Got wasted by a '96 Eagle Talon Turbo - what's going on??
FiveptO 89
>I was stopped at a light with my friend next to me in his
>'96 Eagle Talon Turbo (beautiful car I must admit). I turned
>my head and saw that hungry look in his eye like he wanted to
>race. At first I laughed to myself, thinking how could a
>cheesy four cylinder take 302 cubic inches of mean muscle?
>But then the light turned green and apparently I had under-
>estimated the balls this car had - he fucking wasted me by at
>least 2 car lengths off the line, and I have 3:73's too!
>I have a 90 LX Sedan 5.0 with several mods, and have wasted
>plenty of Z28's, other stangs, and an M3 once, so I know my
>'Stang is running up to potential.
>
>Maybe if the Talon had taken me on the highway I'd accept
>it, since i have shitty highway gears and the Talon probably is
>better on the top end, but getting beat off the line is a little
>curious to me!! Do you think my friend sprayed the juice on me?
>I have never looked under his hood and don't know much about his
>car, although I thought it was completely stock.
>
>
whoa...the Talon TSi s are quick, but not that fast stock...i know a guy with
the 96 AWD TSi...he's got it modified pretty heavily...runs mid 13s in the
quarter...but, i've raced only one TSi Talon...this guy was a total punk.
pulled up next to me at a light, started revving his quiet little Turboed 4
banger, i gave mine a couple revs and thought it might scare him off...but,
he still wanted some. my car isnt modified that much (3.73s Flows, 2 1/2 in
Hpipe, hooker headers, K&N FIPK) i got him badly off of the line, by about 2-3
car lengths, it pretty much stayed at that distance...i might have been
pulling away, but not much...they arent that slow...it kinda surprised me.
Jacob
Adam Bruce
> Any posts as to why this "tragedy" happened would be appreciated.
> Are the new Talons simply faster than 'Stangs, even modified? I would
> sincerely hope not, but maybe the technology of today is far superior
> to that of 1990.....
>
> l8r-
Well as much as I hate to admit it, the Diamond Star twins are great
platforms to modify from. I think you can get one into the thirteen's just
by playing with the waste gate settings. As with any turbo car, threre's
lots of cheap tricks you can do to make these cars scream, and boy do they
ever off the line. I regularly pull 2.00 60 foots at the track and 1.90
when I spray (All this on BFG street tires mind you). Yet Stock Talons
pull like times with half the cylinders because of their AWD system. It's
possible he sprayed you, but it's also possible he just modded his car a
little faster. Now if he claims to be bone stock and he's pulling on you
like a 12 sec nitro car, then he may have a few laughing gas tricks up his
sleeve. One more thing to consider Nitrous loves Turbos. It helps to cool
the intake charge that has been unnaturally heated by the impeller of the
turbo. So a relatively mild kit on one of these cars could be like 150 hp
or so. Also, it's not uncommon to have 11 and 10 sec Talons running on
street tires. Their light weight and AWD, makes them great drag cars.
Now Stock to Stock, he doesn't stand a chance against you. They tend to
run low 15s in the quater bone stock, but with a minimal amount of cash you
can get a Talon or Eclipse to run in the twelve's (Sounds like a Buick GNX
huh?)
-Adam
--
'91 Formula 350 (drag car)
'67 Mustang (show car)
A.Yeu
jchr...@eden.rutgers.edu (J. Christian) wrote:
>cheesy four cylinder take 302 cubic inches of mean muscle?
>But then the light turned green and apparently I had under-
>estimated the balls this car had - he fucking wasted me by at
>least 2 car lengths off the line, and I have 3:73's too!
>I have a 90 LX Sedan 5.0 with several mods, and have wasted
>plenty of Z28's, other stangs, and an M3 once, so I know my
>'Stang is running up to potential.
They are, it doesn't take much to make a talon run into the 13-14s.
Read: boost. They're interesting cars. That's why I am going to buy
a power adder and reclaim the spot on the top of the hill.
_____________
Andre Yeu (ay...@unixg.ubc.ca)
97 GT /w K&N / 2CH-Flowmasters
Geoffrey Sneddon
Speaking of the Eagle Talons-
My dad has a Talon TSi with the all wheel drive. It is a quick car and it
launches pretty good because of the AWD- no wheel spin. BUT he has never
beaten my mildly tweaked 96 Mustang GT. If I manage to get traction - I
can pull away pretty easy. One time, I spun the tires, had to backpedal,
hit the gas again. I still caught and passed him without too much problem.
P.S. His Talon is a lot of fun to drive. It is slower than my Mustang but
it will stick through a corner with the best of them.
ExtremeSVO
>I was stopped at a light with my friend next to me in his
>'96 Eagle Talon Turbo (beautiful car I must admit). I turned
>my head and saw that hungry look in his eye like he wanted to
>race. At first I laughed to myself, thinking how could a
>But then the light turned green and apparently I had under-
>estimated the balls this car had - he fucking wasted me by at
>least 2 car lengths off the line, and I have 3:73's too!
>I have a 90 LX Sedan 5.0 with several mods, and have wasted
>plenty of Z28's, other stangs, and an M3 once, so I know my
>'Stang is running up to potential.
>
>
Man oh man I beat them all the time in my Mustang SVO. and all i have is
Flowmasters. I don;t beat them by much but enought to call it a win!
Mike Schriber
Did he have a GST (FWD) or a GSX (AWD)? The all wheel drive launches
like it's a funny car.
The stock GST and GSX should get taken by a stock Mustang. There are
lots of little cheap tricks you can do to thoes turbo cars that yield
significant performance increases.
Mike
The Ford Mustang GT Performance Home Page
http://www.hotchip.com/mustangs
Chris Mauritz
A.Yeu (ay...@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: jchr...@eden.rutgers.edu (J. Christian) wrote:
:
: >cheesy four cylinder take 302 cubic inches of mean muscle?
: >But then the light turned green and apparently I had under-
: >estimated the balls this car had - he fucking wasted me by at
: >least 2 car lengths off the line, and I have 3:73's too!
: >I have a 90 LX Sedan 5.0 with several mods, and have wasted
: >plenty of Z28's, other stangs, and an M3 once, so I know my
: >'Stang is running up to potential.
: They are, it doesn't take much to make a talon run into the 13-14s.
: Read: boost. They're interesting cars. That's why I am going to buy
: a power adder and reclaim the spot on the top of the hill.
I toyed with the idea of getting one for a winter beater, but the
AWD versions are a bit too expensive for that.
Chris
White Tornado
Give me 10 minutes with your dad's car and a fish tank valve and your
Mustang won't come close to beating it.
White Tornado
He he!
*THIS* amuses me!
You just have to like a car that will run low 13s with a few hundred
bucks in mods!
Dave the accepted launch point for a Talon with a Centerforce clutch
is 4,500rpm. The stocker won't take that kind of abuse. I've beaten
many a mustang with the stock clutch and 3,000 rpm launches. Since
the Talons valves don't float until after 8,000rpm this is hardly
revving until the pistons come out of the block.
>I was stopped at a light with my friend next to me in his
>'96 Eagle Talon Turbo (beautiful car I must admit). I turned
>my head and saw that hungry look in his eye like he wanted to
>race. At first I laughed to myself, thinking how could a
>cheesy four cylinder take 302 cubic inches of mean muscle?
>But then the light turned green and apparently I had under-
>estimated the balls this car had - he fucking wasted me by at
>least 2 car lengths off the line, and I have 3:73's too!
>I have a 90 LX Sedan 5.0 with several mods, and have wasted
>plenty of Z28's, other stangs, and an M3 once, so I know my
>'Stang is running up to potential.
>
>Maybe if the Talon had taken me on the highway I'd accept
>it, since i have shitty highway gears and the Talon probably is
>better on the top end, but getting beat off the line is a little
>curious to me!! Do you think my friend sprayed the juice on me?
>I have never looked under his hood and don't know much about his
>car, although I thought it was completely stock.
>
>Any posts as to why this "tragedy" happened would be appreciated.
>Are the new Talons simply faster than 'Stangs, even modified? I would
>sincerely hope not, but maybe the technology of today is far superior
>to that of 1990.....
>
>l8r-
>
>-=Jon C.=-
>
White Tornado
Oh bullshit. The transmissions are bulletproof, the clutch sucks, and
the only part that breaks once you get into the low 11s high 10s is
the center diff. Put that into perspective, how many cars running in
the low 11s or 10s are running their stock drivetrains?
>A talon has AWD so if driven right he could pull a 1.8 60' time on stock
>tires and stock motor. The Talon usaully can dip into the high 14's
>with a good driver. The Talon's, Eclispe's are very easy to initially
>modify. With the an exhuast, K&N, silencer remover, and bleader value
>the can run 13's. With a bigger Fuel Pump and couple of other mods they
>will run 12's. Ofcourse to runs 12's or even 13's more than a couple of
>times you need to replace the Clutch, transmission, transfer case, front
>differential, rear differentail ect.. These car eat drivetrain parts.
>But initailly to get in the 12's, they are pretty damn cheap.
David Lyons
White Tornado wrote:
>
> Oh bullshit. The transmissions are bulletproof, the clutch sucks, and
> the only part that breaks once you get into the low 11s high 10s is
> the center diff. Put that into perspective, how many cars running in
> the low 11s or 10s are running their stock drivetrains?
How many DSMs are doing it? There's *ONE* in the 10s. Just a handful
more in the 11s. Hell, people don't even take notice of Mustangs going
that slow. Your Mustang has to be in the 9s to get the same respect as
an 11-second DSM.
--
David Lyons
mailto:lyo...@mindspring.org <- change org to com
http://www.mindspring.com/~lyonsd
White Tornado
Oh Dave how many times do we have to go over this? First how many
Mustangs are hot rodded hundreds of thousands of the things. I would
bet there are more hot rodded Mustangs than there are AWD DSMs. They
are fairly rare cars at least when comparied to something as common as
a v-8 powered Mustang. Further as you say "who cares what your car
will do wearing slicks with an iced down manifold?" Mustangs running
10s are not street cars, unless you roll around with slicks on your
car all the time.
Further to get a Mustang down the strip in that amount of time your
Stang' starts looking silly. Big fat tires in the back, mushy
suspension, sometimes skinnies up front, then you end up ruining the
handling of the car as well. The same 11sec DSM can run an excellect
drag pass and run excellent results at an autocross without tire swaps
and suspension changes.
Lastly for a street racer the 1/8 mile is more important than the 1/4.
