:18:02
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
I do like the 2001 Model Mustang GT's. They are definitly impressive peformers now. I would like to say that I still wouldn't own the Cobra when I could go get a WS6 Trans-Am for the same price and probably a little cheaper and smoke it. Some stock Trans-Am's are faster than stock Corvettes in the 1/4. I saw a Dyno Comparision between a 98 Trans-Am and a 98 Vette and the Trans-Am made 307 rwhp while the Vette made 298 rwhp. I've also seen where just a mere muffler change, not a full catback, can yield high 12's for these cars. The Cobra R can only pull 12.8's-12.9's. For the money nothing can out perform a WS6 Trans-Am.
|
The Goto Guy
Dodge Dakota
6/25/2001
16:06:39
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Yeah. They have a lot going for them for the money. Torque arm rear and SLA front along with a pile of power. I even looked at them first before buying my GT. To me they just have too much of a stigma that I needed to grow a "Mullet" and wear Iron Maiden T-Shirts. I just couldn't get past the looks of it enough to offset the performance. Please don't freak out if you own one as that's just my feeling. And if you lived in Everett WA you would know why. :) The 80's have been alive and kicking here for 20 years now.
|
Jeffster
Dodge Dakota
6/25/2001
22:05:07
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey Bob my Dak would also beat the hell out of your Dak. Have you driven a Reg cab with limited slip 3.92's and 5 speed?? The numbers for the stangs up to 1998 speak for themsleves and I don't really give 2 $hit's wheather you beleive me or not but I have smoked them in various forms from 80's and in to the 90's. I lost to one older model stang by just half a hood length over 3 blocks but ussualy win. I know that many of the ones from those years with mods will smoke me badly but in general it's a close loss or a win.
Just the facts.
|
kraw
Dodge Dakota
6/25/2001
23:05:22
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
"First off Kraw. Yeah I can see how you weren't impressed as it was the heavy vert with a weak automatic. Trust me. With the stick in a coupe I'm gone"
True, and mods are plentiful and good on the 5.0, unlike on the 4.6. Her car was ragged pretty hard, but man, I loved driving it.. drop the top and go! I always thought to myself "self, this car would kick ass if it had a stick" but never got to try one.
Sorry if it sounded like I was dissing the 5.0, but I just meant that particular one, which is the only one I ever drove and could base an opinion on =]
I agree that the F body twins are the best bang for the buck. I didn't get the car to race, or I would have a SS Camaro... oh yeah, those are sweet!
I like all fast cars, but settled for a good mix of sport and every day driving needs. Plus, it is the car that the wife liked! hehehe =]
|
Manuel
Dodge Dakota
6/25/2001
23:43:33
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Mustangs can be a tricky lot. I believe that Jeffster has beaten mustangs in a dak with light mods. I have a 98 5.2 4x4 ext cab and gave a 2001 v-6 a good run. My truck is stock. That mustang has only slightly less horsepower than then previous generation mustangs 4.6 or 5.0, but the smaller engine also means less weight. Our family car is a 95 Taurus SHO. That car will beat a stock mustang GT of the same year. Thats a four door sedan. But then again, mustangs are easy to wake up.
|
Bob
Dodge Dakota
6/26/2001
03:53:37
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Jeffster, any Moran would know that your Dak would beat my heavy truck,but we are not talking about beating my Dak Jeffster.
The insurance is to much for a GM.
Zoom zoom zoom
|
Jeffster
Dodge Dakota
6/26/2001
11:59:20
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
No we are not Bob but you made a point that your older Stang would also beat my Dak using your Dak as a refrence but I wasn't talking about your heavy truck either. You make it sound like the only stangs I will beat are early 80's with a blown gasket but you would be surprised to see well running mid 90's Stangs also lose. The truck is only around 3,700lb I think. I will lose in the top speed but with the 3.92's a 5 speed and LS it's very fast low end.
Later
|
Bob
Dodge Dakota
6/26/2001
21:08:22
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Jeffster,the only thing you smoke,has to be a big fat joint.Jeffster if you where going 115,how did you know your mat was lifting up?Let me guess,you was riding in the bed.Oops I know the answer...YOU WHERE DREAMING.Hehehehehe Hahahahahaha {{{{Jeffster,if your brains where dynamite,you wouldn't have enough to blow your noise.}}}
Beep Beep
|
Jeffster
Dodge Dakota
6/26/2001
21:34:31
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
You don't have a reg cab do you?? It's quite easy to see what's moving in the back with a reg cab. The god damn bed is right behind your shoulder.
Ask anyone else here with a reg cab if they can see what's happeneing back theirs just by peaking back just a little. You even get a reflection off the front window showing a bit of the bed. I know what you are saying because my last Dak was extended cab like yours.
|
Candy
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
03:57:35
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Hay Jeffster I believe you,I can see my bed from the back window to.
Thank's for the Birthday card,you should have came to the club,you misted some fun. LOL Candy
|
Bob
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
20:17:11
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Jeffster,I'm thinking I would not be trying to see what's going on in my truck bed at 115,no matter what bed I had on my truck!
Jeffster you didn't tell us you where friend's with Candy.
Beep Beep
|
andrew
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
20:35:54
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Ooops! looks like I started another never ending Mustang thread.
|
Jeffster
Dodge Dakota
6/27/2001
21:52:19
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
Bob,Candy's just having a wet dream if you know what I mean.
|
Inhaler
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/06/2002
08:37:24
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
you guys are sad..
Stangs will chew you Dak's ups no matter whats done.. i have a 95 GT-s low weight optioned... all i have is a K7N ,underdrives pullies, smog bypass, autologic chip off road h pipe and flows with 3.55 and 275 40's all around.. oh and a shot of (100) Nos) and i'm beating vettes and SS and Ws6 with mods.. and inreality i have nothing.. i spent maybe 1500 on mods the Nos being the most expensive , installed 630 with a full tank and changed out ( colder plugs)
Grow up...even ftermsarket supercharcherged with nitrous daks aren't pulling mid 0-60 in 5.5.. too much weigh to move..and even if yu had the power to do it .. i hope your on Drag radials all day because with that kind of power you'll just sit at the light and smoke..
|
Demon-Xanth
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/06/2002
10:08:06
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
One thing I've found about muscle cars, a low 12 second car and a a high 16 second car look and sound alot alike. Alot of the times looking under the hood doesn't help at all. You never know until you see them go.
|
Bluethunder
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/06/2002
10:17:37
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
I love the new body style and performance of the stangs...Although they need gears fast..the 3.27 makes it a bit of a pig of the line:
Heres my 02 stang:
[img]http://www.mustangmods.com/publish/SilverGT02//resized.jpg[/img]
|
Anthony G
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/06/2002
10:29:26
| RE: I though Mustangs were fast
IP: Logged
Message:
I looked into getting a Mustang, I didn't because it wasn't fast enough. I've read many Mustang forum times on there cars.
96-98 GT =15-15.50
99-2000 GT= Quicker 14.00-14.20
2001-2003 GT= 14.20-14.50
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