Who runs for a 1/4 of a mile from a stoplight? Not me, and probably
not you either. You miss the whole 'sleeper' aspect as well. Hard to
hide the performance of a 12 sec 5.0 wearing foot wide tires and
traction bars. Not at all hard to hide a 12 sec AWD wearing 205/55
16s. Plus it automatically assumed that you are driving a harmless
Rice-boy mobile thanks to the Honda guys.
>How many DSMs are doing it? There's *ONE* in the 10s. Just a handful
>more in the 11s. Hell, people don't even take notice of Mustangs going
>that slow. Your Mustang has to be in the 9s to get the same respect as
>an 11-second DSM.
>
>--
>David Lyons
>mailto:lyo...@mindspring.org <- change org to com
>http://www.mindspring.com/~lyonsd
Adam Bruce
White Tornado <nos...@spamco.com> wrote in article
<343d08c7...@news2.ibm.net>...
> Oh bullshit. The transmissions are bulletproof, the clutch sucks, and
> the only part that breaks once you get into the low 11s high 10s is
> the center diff. Put that into perspective, how many cars running in
> the low 11s or 10s are running their stock drivetrains?
Well Tornado-san, While the car can run 13s, 12s, 11s, or even 10s on stock
parts, So can a Buick Grand National, Mustang, Camaro, or Trans Am. But
one thing is for sure, While the Diamond star cars are easy to modify,
their drivetrains are not designed to handle the high demands car-crafters
put on them. The Tranny may last 6 months a year or whatever, but as soon
as you get one of these cars into the 12s you're looking at major repairs
somewhere down the road. Any moron can jump into a Talon, dial the boost
up to 20 PSI, and run great times, but the engineers that designed these
cars didn't expect that high of a demand on the parts. Look at the T-5 in
the 302 Mustang. That tranny is rated just barely above the torque peak of
the car. The reason why is that the bean counters see no reason to invest
extra dollars in extra strong parts that aren't needed on a stock car.
They're going to find the cheapest, most economical part they can find to
do the job with. The F-Body T-56 is rated at 450 lb-ft of torque. That
wasn't GM's doing though, that was Borg Warner seeing that there was a
market for a high end tranny for the Viper, and it happened to be the only
cheap tranny that could handle the torque of the LT1 when GM needed a Stick
for the new F-Bod (The ZF was still to expensive back then.). If Borg
Warner had the 350 lb-ft Rated T-45 ready for production in '93 GM probably
would have put that in the F-Body instead of the T-56. V-8 cars make allot
more torque than high revving turbo 4s, and the engineers have to design
all the components with that in mind. Your average Mustang or Camaro has a
hell of allot stronger components than the Talon/Eclipse for that very
reason. BTW, One of the weakest differentials ever put into a F-Body car
was the old Ausie rear. I have a Hot Rod rag from the early 90s that
features a Camaro running 9s using an ausie. And as for Ford, and how tuff
their components are, the Ford rears are legendary.
White Tornado
What you do with 3:55s, a full exhaust, and a K&N filter a DSM can do
with a $10 bleeder valve.
You gotta hate that.
Plus they aren't afraid of inclimate weather or altitude.
>All hail the new Messiah.....What next White ? Will you turn water
>into BP 93 octane ? Just maybe you will take a quart of Castrol
>Syntec and fill the oil pans of five thousand DSMs. Who knows what
>unspeakable wonders will unfold before our very monitors.
>
>
>
>
>Michael Dyke
>
>65 Fastback 302/C4
>90 LX 5.0 GT40 5.0, E303 cam, T5, 3.73, etc...
>91 GT wife's Stock 5.0, K&N, AOD w/Bauman kit, 3.73
>
>http://www.planetc.com/users/dykemw
>
Tom Stangl
White Tornado wrote:
>
> Dave the accepted launch point for a Talon with a Centerforce clutch
> is 4,500rpm. The stocker won't take that kind of abuse. I've beaten
> many a mustang with the stock clutch and 3,000 rpm launches. Since
> the Talons valves don't float until after 8,000rpm this is hardly
> revving until the pistons come out of the block.
My stock clutch in my 90 stood up to 80K miles and 200+ strip launches,
with 150+ in the 13s, launching at 6K, no slipping. So not ALL stock
clutches can't handle high rpm launches.
Oh, and I didn't BREAK the stock clutch, I just purely wore it out - it was
going through the rivets when I pulled it, and still clamped fine up to
15psi of boost.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp |
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer |
Tom Stangl
> White Tornado wrote:
> >
> > Oh bullshit. The transmissions are bulletproof, the clutch sucks, and
> > the only part that breaks once you get into the low 11s high 10s is
> > the center diff. Put that into perspective, how many cars running in
> > the low 11s or 10s are running their stock drivetrains?
>
> more in the 11s. Hell, people don't even take notice of Mustangs going
> that slow. Your Mustang has to be in the 9s to get the same respect as
> an 11-second DSM.
True there, but we are handicapped by numbers - not enough of the cars
around to have tens of thousands at the track, so parts are developed
slower. Although they have been around for 7 years, developmentally we are
at about the same stage as the first 18 months or so of 5.0s - just not
enough vendors out there, so many of the parts are still being hand-built
by the owners. Nothing wrong with that (I like it, I'm CHEAP), but it is
SLOW.
BTW, there are TWO in the 10s now ;-) Yeah, I know, not a lot, but it's
TWICE what you said. Hehehe. And there are more and more approaching the
11s. We're working on it.
Our cars are more STREETABLE 11 sec cars. But I like BOTH. I still want
to buy a replacement 71 convertible, drop a 351 Cleavor in it, and dual
turbo it - now THAT will be an interestingly fast tank!
Tom Stangl
David Goodhue wrote:
>
> will run 12's. Ofcourse to runs 12's or even 13's more than a couple of
> times you need to replace the Clutch, transmission, transfer case, front
> differential, rear differentail ect.. These car eat drivetrain parts.
> But initailly to get in the 12's, they are pretty damn cheap.
I agreed with you on everything except this part. SOME of them start
eating drivetrain parts. I wore out my clutch with sheer mileage, and 200+
launches. That stocker took me into the 12s. I HAVE replaced the rear
diff, but not from breakage, but because I am shooting for 11s next, and
had it laying around (on the wife's DSM, which will never hit the track).
My tranny and transfer case are holding up fine, and contrary to most
people's, my tranny shifts smooooooth.
So you can't generalize ALL of them, just like I don't generalize Mustangs
as slow American rustbuckets with paper trannies. (Hey, after owning SIX
classics in the snow belt, I KNOW what rust is!). Because they aren't slow
(compared to the bulk of hte cars on the road), and they don't have paper
trannies (though past 300hp MANY of them are marginal).
At least you guys HAVE aftermarket trannies to buy ;-)
Tom Stangl
Oh, that's pure BS. You can run 18psi on a DSM on pump gas with a better
fuel pump, and 16-18 with the stock pump. And 16 gives you a LARGE
advantage over a 96 GT Stang.
And you can run 18psi ALL the time on the street. Hell, I run 18 on 92
octane with a larger 20G turbo, simply by putting a higher flow pump, but
that's beside the point. Stockers can run higher boost quite safely. But
a REAL boost gauge is necessary - the stock one is not a true boost-tap ga
- it calculates boost, and that SUCKS once you change airflow (just like a
speed density Stang system can go to crap quickly with airflow changes).
Steven Suttle wrote:
>
> No, but you might come close to blowing it up!
>
> David Lyons <lyo...@mindspring.org> wrote in article
> <343D2E...@mindspring.org>...
> > White Tornado wrote:
> > >
> > > Give me 10 minutes with your dad's car and a fish tank valve and your
> > > Mustang won't come close to beating it.
> >
> >
> BWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH
> AAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAHAHAHA!!!!
> >
> > --
> > David Lyons
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.ba.dsm.org/
***Bay Area DSM Homepage
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
Michael W. Dyke
On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 13:04:03 GMT, nos...@spamco.com (White Tornado)
wrote:
>Give me 10 minutes with your dad's car and a fish tank valve and your
>Mustang won't come close to beating it.
>
All hail the new Messiah.....What next White ? Will you turn water
Tom Stangl
David Lyons wrote:
>
> White Tornado wrote:
> >
> > Give me 10 minutes with your dad's car and a fish tank valve and your
> > Mustang won't come close to beating it.
>
While I don't agree with White's trolling tactics, you obviously don't konw
ANYTHING about DSMs, do you? I don't know of a stock 96 Stang (note he did
NOT say Saleen or Cobra) that will do 14 flat in the 1/4. A first gen AWD
DSM with a bleeder WILL. It's all about boost. And it will do that, or
damn near it, on 93 pump gas. Push it to 100 octane avgas, and you are
talking high/mid 13s.
Heck, just ask any 5.0 owner that has a turbo kit on his car what a
difference a few psi can make.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp |
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer |
Ex-classic Stang owner (I want my 71 convertible back!!!)
Tom Stangl
ExtremeSVO wrote:
>
> >I was stopped at a light with my friend next to me in his
> >'96 Eagle Talon Turbo (beautiful car I must admit). I turned
> >my head and saw that hungry look in his eye like he wanted to
> >race. At first I laughed to myself, thinking how could a
> >cheesy four cylinder take 302 cubic inches of mean muscle?
> >But then the light turned green and apparently I had under-
> >estimated the balls this car had - he fucking wasted me by at
> >least 2 car lengths off the line, and I have 3:73's too!
> >I have a 90 LX Sedan 5.0 with several mods, and have wasted
> >plenty of Z28's, other stangs, and an M3 once, so I know my
> >'Stang is running up to potential.
> >
> >
>
> Flowmasters. I don;t beat them by much but enought to call it a win!
All it takes is .01" to call it a win ;-)
In all seriousness, you must be racing PURE stock cars, or bad drivers, as
they have the same hp as an SVO (MORE than the early SVOs), and have AWD
for a KILLER launch. Of course, YOU among the Stang owners here KNOW how
easy it is to hop up a turbo motor, and if you DON'T, then GET CRACKIN!
You can push that SVO to 250hp+ easily enough ;-)
Travis Reid
White Tornado wrote:
>
> Give me 10 minutes with your dad's car and a fish tank valve and your
> Mustang won't come close to beating it.
>
> >My dad has a Talon TSi with the all wheel drive. It is a quick car and it
> >launches pretty good because of the AWD- no wheel spin. BUT he has never
> >beaten my mildly tweaked 96 Mustang GT. If I manage to get traction - I
> >can pull away pretty easy. One time, I spun the tires, had to backpedal,
> >hit the gas again. I still caught and passed him without too much problem.
> >P.S. His Talon is a lot of fun to drive. It is slower than my Mustang but
> >it will stick through a corner with the best of them.
> >
>
> http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Foghorn_Leghorn/ltfl_026.wav
Don't forget the gum wrapper and paper clip. My god your a loser.
--
Travis Reid 96 GT Laser Red
Please remove the word "DON'TSPAMME!" from my e-mail address
Check out my Mustang shrine http://pw2.netcom.com/~treid1/index.htm
Travis Reid
> | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp |
> | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer |
Your sig makes no sense. Why advertise your company and then say
"Please do not associate my personal views with my employer?" I don't
get it.
W95
Found this is my inbox a couple days ago.....
I consider it an unbiased account of a DSM vs. Cobra rivalry:
> Subject: Laser vs. Cobra
> Hi Sheldon.
> Don't know if I mentioned this before, but a friend of Tom's (Craig)
> has a '96 Mustang Cobra Convertible. 4.6L DOHC, 305 HP. To this he's
> added: Dual 3" exhaust, air intake mods, larger throttle body, lower
> gearing. Maybe 330 hp. I met him at Tom's B-day party, and he was
> talking about this FWD Laser he raced earlier this year, and it
> turned out I know the guy who owns the Laser (Kevin). Kevin's car has
> the typical mods: Exhaust, cut air can, removed intake silencer,
> anti-fuel cut mods, upgraded fuel pump (allows higher boost),
> upgraded upper i/c tubing, higher boost.
> So Craig was saying how Kevin beat him, but it was close, and they
> kept up, and he had 3 passengers, and, etc. Just typical
> at-a-party-car-BS. I didn't think much of it. Craig's a good guy,
> and it was obvious to me he wasn't putting down Kevin's car. In fact
> he said that race was one reason he started putting the mods on the
> Cobra. But Kevin was pretty incensed, because he said he (Kevin) beat
> Craig from a roll not just once but 3 or 4 times (I can't remember),
> and that Craig should admit to loosing. So a rematch was required. :)
> Details:
> - Oct 6, 10:00, Nosehill and Crowchild.
> - Race from 70 to 160 or less if there was a clear winner. The race
> was from 70 because Kevin's been busting cv-shafts (axle - 3 in 2
> months), and he didn't want to risk another one.
> - Winner gets bragging rights, and Kevin will kick in $20 if he
> loses. In other words friendly/fun race.
> So last night, I arrive at the Esso, Kevin and his tow crew
> (cv-shaft remember? ;) show up a little later, and finally we track
> down Craig (who actually arrived earlier than both of us, but didn't
> know we were meeting at the Esso). We drive down crowchild checking
> for traffic, cops, and other obstacles. No problems.
> The racers line up next to each other. Speed ~70. Kevin brake stands
> to bring up the boost. Craig's exhaust note indicates 2nd. And
> they're off!
> Kevin's car starts weaving as 18+ psi of torque steer takes over.
> Craig's car twitchs as the 295's try to find some grip on the cold
> road. They're staying pretty even. Craig shifts to third. Don't know
> if he hit his limiter, or backfired on the shift because there is a
> miss in the exhaust note. But then the power is back on. Still
> pretty even. A plume of exhaust smoke indicates Kevin has made his
> shift. The Laser starts pulling away!
> Craig finally lets off. The Laser is probably a couple car lengths
> ahead (hard to tell, I was following behind). Kevin stays on it a
> bit longer then changes into Craig's lane, just to rub his nose in
> it. ;)
> Score one for the DSMs! Craig was a good sport about it, though.
> However, "Vortech" (a brand of supercharger) was mentioned more than
> once after the race. Do I foresee a rematch '98? :)
> l8r,
> C
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hey friends,
> I found this kinda interesting. I guess you could say it was an unbiased
> view of what happened that night. Just wanted to clarify a 'couple of
> things from my point.
> The race actually started closer to 60km/h (37mph) when we had at 'er.
> The race ended AFTER I had cut in front of Craig. This was at about 200
> km/h (124 mph), because I had just shifted into 5th gear (my 4th gear
> redlines at 218km/h [135mph]). When I cut in front of Craig, there was
> more than enough room to make a safe lane change (ie. probably closer to 4
> car lengths between us). At that point, I tapped my brakes gently to let
> him know that I was letting up. Finally, I should say that our race was
> done as safe as a race could have been done. We took it out on the
> highway, and made sure that there were no cars (and cops!) around at the
> time.
> I was a little surprised at how close it was. I really thought that I was
> gonna blow this guys doors off. Funny, 'cause I should be the underdog.
> For those of you that don't already know, my car has less than 1/2 the
> displacement (2.0l [122ciu] vs 4.6l [281ciu]), and 1/2 the cylinders (4cyl
> vs 8cyl), as compared to that Mustang. Factory HP ratings are 195hp for
> my car, and 305hp for his car. What I'm trying to get across, is that you
> don't hafta have a lot of displacement and lotsa cylinders to go fast
> nowadays. It's amazing what a little bit of boost (okay, A LOT of boost)
> combined with less weight, can do for a car. I'm not trying to
> take anything away from Craig or his car. He's a good sport, not to
> mention that his car is 6 years newer than my car and it's also much nicer
> (did I mention that it is more expensive too?).
> Talk to ya'll later!
>
David Lyons
Tom Stangl wrote:
>
> While I don't agree with White's trolling tactics, you obviously don't
> konw ANYTHING about DSMs, do you? I don't know of a stock 96 Stang
> (note he did NOT say Saleen or Cobra) that will do 14 flat in the 1/4.
> A first gen AWD DSM with a bleeder WILL. It's all about boost. And
> it will do that, or damn near it, on 93 pump gas. Push it to 100
> octane avgas, and you are talking high/mid 13s.
>
> Heck, just ask any 5.0 owner that has a turbo kit on his car what a
> difference a few psi can make.
I happen to be good friends with Jim Riskovsky, owner of Turbo
Connection (http://g50mc.org/turbo5.0). He's taken me for rides in a
couple turbo-charged 302 Mustangs. The first was a customer's car that
was stock with just a basic turbo kit added. It was incredible. You'd
never know this was anything other than a stock Mustang until you hit
the gas. It'd run high 11s or low 12s.
Then there was his personal car that he took me for a ride in. A
completely street legal street car, equipped with full emission
equipment and air condiditioning and runs 9 second ETs in the 1/4-mile.
Unlike the previous car, you can tell this car is not stock. It had a
nice lopey idle to it and it was equipped with a roll cage. The
acceleration is undescribable, and he only gave me a 1/3-full throttle
sample. Turbos are awesome.
Today I pick up my '87 GN.
Steven Suttle
I would not matter if you "looked" under the hood. A turbo car is very
easy to make more powerful. Just get the turbo to cram even more air and
fuel into the engine. In 1985 I would race my dads T-bird turbo and
sometimes beat Mustangs. All I did was bypass the boost regulator. I
removed and looped a vacuum line. I don't know how much power it made, but
when the needle hit 18lbs of boost, that thing would move. It had to be
making over 200 hp. A stock one was rated at 155 hp that year. A Talon is
intercooled too, so upping the boost would have an even more dramatic
effect. It is also harder on the engine and I am sure eventually your
friend will find this out!
J. Christian <jchr...@eden.rutgers.edu> wrote in article
<61gsq6$5...@er3.rutgers.edu>...
> I was stopped at a light with my friend next to me in his
> '96 Eagle Talon Turbo (beautiful car I must admit). I turned
> my head and saw that hungry look in his eye like he wanted to
> race. At first I laughed to myself, thinking how could a
> cheesy four cylinder take 302 cubic inches of mean muscle?
> But then the light turned green and apparently I had under-
> estimated the balls this car had - he fucking wasted me by at
> least 2 car lengths off the line, and I have 3:73's too!
> I have a 90 LX Sedan 5.0 with several mods, and have wasted
> plenty of Z28's, other stangs, and an M3 once, so I know my
> 'Stang is running up to potential.
>
Jim Stoltz
Steve wrote:
>
> David Lyons wrote:
>
> > White Tornado wrote:
> > >
> > > Give me 10 minutes with your dad's car and a fish tank valve and your
> > > Mustang won't come close to beating it.
> >
> >
>
> If you think he's joking go to www.dsm.orgHigh 10's are possible w/o juice in a 4banger!!!!
They're "possible" with a Mustang, too.
On 10/4, I had the misfortune of going to Englishtown for the HTP race,
which turned out to be Import Day, too. I saw DSM after DSM run, over
and over again - the "4 cyl power adder" class. The vast majority were
in the low 14s/high 13s. There were a couple in the low-13s, and one in
the mid 12s. OTOH, 13 second 5.0s are a dime a dozen, I saw at least a
dozen at Englishtown that day.
So, while it's "possible" to make them go fast, the vast majority just
aren't. Yeah, you might get surprised by one here and there, but that's
what makes this car-thing fun!
Jim
--
1988 Mustang GT Convertible - Powerdyne Supercharged
1970 Monte Carlo - "402 big block", Muncie M20, 12-bolt
http://home.att.net/~jstoltz
White Tornado
Hey Travis, have you busted out of the low 15s yet?
>You still amaze me Tomato boy. You have to always be right don't you.
>You would probably argue with an old lady over which adult diapers are
>best. Get a life.
>--
>Travis Reid 96 GT Laser Red
>Please remove the word "DON'TSPAMME!" from my e-mail address
>Check out my Mustang shrine http://pw2.netcom.com/~treid1/index.htm
White Tornado
Jim, I just got off of your home page and it looks like you are
correct. According to your timeslips you are right there in that dime
a doz bunch. Of course you had to bolt a supercharger on to get
there.
The DSM running mid 13s (ho hum) are running with little more than
exhaust mods and a cut air can. Oh yeah, with less than 1/2 the
displacement.
>On 10/4, I had the misfortune of going to Englishtown for the HTP race,
>which turned out to be Import Day, too. I saw DSM after DSM run, over
>and over again - the "4 cyl power adder" class. The vast majority were
>in the low 14s/high 13s. There were a couple in the low-13s, and one in
>the mid 12s. OTOH, 13 second 5.0s are a dime a dozen, I saw at least a
>dozen at Englishtown that day.
>
>So, while it's "possible" to make them go fast, the vast majority just
>aren't. Yeah, you might get surprised by one here and there, but that's
>what makes this car-thing fun!
>
>Jim
>--
>1988 Mustang GT Convertible - Powerdyne Supercharged
>1970 Monte Carlo - "402 big block", Muncie M20, 12-bolt
>http://home.att.net/~jstoltz
Jim Stoltz
White Tornado wrote:
>
> Jim, I just got off of your home page and it looks like you are
> correct. According to your timeslips you are right there in that dime
> a doz bunch. Of course you had to bolt a supercharger on to get
> there.
Yeah, but my car also weighs 3700#s - not the "average" stang.
Plus, at 107 MPH, I could be in the mid-12s, but as you pointed
out the Mustang's weak point is in the suspension whereas the
quick DSMs have AWD and can easily put all (or most) of their
power to the ground. And...the blower is only 9#s, with the
18#s of boost the DSMs are running, I could probably run a 10
second 1/4 - once. Then I'd gather up my engine parts and go
home. The DSMs were built for turbos, and thus can probably
withstand elevated boost levels more so than the 5.0s, which
were designed to be naturally aspirated.
>
> The DSM running mid 13s (ho hum) are running with little more than
> exhaust mods and a cut air can. Oh yeah, with less than 1/2 the
> displacement.
And a lot less weight. There weren't many with very impressive MPHs,
the mid-13 ones were in the low 100s - which goes to show you the
traction advantage they have. They aren't making gobs of power, but
they can put it to the ground - which is all that matters at the
stop light.
I'm not going to get sucked in to this silly debate, as I could
care less whether a DSM, Camaro, or Yugo can beat me. I bought
my Mustang because it has a combination of things that I personally
like. I find nothing appealing about a DSM, otherwise I'd own one.
I'm just reporting what I saw at the track, that's all. Most of
them are in the low-14s or high-13s. Regardless of how cheaply or
easily they got there, they're just not my cup-o-tea.
White Tornado
Exactly, it's not my fault you chose a design that doesn't allow you
to put 100% of your horsepower to the ground.
>Now you're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about 2 totally
>different cars with 2 totally different engine/drivetrain
>configurations.
Steve Basile
"Steven Suttle" <sut...@gte.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>A Talon is
>>intercooled too, so upping the boost would have an even more dramatic
>>effect. It is also harder on the engine and I am sure eventually your
>>friend will find this out!
DSMs easily get 120,000 miles + on the Mitsu motor and run strong. If
they're taken care of, they go forever, even with all that boost.
White Tornado
The my stock clutch stopped holding after the Buscher 2.5" system was
installed. Too much horsepower. Of course thats after 82k miles and
thousands of miles of boat towing.
Yet another cool thing about these cars. I towed my MasterCraft 190
three times a week with the DSM and pulled it up launch ramps that
were so mossed over you couldn't walk across them. The only way you'd
get that boat up some of those ramps with a Mustang is with the
assistance of a winch, or some helpful DSM owner and a chain.
>My stock clutch in my 90 stood up to 80K miles and 200+ strip launches,
>with 150+ in the 13s, launching at 6K, no slipping. So not ALL stock
>clutches can't handle high rpm launches.
>
>Oh, and I didn't BREAK the stock clutch, I just purely wore it out - it was
>going through the rivets when I pulled it, and still clamped fine up to
>15psi of boost.
>
>--
>| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp |
>| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer |
Gary Henderson
>I'm not going to get sucked in to this silly debate, as I could
>care less whether a DSM, Camaro, or Yugo can beat me. I bought
>my Mustang because it has a combination of things that I personally
>like. I find nothing appealing about a DSM, otherwise I'd own one.
>I'm just reporting what I saw at the track, that's all. Most of
>them are in the low-14s or high-13s. Regardless of how cheaply or
>easily they got there, they're just not my cup-o-tea.
My thoughts exactly. I have no problems with DSMs, but they just
aren't my kind of car. I don't see a DSM and think, "Wow, thats a
nice car" or "Wow, I wish I had that car," the way I would about a
nice Mustang, FBody, M3 etc. I also don't understand why some of
these DSM guys hang around the pony car NGs. I have no desire to go
read about DSMs, nothing against them, I just don't care about them.
As for the DSMs making power, I see plenty of low 13 second DSMs
running at 99-100 mph. My traction is fine because of the BFG drags,
and I only finish a couple of MPH slower then they do. When you
consider my car weighs quite a bit more, and they are running 5 speed,
I'd say the actually power produced is about the same. People have
these ideas that these DSM are putting out so much horsepower, and its
not true as you pointed out. 300 horsepower would put a DSM to about
12.8.
David Goodhue
Smokin (nos...@spam.net) wrote:
: > I toyed with the idea of getting one for a winter beater, but the
: > AWD versions are a bit too expensive for that.
: >
: > Chris
: >
: You can get a 90-91 AWD for $5K or less - possibly pre-modded if you talk
: to the right people. I've seen some under $2K (some assembly
required...
My friend bought a 90 Eclipse GSX for 6K last year, it also need tires.
He ended up spending 6500 in one week.. All the cheapy AWD were recovered
thefts, need drivetrain work, or were in bad shape.
Dave
86 Vette Conv.
David Goodhue
Travis Reid (tre...@ix.DON'TSPAMME!netcom.com) wrote:
: White Tornado wrote:
: >
: > This is just not true. 12s are easily attainable and repeatable on
: > the stock drivetrain with a proper clutch. The clutch is key, one
: > that is strong enough to not slip while being soft enough to absorb
: > the shock of shifting. The Centerforce seems to be the ideal mix.
: >
: > Further, compare the weak ass transmission in the Mustang Cobra. The
: > 'project Cobra' a stocker with slicks on it ran a good for stock 13.5
: > in the 1/4 however it lost 4th gear during testing. The DSMs aren't
: > having driveline problems unless they are running well into the 11s or
: > they are foolishly using a metallic clutch.
Maybe my friend car is a fluke but he has blown he center differentail,
tranny, an dclutch in one season of street racing, two trips to the drag
strip. He has a $600 exhuast, $35 and the usual small stuff. he runs
mid to high 13's with his car. The other funny thing is that unless my
friend and I race off the line (high rpm luanch) my Vette which runs the
same 1/4 time whips his car.
Dave
86 Vette Conv.
White Tornado 1
I think I like to hang out here just to correct your uninformed
statements. For example;
The 97 Mustang 4.6 weighs 3288lbs, the AWD Talon weighs 3142lbs, not a
large difference, only 146lbs.
Using the ET method of horsepower calculation a 13.5 sec E/T in the
Mustang would require 264hp and the slightly lighter Talon would
require 252. A 12hp difference.
Get your facts straight before you post bullshit.
See: http://www.edmunds.com for references.
Your Pal,
WT!
>As for the DSMs making power, I see plenty of low 13 second DSMs
>running at 99-100 mph. My traction is fine because of the BFG drags,
>and I only finish a couple of MPH slower then they do. When you
>consider my car weighs quite a bit more, and they are running 5 speed,
>I'd say the actually power produced is about the same. People have
>these ideas that these DSM are putting out so much horsepower, and its
>not true as you pointed out. 300 horsepower would put a DSM to about
>12.8.
White Tornado 1
You know I've always wondered something, why to people live in Ohio?
It's not the mid-West, it's not the North-East and the during the
winter the sun doesn't shine for weeks on end. I mean Boston is
colder than a witches tit, but at least the sea breezes keep the
clouds at bay. Fucking Ohio though...
I am convinced that most serial killers can be traced back to Ohio
roots. Look at it this way, sun hasn't peeked out for five weeks,
there is nothing on cable, the Stang is makes really cool engine
noises but with all the snow on the ground it's isn't real fun to
drive, and thoughts turn to sodomy and whatever else...
One thing that I have noticed is that Ohio women bring some of the
finest blow-job skills to the table. Seriously, so that is at least
one consolation for living amongst frozen-over barren cornfields.
Assuming one can get a woman.
>Your sig makes no sense. Why advertise your company and then say
>"Please do not associate my personal views with my employer?" I don't
>get it.
Dan Sorochan
I just traded my 90 Talon AWD for a 97 Cobra. If you revved the Talon
to about 5000 rpm and dumped the clutch it would snap your head back. I
didn't do it to often, awfully hard on the drivetrain I think. With a
good start I'm sure it could take my Cobra across an intersection.
Dan Sorochan
ATL Computer Services
In article <343DBA7A...@vfaq.com>, tal...@vfaq.com wrote:
>Travis, bud, get a clue. Read up on the competition before you spout junk
>like this. DSMs have TURBOS. TURBOS give more hp the more boost you get
>out of them (you know, more air + more fuel = more power?). A bleeder
>valve gets you more BOOST, which is more AIR, which is more HP.
>
>Don't knock something you obviously know NOTHING about.
Hey Tom,
Sean Glazar ran a 10.82@130 tonight.
ATL Computer Services
In article <61kbit$gkj$3...@gte2.gte.net>, "Steven Suttle" <sut...@gte.net> wrote:
>No, but you might come close to blowing it up!
>
>David Lyons <lyo...@mindspring.org> wrote in article
><343D2E...@mindspring.org>...
>> >
>> > Give me 10 minutes with your dad's car and a fish tank valve and your
>> > Mustang won't come close to beating it.
Blowing it up? I hardly think so. Even with my stock turbo I am running
16psi right now. Not bad considering stock psi is only 11.5. To top it off,
I don't even have a bleeder valve, just a upgraded IC pipe and blow off valve.
I'd have to turn the thing to 22 psi before the engine would go boom, but
anything over 17 on the stock turbo is a waste anyway.
To bad they won't let us drag race in the rain....
Tom Stangl
Gary Henderson wrote:
>
> I'd say the actually power produced is about the same. People have
> these ideas that these DSM are putting out so much horsepower, and its
> not true as you pointed out. 300 horsepower would put a DSM to about
> 12.8.
Actually, it takes a little more hp than that, but not much more.....for an
AWD. I am running 12.8s (maybe faster next Fri, new ECU code to test). If
I had a FWD with 300hp, I'd be lucky to hit mid 13s - same traction prob
that Stangs have.
Oh, and some of us hang around here because we OWN/owned Mustangs ;-) Or
we just like to talk CARS. I enjoy troubleshooting, and help out
regardless of the car make.
Tom Stangl
David Lyons wrote:
>
> Tom Stangl wrote:
> >
> > While I don't agree with White's trolling tactics, you obviously don't
> > konw ANYTHING about DSMs, do you? I don't know of a stock 96 Stang
> > (note he did NOT say Saleen or Cobra) that will do 14 flat in the 1/4.
> > A first gen AWD DSM with a bleeder WILL. It's all about boost. And
> > it will do that, or damn near it, on 93 pump gas. Push it to 100
> > octane avgas, and you are talking high/mid 13s.
> >
> > Heck, just ask any 5.0 owner that has a turbo kit on his car what a
> > difference a few psi can make.
>
> I happen to be good friends with Jim Riskovsky, owner of Turbo
> Connection (http://g50mc.org/turbo5.0).
> sample. Turbos are awesome.
...
Then why did you have trouble believing the fish-tank valve from White? Or
is it JUST White you are screwing with? ;-) Aquarium valves, if they are
the right ones, make decent bleeders.
Gary Henderson
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:15:06 GMT, nos...@spamco.com (White Tornado 1)
wrote:
>I think I like to hang out here just to correct your uninformed
>statements. For example;
All you did was misunderstand my message, then try to correct
something that didn't need correcting. Nice job!
>The 97 Mustang 4.6 weighs 3288lbs, the AWD Talon weighs 3142lbs, not a
>large difference, only 146lbs.
First off, I don't have a Mustang. I have a Firebird. My car weighs
about 3400lbs which is about 258 more lbs then a Talon AWD.
>Using the ET method of horsepower calculation a 13.5 sec E/T in the
>Mustang would require 264hp and the slightly lighter Talon would
>require 252. A 12hp difference.
You can't use an equation like that. The automatic (which my car is)
sucks up more power then a 5 speed does, thats a fact. Gearing also
comes into play. My car has 3.23 gears, what do the DSMs have?
Something like 3.80 I would imagine.
>Get your facts straight before you post bullshit.
Bullshit? Look who is full of shit now you fool.
>>As for the DSMs making power, I see plenty of low 13 second DSMs
>>running at 99-100 mph. My traction is fine because of the BFG drags,
>>and I only finish a couple of MPH slower then they do. When you
>>consider my car weighs quite a bit more, and they are running 5 speed,
Tom Stangl
Jim Stoltz wrote:
>
> I'm not going to get sucked in to this silly debate, as I could
> care less whether a DSM, Camaro, or Yugo can beat me. I bought
> my Mustang because it has a combination of things that I personally
> like. I find nothing appealing about a DSM, otherwise I'd own one.
> I'm just reporting what I saw at the track, that's all. Most of
> them are in the low-14s or high-13s. Regardless of how cheaply or
> easily they got there, they're just not my cup-o-tea.
And I perfectly agree with this attitude, and defend your right to have it
;-) I am TOTALLY sold on DSMs - own 2, have plans for 2 more once I buy a
house and have the room to park them all.
BUUUUUT, I also want to replace my 71 convertible I sold when I moved
cross-country. DANG I miss that Stang, even if it WAS a 250 straight six.
That 6 had more torque than a 5.0 stock, and with dual exhaust and an
electronic ignition (stripped from a junkyard 80s Fairmont or something),
it was pretty fast.....especially once I cracked the valve on the blue
bottle in the trunk >:-)
David Lyons
Tom Stangl wrote:
>
> Then why did you have trouble believing the fish-tank valve from
> White? Or is it JUST White you are screwing with? ;-) Aquarium
> valves, if they are the right ones, make decent bleeders.
Yep. Just having fun with the boy. He likes to boast about how he
trolls *us* when in fact the tables are turned on him. Who is *really*
being trolled?
Tom Stangl
Travis Reid wrote:
>
> You still amaze me Tomato boy. You have to always be right don't you.
> You would probably argue with an old lady over which adult diapers are
> best. Get a life.
Travis,
All you do with useless posts like this is prove you are more of a troller
than White. At least White replies with some factual info - all you do is
slap some smartass (more like dumbass) comment at the end. Try
CONTRIBUTING, instead of heckling.
Oh, and so I don't fall into my own trap - some useful info for new guys
that don't know about it. The new Walbro GSS307 pumps ROCK, for BOTH
Mustangs and DSMs. Noisy, but I may remount it today and take care of most
of that noise.
Tom Stangl
Travis Reid wrote:
>
> > --
> > | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp |
>
> Your sig makes no sense. Why advertise your company and then say
> "Please do not associate my personal views with my employer?" I don't
> get it.
Uh, that's called a DISCLAIMER - to cover my COMPANY'S butt, not mine.
Besides, NO company would have the personal views of ALL of it's employees,
unless of course it employed ONE person. It's my standard sig at work.
LA1127
Did you spin of the line(learn how to drive)if you did'nt spin learn how to
drive.
Adam S. Bruce
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:55:14 GMT, ga...@superlink.net (Gary Henderson)
wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:24:48 -0400, Jim Stoltz
><jst...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not going to get sucked in to this silly debate, as I could
>>care less whether a DSM, Camaro, or Yugo can beat me. I bought
>>my Mustang because it has a combination of things that I personally
>>like.
THANK YOU! You worded that perfectly. Everyone bought their car
because it had the right combination of factors for them. I've been a
Ford-Guy for a Long time and preffer to hang out with Ford-Guys at the
track. When it came time for me to buy a Daily-beater weekend-warrior
car, I preffered the Firebird over the Mustang. I know I could have
saved some cash, bought an LX and thrown on a SC, but I didn't want
another stang. I wish more people could see through the blinding
brand-loyalty Bullshit, and give respect to other peoples cars. It's
slower? so What, maybe it handles better?, maybe it has a great
stereo?, whatever, the point is that the person who owns it probably
loves it and wouldn't swap cars with you for the world, and I think
that a person that can see that and respect it, is a bigger person for
it.
-Adam Bruce
--
'91 Formula 350 (drag car)
'67 Mustang (show car)
Gary Henderson
>THANK YOU! You worded that perfectly. Everyone bought their car
>because it had the right combination of factors for them. I've been a
>Ford-Guy for a Long time and preffer to hang out with Ford-Guys at the
>track. When it came time for me to buy a Daily-beater weekend-warrior
>car, I preffered the Firebird over the Mustang. I know I could have
>saved some cash, bought an LX and thrown on a SC, but I didn't want
>another stang. I wish more people could see through the blinding
>brand-loyalty Bullshit, and give respect to other peoples cars. It's
>slower? so What, maybe it handles better?, maybe it has a great
>stereo?, whatever, the point is that the person who owns it probably
>loves it and wouldn't swap cars with you for the world, and I think
>that a person that can see that and respect it, is a bigger person for
>it.
I agree totally! People like to come onto different NGs and stir
things up and its just stupid. No one is going to make me dislike my
Formula, or make someone else dislike their 5.0 or Cobra or whatever
just by pointing out its shortcomings. I know my cars weak points,
I'm sure every else knows what needs improving on their cars too. The
funny thing is I really doubt any of these people would have any balls
to say any of the 'Cobras Suck, FBodies suck...etc' to anyone's face
at the track.
David Lyons
Gary Henderson wrote:
>
> I agree totally! People like to come onto different NGs and stir
> things up and its just stupid. No one is going to make me dislike my
> Formula, or make someone else dislike their 5.0 or Cobra or whatever
> just by pointing out its shortcomings. I know my cars weak points,
> I'm sure every else knows what needs improving on their cars too. The
> funny thing is I really doubt any of these people would have any balls
> to say any of the 'Cobras Suck, FBodies suck...etc' to anyone's face
> at the track.
MEND II will separate the men from the boys, right Gary? Here's who
*won't* show: White Tornado, MBarth, XSATANAX, and practically ever
other bench racer on the two newsgroups.
David Goodhue
Tom Stangl (tal...@vfaq.com) wrote:
: Gary Henderson wrote:
: >
: > I'd say the actually power produced is about the same. People have
: > these ideas that these DSM are putting out so much horsepower, and its
: > not true as you pointed out. 300 horsepower would put a DSM to about
: > 12.8.
: Actually, it takes a little more hp than that, but not much more.....for an
: AWD. I am running 12.8s (maybe faster next Fri, new ECU code to test). If
: I had a FWD with 300hp, I'd be lucky to hit mid 13s - same traction prob
: that Stangs have.
What type of MPH are you running. My friend ~3750lb GN runs 12.8@102.5
MPH. He only has about 315 Hp. MY Vette weights 3410 and it runs
100MPH trap speed with about 270HP. I don't know how much a DSM weights
but I bet you probaly could run high 12's with less than 300 Hp, becuase
of there great traction.
Dave
86 Vette Conv.
Johnn Audritsh
If the DSM design is that good, why is Chrysler dropping the Eagle
line?
White Tornado wrote in message <343e09da...@news2.ibm.net>...
Brad
Johnn Audritsh wrote:
>
> If the DSM design is that good, why is Chrysler dropping the Eagle
> line?
Poor marketing comes to mind. Do you remember seeing many Talon
commercials or ads? I've seen a number of Eclipse ones, and that's what
people buy, even though the cars are built at the same plant. Along
with that, while the 95 body restyle was considered good to many people,
the accompanying price increase (and smaller turbo) didn't seem to go as
well.
Some new car shoppers have mentioned going to an Eagle dealer and asking
about the Talon in the back of the lot and having the salesperson wonder
exactly what it is or what it has. The best line I've heard yet is when
someone went for a test drive and asked the salesperson what the button
on the dash with the snowflake on it did. The salesperson responded,
"That engages the AWD. See how smooth it engages when you press the
button? You can't even tell it did anything." (That button turns on
the air conditioning.)
CoupeFive0
>What you do with 3:55s, a full exhaust, and a K&N filter a DSM can do
>with a $10 bleeder valve.
>
>You gotta hate that.
>
>Plus they aren't afraid of inclimate weather or altitude.
No, they are just afraid of blowing ther transaxle parts all over the staging
lane and embarrassing themselves by shutting down the lane for 15 minutes to
clean up the mess. : ()
Mike
91 Coupe
12.6@108 (norm asp)
TFS/Crower
CoupeFive0
>Oh bullshit. The transmissions are bulletproof, the clutch sucks, and
>the only part that breaks once you get into the low 11s high 10s is
>the center diff. Put that into perspective, how many cars running in
>the low 11s or 10s are running their stock drivetrains?
White,
Don't you even visit your local DSM circle jerk group. Even adamant DSM
supporters know the stock drivetrain cannot hold up to abuse. Sure any idiot
on any given day can run a DSM without breaking, but it is common knowledge
the DSM's break drivetrain parts. Bulletproof? Do you understand that term?
You obviously aren't a serious racer.
CoupeFive0
>Nor will any but the most modded slick wearing Mustangs have to deal
>with the torque demands of a 1.5 - 1.7 sec 0-60', for that reason
>alone the DSM drivetrain has to be made of stouter stuff.
>
>
"Has to be"...as in "I hope it is"......or "well, it should be". Please, don't
think for a minute the DSM drivetrains are anything special. As I said in my
last post, go read one of your DSM rags, there a plenty of articles on how to
deal with broken drivetrains. (re-build it...again, psycho-therapy, selling
that DSM, etc)
CoupeFive0
>Our cars are more STREETABLE
This is in reference to DSM's vs late model mustangs I suppose? Hold on while I
think of a
response....HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....ok...HAHAHA...o
k...uhhh humm...sorry. Whitey boy, you know your complete ignorance is now
showing. You talk of thousands of modded 5.0 everywhere. Well hate to tell
you but my cars handles better than it did new, has full power everything,
runs sway bars and radials, cd player, a/c, and ran low 12's without the
S-trim, and high 10's with. Idles great, no flat spots, and good mileage (if I
can keep my foot out of it). Skinnies? Looking funny? The only thing that
looks funny are the DSM wannabees at the drag strip. Oh boy, 2 whole cars in
the 10's. When you can show me 8 and 9 second DSMs (more than 2) , or hundreds
of 12 second daily drivers, I will consider the DSM more than a wannabee
racer. I am sorry you bought a weezy little 4 banger that you have to run 16
or more psi through to get performance. (not too mention the drivetrains that
can't handle it). I run only 8 psi, and I really don't want any more pwer for
the street. Wake up.
Gary Henderson
On 12 Oct 1997 23:38:57 GMT, coupe...@aol.com (CoupeFive0) wrote:
> looks funny are the DSM wannabees at the drag strip. Oh boy, 2 whole cars in
> the 10's. When you can show me 8 and 9 second DSMs (more than 2) , or hundreds
> of 12 second daily drivers, I will consider the DSM more than a wannabee
> racer. I am sorry you bought a weezy little 4 banger that you have to run 16
> or more psi through to get performance. (not too mention the drivetrains that
> can't handle it). I run only 8 psi, and I really don't want any more pwer for
> the street. Wake up.
I'm sure you know this, but their is way more then just a few hundred
12 second 5.0s! I'd say its well into the thousands.
Johnn Audritsh
Brad wrote in message <34413F33...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Poor marketing comes to mind. Do you remember seeing many Talon
>commercials or ads? I've seen a number of Eclipse ones, and that's what
>people buy, even though the cars are built at the same plant. Along
>with that, while the 95 body restyle was considered good to many people,
>the accompanying price increase (and smaller turbo) didn't seem to go as
>well.
Interesting theory - so why no Corvette ads ... and they're not cheap ...
>Some new car shoppers have mentioned going to an Eagle dealer and asking
>about the Talon in the back of the lot and having the salesperson wonder
>exactly what it is or what it has. The best line I've heard yet is when
>someone went for a test drive and asked the salesperson what the button
>on the dash with the snowflake on it did. The salesperson responded,
>"That engages the AWD. See how smooth it engages when you press the
>button? You can't even tell it did anything." (That button turns on
>the air conditioning.)
That's a shame ... sounds like Chrysler dropped the ball on training it's
Eagle dealers ... or maybe they made more $ on Jeeps(?) ...
nos...@mdi.ca
In <34426376...@news.superlink.net>, on 10/12/97
Considering how many 5.0s ford sell... I'd say times your figure by 10x
would be more like it... :)
===Proud Member of Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICENews Beta Tester===
===================And Bovine Team Warped Key Crucher====================
NUTS' Home Base
US Mirror http://www.cybermail.net/~davidwei
Taiwanese Mirror http://www.taconet.com.tw/~davidwei
光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 <<>> Hope_Net CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
Gerald Chen
CoupeFive0 (coupe...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Our cars are more STREETABLE
:
: This is in reference to DSM's vs late model mustangs I suppose? Hold on while I
: think of a
: response....HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....ok...HAHAHA...o
: k...uhhh humm...sorry. Whitey boy, you know your complete ignorance is now
: showing. You talk of thousands of modded 5.0 everywhere. Well hate to tell
: you but my cars handles better than it did new, has full power everything,
: runs sway bars and radials, cd player, a/c, and ran low 12's without the
: S-trim, and high 10's with. Idles great, no flat spots, and good mileage (if I
: can keep my foot out of it). Skinnies? Looking funny? The only thing that
: the 10's. When you can show me 8 and 9 second DSMs (more than 2) , or hundreds
: of 12 second daily drivers, I will consider the DSM more than a wannabee
: racer. I am sorry you bought a weezy little 4 banger that you have to run 16
: or more psi through to get performance. (not too mention the drivetrains that
: can't handle it). I run only 8 psi, and I really don't want any more pwer for
: the street. Wake up.
The original poster was talking about "streetable" cars, not drag strip
cars (which you seem to have forgot). There is no doubt that Mustangs
have higher potential at drag strips, but for daily, all-weather street
cars, the DSM cars are pretty good. If you throw handling and braking
into the equation, the DSM cars are looking pretty good.
Gerald
Brad
CoupeFive0 wrote:
> racer. I am sorry you bought a weezy little 4 banger that you have to run 16
> or more psi through to get performance. (not too mention the drivetrains that
> can't handle it). I run only 8 psi, and I really don't want any more pwer for
> the street. Wake up.
> Mike
> 91 Coupe
> 12.6@108 (norm asp)
> TFS/Crower
What car do you run 8psi in since your sig says your 91 is normally
aspirated? Damn good for normally aspirated, BTW, but wouldn't you run
16psi too if you knew your engine could handle it with no problems?
White Tornado 1
AWD DSMs are fairly rare cars. Modded AWD DSMs are rarer still. I
saw three modded 5.0Ls on the way to work this morning.
Like saying the Mustang is a better performing car than the AWD 911
Turbo, because more of them are in the 12s. (Well all the 911s are in
the 12s, there just aren't that many of them) Personally I like
driving down the road less traveled. Everyone knows that a built
Mustang is fast, almost know one knows a built DSM is fast. Which is
why it so fun to beat the likes of an LT1 powered Z28 on the street.
It's totally unexpected on the part of the Z28 driver.
>> looks funny are the DSM wannabees at the drag strip. Oh boy, 2 whole cars in
>> the 10's. When you can show me 8 and 9 second DSMs (more than 2) , or hundreds
>> of 12 second daily drivers, I will consider the DSM more than a wannabee
>> racer. I am sorry you bought a weezy little 4 banger that you have to run 16
>> or more psi through to get performance. (not too mention the drivetrains that
>> can't handle it). I run only 8 psi, and I really don't want any more pwer for
>> the street. Wake up.
>
>
>I'm sure you know this, but their is way more then just a few hundred
>12 second 5.0s! I'd say its well into the thousands.
White Tornado 1
The weak part of those trannies are the center-diff spider gears. I
think Cusco or something like that makes an aftermaket center diff.
Mostly guys running low 11s or with a metallic clutch are having
problems. My goals are slower so I hope not to run into difficulties.
>Not too suprising, if he is actually breaking his transmission on a
>regular basis.... :> mid High 13s on that car is not too bad, all
>things considered. Too bad he can't get a 'beefed up' tranny to replace
>the factory one... Some day....
>
>Paul Flores
CoupeFive0
Sorry I haven't gotten around to changing my signature for this news group. The
s-trim has only been on for a month. Also, I am not putting down the DSM in a
blanket statement because it uses forced induction to make power. It is the
constant annoyance of DSM owners pretending their cars are great drag strip
performers. That just isn't so. I don't wish to restate my argument here.
Please see my reponse post to gerald.
Paul Flores
David Goodhue wrote:
>
> Maybe my friend car is a fluke but he has blown he center differentail,
> tranny, an dclutch in one season of street racing, two trips to the drag
> strip. He has a $600 exhuast, $35 and the usual small stuff. he runs
> mid to high 13's with his car.
Sounds like he is doing _very_ mean things to his drive train. What is
he doing? Dropping the hammer at 6k-7k RPM?
> The other funny thing is that unless my
> friend and I race off the line (high rpm luanch) my Vette which runs the
> same 1/4 time whips his car.
CoupeFive0
>The original poster was talking about "streetable" cars, not drag strip
>cars (which you seem to have forgot). There is no doubt that Mustangs
>have higher potential at drag strips, but for daily, all-weather street
>cars, the DSM cars are pretty good. If you throw handling and braking
>into the equation, the DSM cars are looking pretty good.
>
>Gerald
>
>
Gerald,
I couldn't agree with you more. I probably over reacted in several of my posts
responding to White Tornado Re DSM superiority. I do find the DSMs
surprisingly quick at the strip, and they are probably a blast to drive on the
street. However, you may hav missed the discussion earlier RE the DSM's "so
called" drag strip prowess. Yes, the DSMs actually embarress some of the
lightly modded 5.0's and LT1s at the track. But Whitey's insistance that a
bleeder valve + a DSM = a true strip machine is downright outrageous. I know
that anyone can get any particular vehicle to run well with the right parts.
It is the generalization I am referring to. Most of the hard run DSMs break
often, and have yet to see any outrageously impressive times. I don't consider
one or two 10 second cars proof that DSM are fast track cars, just specific
contradictions to the masses. If people wish to praise the DSM as a all around
good performer, I'll agree, and even throw in some extra compliments. But the
idea that straightline performance at the strip is a DSM strong point is
ridiculous.
White Tornado 1
A whole lot of them turn a better time than 12.6
>Mike
>91 Coupe
>12.6@108 (norm asp)
>TFS/Crower
>
Nick Totoro
Tom Stangl wrote...
<<Yeah, so, uh, to keep on TOPIC for the NG, HOW MANY of you use
turbos? I
have YET to see anyone step up, exc for the SVO owner. Come ON, SOMEONE
must have a turbo kit on their car instead of an SC!>>
Hey, Tom... long time, no... uhh... see... 8 )
I have a friend with a Cartech turbo kit on a '94 Cobra. It has been
impossibly hard for him to tune, however. When he's fast at the track, he's a
dog on the street. When he's got it nice on the street, he can only get so
far at the track. Very disappointing. A few people have suspected that his
cam is a bit too much. Remember, the cam he put on the car was designed for
NA performance, not turbocharged. In that sense, it was kind of an
afterthought. A turbo system is a different beast entirely.
Regardless, not too many people recommend the Cartech kit, and neither
does my buddy anymore. It came suspiciously lacking much in terms of
documentation and was missing things like, say, the proper fuel pump. Again,
very disappointing. They finally got it working after quite a bit of
tinkering, but it's still far from done.
Nick
Tfish10390
You probably got wasted because it is harder for him to keep burning the tires.
If you are setup for 1/4 mile then the only thing that you are going to do is
sit there and burn the tires. You would have to burn the hell out of your
clutch just ot get off of the line. I know alot of this from the driving
experience of both cars. They are a little older than the ones you are talking
about(85 LX 5.0 sedan & 93 Talon/w all-wheel drive). The Talon takes off like
a rocket! The grab of 4 wheel drive is unbelieveable! Don't feel bad. Gum-up
the tires and ask for a rematch!
Steven Suttle
Who gives a s*** about DSMs. Go form or to a DSM newsgroup! This thread
is too old!!! An occasional comment about the cars is fine, but this
bullshit about trying to convince the 5.0 crowd that they are superior in
the quarter mile is stupid. There is a couple that run 10's, so what! Air
cooled 4 banger VW's have been doing that since the early 70's. A lot too.
A turbo is a wonderful device.
Gerald Chen <ger...@unix.infoserve.net> wrote in article
<3441b...@207.168.31.4>...
> CoupeFive0 (coupe...@aol.com) wrote:
> : >Our cars are more STREETABLE
> :
> : This is in reference to DSM's vs late model mustangs I suppose? Hold on
while I
> : think of a
> :
response....HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....ok...HAHAHA...o
> : k...uhhh humm...sorry. Whitey boy, you know your complete ignorance is
now
> : showing. You talk of thousands of modded 5.0 everywhere. Well hate to
tell
> : you but my cars handles better than it did new, has full power
everything,
> : runs sway bars and radials, cd player, a/c, and ran low 12's without
the
> : S-trim, and high 10's with. Idles great, no flat spots, and good
mileage (if I
> : can keep my foot out of it). Skinnies? Looking funny? The only thing
that
> : looks funny are the DSM wannabees at the drag strip. Oh boy, 2 whole
cars in
> : the 10's. When you can show me 8 and 9 second DSMs (more than 2) , or
hundreds
> : of 12 second daily drivers, I will consider the DSM more than a
wannabee
> : racer. I am sorry you bought a weezy little 4 banger that you have to
run 16
> : or more psi through to get performance. (not too mention the
drivetrains that
> : can't handle it). I run only 8 psi, and I really don't want any more
pwer for
> : the street. Wake up.
>
Tom Stangl
David Lyons wrote:
>
> MEND II will separate the men from the boys, right Gary? Here's who
> *won't* show: White Tornado, MBarth, XSATANAX, and practically ever
> other bench racer on the two newsgroups.
OR people that live too far away ;-)
Sorry, but I already drove from CA to OH this year for a race, my "long
distance" trips to dragstrips are limited to 100miles round trip for a
while.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.ba.dsm.org/
***Bay Area DSM Homepage
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
Tom Stangl
CoupeFive0 wrote:
>
> >Our cars are more STREETABLE
>
> This is in reference to DSM's vs late model mustangs I suppose? Hold on while I
> think of a
> response....HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....ok...HAHAHA...o
> k...uhhh humm...sorry. Whitey boy, you know your complete ignorance is now
> showing.
Uh, I'm not Whitey, AOLer.
> You talk of thousands of modded 5.0 everywhere. Well hate to tell
> you but my cars handles better than it did new, has full power everything,
> runs sway bars and radials, cd player, a/c, and ran low 12's without the
> S-trim, and high 10's with. Idles great, no flat spots, and good mileage (if I
> can keep my foot out of it). Skinnies? Looking funny?
Uh, I said STREETABLE. Let's see you run even STRAIGHT, let alone anywhere
NEAR your drytimes in the rain. I can. Enough said.
Tom Stangl
> > the 10's. When you can show me 8 and 9 second DSMs (more than 2) , or hundreds
> > of 12 second daily drivers, I will consider the DSM more than a wannabee
> > racer. I am sorry you bought a weezy little 4 banger that you have to run 16
> > or more psi through to get performance. (not too mention the drivetrains that
> > can't handle it). I run only 8 psi, and I really don't want any more pwer for
> > the street. Wake up.
>
> 12 second 5.0s! I'd say its well into the thousands.
I would HOPE so - there are MILLIONS of Stangs on the roads! There are
MAYBE a couple of hundred thousand AWD DSMs on the road, but I don't even
think it is much over 100K. Sheer numbers dictate a larger aftermarket, so
more $$$ for research. We are working as fast as we can at our research
(like I said, just like the 5.0s when THEY were new and there was nothing
out there for them).
Tom Stangl
Gerald Chen wrote:
>
> CoupeFive0 (coupe...@aol.com) wrote:
> : >Our cars are more STREETABLE
> :
> : This is in reference to DSM's vs late model mustangs I suppose? Hold on while I
> : think of a
> : response....HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....ok...HAHAHA...o
>
> cars (which you seem to have forgot). There is no doubt that Mustangs
> have higher potential at drag strips, but for daily, all-weather street
> cars, the DSM cars are pretty good. If you throw handling and braking
> into the equation, the DSM cars are looking pretty good.
Being that original poster, I thank you for the voice of reason, and agree
with you fully. My point was streetability, and my definition includes
driving in that WET STUFF, rain and snow.
Tom Stangl
We get a good launch, but the extra rotating mass and friction take their
toll - I only run 105-106 at those 12.82s, where a FWD DSM runs 105 at a
much slower ET - once they hook up, they have less friction/rotating mass
to worry about. I don't know of an EXACT ET calculator to use, since I
have yet to see one that accounts for AWD. And I can't afford to buy a FWD
tranny, bolt it in, and dyno test it. So I "cheat" and use the standard
2WD ET calulators on my ETs. That puts me right at 300hp with one
calculation, and 289 with another.
My car weighs 3200 race ready.
Steven Suttle
And a much, much greater portion don't!! There are more Stangs in the 8's
then DSM's in the 10's. There are several real street Stangs in the 9s.
End of the argument. If you really want to feel the turbo power go buy a
used GN. Do all you DSM people think that we Mustang owners are going to
trade in our V8s for a 4 cylinder piss pot??? I don't think so. It might
go fast, but it looks like a Flash Gordon taxi and the engine's sound.....
Oh that pathetic sound....You should here a street driven 326 cu V8 being
shifted at 8,500 rpms, never mined I know I can't convert you all either
and I would not want to.
White Tornado 1 <nos...@spamco.com> wrote in article
<34428935...@news2.ibm.net>...
nos...@mdi.ca
In <34434798...@vfaq.com>, on 10/14/97
at 03, Tom Stangl <tal...@vfaq.com> said:
>Steven Suttle wrote:
>>
>> A turbo is a wonderful device.
>Yeah, so, uh, to keep on TOPIC for the NG, HOW MANY of you use turbos? I
>have YET to see anyone step up, exc for the SVO owner. Come ON, SOMEONE
>must have a turbo kit on their car instead of an SC!
Possibly due to the reason that SC don't really need a custom exhaust
header... Plus, even tho Turbo is nice, it also heats the intake air quite a
bit... (I'm sure you've seen a Turbocharger glow, being a heavy machinery
teacher, my dad sees them a lot... :) ) Which often require an intercooler
to be installed... and thus compilicated an already somewhat complex
installation routine... with low PSI, SC are often bolted on without any
intercoolers and such... And also, Turbo raises the underhood tempature...
Plus, I'd think it would take some massive cutting if people wanna install
Turbos with the 4.6L modular engines... they can take the boost, but they
don't have much in the way of room for the header and turbo...
king_cobra
In article <344344C1...@vfaq.com>, Tom says...
>
>David Lyons wrote:
>>
>> MEND II will separate the men from the boys, right Gary? Here's who
>> *won't* show: White Tornado, MBarth, XSATANAX, and practically ever
>> other bench racer on the two newsgroups.
>
>OR people that live too far away ;-)
>
>Sorry, but I already drove from CA to OH this year for a race, my "long
>distance" trips to dragstrips are limited to 100miles round trip for a
>while.
>
I won't even add to this one!......Leave!
king_cobra
In article <34434AE7...@vfaq.com>, Tom says...
Wow......you are the baddest car in the land.....I am proud of you man!....
now leave!....
White Tornado 1
A turbo heats up the air, true it's from the compression of the air.
Just like a SC. The hot (exhaust side) of the turbo doesn't come in
contact with the cold side or the charge air. So the 'glowing' part
isn't what is heating the air.
>Possibly due to the reason that SC don't really need a custom exhaust
>header... Plus, even tho Turbo is nice, it also heats the intake air quite a
>bit... (I'm sure you've seen a Turbocharger glow, being a heavy machinery
>teacher, my dad sees them a lot... :) ) Which often require an intercooler
>to be installed... and thus compilicated an already somewhat complex
>installation routine... with low PSI, SC are often bolted on without any
>intercoolers and such... And also, Turbo raises the underhood tempature...
>
>Plus, I'd think it would take some massive cutting if people wanna install
>Turbos with the 4.6L modular engines... they can take the boost, but they
>don't have much in the way of room for the header and turbo...
>
>===Proud Member of Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICENews Beta Tester===
>===================And Bovine Team Warped Key Crucher====================
> NUTS' Home Base
> US Mirror http://www.cybermail.net/~davidwei
> Taiwanese Mirror http://www.taconet.com.tw/~davidwei
> 光碟月刊 OS/2 技術編輯 <<>> Hope_Net CD-ROM Monthly, OS/2 Editor
>
king_cobra
In article <3443470F...@vfaq.com>, Tom says...
>
>Gerald Chen wrote:
>>
>> CoupeFive0 (coupe...@aol.com) wrote:
>> : >Our cars are more STREETABLE
>> :
>>: This is in reference to DSM's vs late model mustangs I suppose? Hold on while
>>I
>> : think of a
>> : response....HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....ok...HAHAHA...o
>>
>> The original poster was talking about "streetable" cars, not drag strip
>> cars (which you seem to have forgot). There is no doubt that Mustangs
>> have higher potential at drag strips, but for daily, all-weather street
>> cars, the DSM cars are pretty good. If you throw handling and braking
>> into the equation, the DSM cars are looking pretty good.
>
>Being that original poster, I thank you for the voice of reason, and agree
>with you fully. My point was streetability, and my definition includes
>driving in that WET STUFF, rain and snow.
>
Ok....you are the Buddah of the car industry...I bow to you.....now leave!
Gary Henderson
On 14 Oct 1997 04:33:18 GMT, "Steven Suttle" <sut...@gte.net> wrote:
>And a much, much greater portion don't!! There are more Stangs in the 8's
>then DSM's in the 10's. There are several real street Stangs in the 9s.
>End of the argument. If you really want to feel the turbo power go buy a
>used GN. Do all you DSM people think that we Mustang owners are going to
>trade in our V8s for a 4 cylinder piss pot??? I don't think so. It might
>go fast, but it looks like a Flash Gordon taxi and the engine's sound.....
>Oh that pathetic sound....You should here a street driven 326 cu V8 being
>shifted at 8,500 rpms, never mined I know I can't convert you all either
>and I would not want to.
Exactly! I have a Formula, but like the Stangs too. When I see a
nice Mustang, whether its a Fox or an SN95 I think, "Thats a nice car,
I'd like to have that." No matter how fast any Eclipse, Talon, or
Laser is, I'll never want one. The DSMs just don't do anything for
me. Nothing personal against those guys, but the DSMs just don't
excite me. Like I said before, I read this NG and the FBody NG for
obvious reasons. I like both cars, know a bit about both, and
especially like the '96+ Cobras which I'd like to get eventually. I
don't come in here to start stupid wars or anything like that. I
don't need that. Yet, these DSM guys continually come in here trying
to convince us of their superiority when the truth is 99% of us don't
care. I don't care how fast any of those cars are, I'd take my 'slow'
Formula over any of them. Why is it that few if any Mustang/FBody
owners go to the DSM NG? Maybe because we have better things to do
with our time?
Tom Stangl
Steven Suttle wrote:
>
> A turbo is a wonderful device.
Yeah, so, uh, to keep on TOPIC for the NG, HOW MANY of you use turbos? I
have YET to see anyone step up, exc for the SVO owner. Come ON, SOMEONE
must have a turbo kit on their car instead of an SC!
--
White Tornado 1
You are totally correct. You don't ever get any torque until 2500rpm,
and the torque peak isn't until 3000rpm. Totally unstreetable. The
modded ones are even worse 300ft-lb at 3,000rpm, and the fact that it
carries that torque though to 6500rpm is even worse.
Funny mine will must me back into the seat in fifth gear in the mid 2k
rpm range. These things have vastly more low end than does a v-6 with
twice the cubes.
Course the Mustang is a whole lot more streetable with wheelspin at
low throttle pressure on a wet road.
>...Until you drive one. I've spent some time behind the wheel of DSM cars,
>and unless you rev the pea out of the car, the severe lack of torque is
>horribly annoying. It feels like driving a CRX, or a Civic until the boost
>starts to build at high RPMs. AWD is fine and dandy, but as far as
>driveability goes, low end torque is a huge consideration for me. Also, at
>6' tall, the car is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too small for me. So, cramped cockpit,
>no torque, and having to hit red line to be able to merge with traffic,
>makes the car decidedly unstreetable IMO.
>
>-Adam
>--
>'91 Formula 350 (drag car)
>'67 Mustang (show car)
Allen
White Tornado 1 (nos...@spamco.com) wrote:
: Funny mine will must me back into the seat in fifth gear in the mid 2k
: rpm range. These things have vastly more low end than does a v-6 with
: twice the cubes.
Oh, come on! I love my Talon, but it most definitely does NOT press me
back in my seat at 2500 rpms in 5th gear. For that matter, neither does
the Porsche I raced around in Sunday afternoon. It's a pretty fundamental
thing that a small engine isn't going to make much torque at those sorts of
RPMs. Unless you've boosted the hell out of it with a very small turbo or
a supercharger.
Allen
White Tornado 1
>Sorry, but I already drove from CA to OH this year for a race, my "long
>distance" trips to dragstrips are limited to 100miles round trip for a
>while.
Are you going to OH this May? I screwed up by not going this past
May. How are the TMO ECU changes coming? You are the beta right?
Should I be looking for used 550s and a 95+ MAF soon?
WT!
http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Foghorn_Leghorn/ltfl_026.wav
Jim Ptak
I have a little experience with the DSMs... my cousin has a 1990 Eclipse
GSX AWD. His car is completely stock and I tell you, out of the hole
there is NOTHING that can touch us, aside from a car with serious mods.
He's a decent driver... we holeshot cars constantly... gain a solid
1.5-2 cars by the top end of first, and keep pulling on them most of the
way through 2nd. Where we start to fall behind is somewhere around
60mph... the V8s keep pulling while the I4 runs out of steam. Since
this guy was pulling ahead all the way to 90mph, I'd say he's got s good
mid 13second car... doesn't take a LOT of work to get them there, but it
does take work.
Jim
LEE7687 wrote:
>
> As an owner of a 97 T/A I would say that you got juiced. There is just no way
> a stock Eagle Talon is that quick. From the mods you say that you have, he
> would have wasted me also. Kind a makes you wonder, the next time you see a
> stock looking 4 or 6 banger it may not be as easy as it appears. Its always
> fun to find out though isn't it.
--
Smart people speak from experience. Really smart people, from
experience, don't speak.
James T. Ptak
GMI Engineering and Management Institute
Email: Omn...@earthlink.net
1985 Omni GLH Turbo - F.M. Stage 2.5
1988 Daytona Shelby Z
1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX - cousins car
1992 Kawasaki KX125 - AMA#436799 Dist.16/17 - #724
king_cobra
In article <344345F6...@vfaq.com>, Tom says...
>
>CoupeFive0 wrote:
>>
>> >Our cars are more STREETABLE
>>
>>This is in reference to DSM's vs late model mustangs I suppose? Hold on while I
>> think of a
>> response....HAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....ok...HAHAHA...o
>> showing.
>
>Uh, I'm not Whitey, AOLer.
>
>
>> You talk of thousands of modded 5.0 everywhere. Well hate to tell
>> you but my cars handles better than it did new, has full power everything,
>> runs sway bars and radials, cd player, a/c, and ran low 12's without the
>>S-trim, and high 10's with. Idles great, no flat spots, and good mileage (if I
>> can keep my foot out of it). Skinnies? Looking funny?
>
>Uh, I said STREETABLE. Let's see you run even STRAIGHT, let alone anywhere
>NEAR your drytimes in the rain. I can. Enough said.
>
You can even drive when it gets wet outside..........thats nice...its all
good....Leave!
king_cobra
In article <34434692...@vfaq.com>, Tom says...
I am so impressed....you can count without taking your shoes off and do
research!.......What this guy can do!..........Leave!
charles copeland
In article <19971014201...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
ExtremeSVO <extre...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Possibly due to the reason that SC don't really need a custom exhaust
>>header... Plus, even tho Turbo is nice, it also heats the intake air quite a
>>bit... (I'm sure you've seen a Turbocharger glow, being a heavy machinery
>>teacher, my dad sees them a lot... :) ) Which often require an intercooler
>>to be installed... and thus compilicated an already somewhat complex
>>installation routine... with low PSI, SC are often bolted on without any
>>intercoolers and such... And also, Turbo raises the underhood tempature...
>>
>>
> compressed. but Turbos are more efficent than SC, i remember that from a
> article in MM&FF's. Plus they don;t take any horsepower to turn the pulley.
>and it also seems to me that all the fast 8-9 second Mustangs are running
> Turbos intstead of SC.
>
If you read the Mustang Showdowns, you would see very few 9 second
cars with turbos. Most are Vortech SC, NOS, and a few normally aspirated.
There are a couple of 7 second mustangs and they run dual
turbos ... but nothing close to a street car.
charles copeland
In article <34434798...@vfaq.com>, Tom Stangl <tal...@vfaq.com> wrote:
>Steven Suttle wrote:
>>
>> A turbo is a wonderful device.
>
>Yeah, so, uh, to keep on TOPIC for the NG, HOW MANY of you use turbos? I
>have YET to see anyone step up, exc for the SVO owner. Come ON, SOMEONE
I have a friend in Dallas that has a Cartech single turbo on
a 5.0. With stock heads it runs in the 11's.
ExtremeSVO
Tom Stangl
Email me at home with your real Email address, so we can take SOME of the
discussions offline. You should know my home Email address.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp |
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer |
White Tornado 1
Actually the DSMers post mostly to the DSM moderated list. It's keeps
out the trouble makers. ;-)
Who knows, if you post there, you might even get a few people to come
down to MEND and play a little v-8 whip-ass.
> If there is a DSM Newsgroup, I would like to know about it. Or maybe the
>DSMers could start posting to dsm.network. There are practically no messages
>on it anyway.
>
>Darrell
>
White Tornado 1
14lbs of boost @ 2500rpm. I only have a 14G, but the exhaust is
opened up and flowing well. I didn't say the thing was on the verge
of spinning the tires, just that it accelerated fine at that speed.
>Oh, come on! I love my Talon, but it most definitely does NOT press me
>back in my seat at 2500 rpms in 5th gear. For that matter, neither does
>the Porsche I raced around in Sunday afternoon. It's a pretty fundamental
>thing that a small engine isn't going to make much torque at those sorts of
>RPMs. Unless you've boosted the hell out of it with a very small turbo or
>a supercharger.
>
>Allen
CoupeFive0
>From: Tom Stangl <tal...@vfaq.com>
>Uh, I'm not Whitey, AOLer.
Sorry...you guys just sing the same tune. "AOLer"...ouch...that really hurt.
>my cars handles better than it did new, has full power everything,
>> runs sway bars and radials, cd player, a/c, and ran low 12's without the
>> S-trim, and high 10's with. Idles great, no flat spots, and good mileage
>Uh, I said STREETABLE. Let's see you run even STRAIGHT, let alone anywhere
>NEAR your drytimes in the rain. I can. Enough said.
Oh my...you like it rain do ya? Well, no I can't get near my dry times "in the
rain".....question is, though, who wants to. I don't feel the need to take my
car out in inclimate weather to impress anyone. My car is just for fun...I
don't have a penile inferiority complex like alot of little boy racers do.
Those are the guys who try to pull low et's stop light to stop light in
traffic and bad weather. I don't suppose that would include you rain-boy?
By the way....once you learn a little more about automobiles, you will
understand that the definition of streetable varies. My car does run full
tread radials on the street, and when I have been caught in the rain, it does
handle fine, thank you very much. There are plenty of $100,000+ sports cars
which never see the rain either. I suppose under your definition these aren't
"STREETABLE" either. Hmmmm....your view of the world serves you quite nicely
doesn't it?
Adam Bruce
> The original poster was talking about "streetable" cars, not drag strip
> cars (which you seem to have forgot). There is no doubt that Mustangs
> have higher potential at drag strips, but for daily, all-weather street
> cars, the DSM cars are pretty good. If you throw handling and braking
> into the equation, the DSM cars are looking pretty good.
>
> Gerald