98 Mustang Gt top speed?
Ankur Patel
does anyone know the top speed on a 1998 mustang gt with the optional
ratio axle??
thanks
--
Ankur "@nkuse" Patel
Michael J. Stepanek
>does anyone know the top speed on a 1998 mustang gt with the optional
>ratio axle??
>thanks
I wouldn't be worried about it. Even with the optional axle ratio, it should
still be high enough for anbody. If you really want to figure it out, all you
have to do is multiply the top speed without the option by the ratio of the
standard axle and the optional axle, i.e. multiply whatever Ford says is the
Mustangs top speed (for a manual with the 2.73s) by 2.73 / 3.27. I've always
seen numbers like 150MPH for top speed (in 4th). That would come to about
125MPH with the optional axle ratio. Remember, however, that the number I
gave you is in 4th gear, not 5th. I think 5th gear is 0.67 from the tranny
and 4th is 1.00, making the real top speed at around 185 (220 without the
option) with the optional axle ratio... both numbers seem a little high, but
that's what the math gives (unless I did it wrong). I'm not sure if Ford
limits it to 150, or not.
BTW, I could be way off, but I think I'm pretty close.
Ty85gris
>From: mste...@vt.edu (Michael J. Stepanek)
mph=(rpm*tire diameter)/(rear gear ratio*336) Multiply the rear gear
ratio by the OD ratio if you have one. Also, the engine has to have the power
to pull those kinds of top end speeds. The Camaro hits its top speed in 5th,
and there have been several threads in AACF about this topic. The theoretical
speeds reached can get ridiculous with OD transmissions, but the car will never
see those numbers stock. For instance, my Cutlass has a theoretical top end of
189 at 6000 rpm. Performance Trends puts the top end at ~165 due to drag. I
have been to 135 and then got scared when it got twitchy. You'll hit one of
the last two limits (drag and nerve) before the first one!
Emily
'85 Cutlass 383, 700, 3.70 posi, Global West Suspension, NOS cheater
12.60's on the engine
11.34 on NOS
'69 Camaro 421sb, 1200 ATI @ 13 psi, intercooled, Big Shot plate, autocross
suspension
Sleeper96
I have seen the needle at 140 in my 96 GT and it was still pulling (i
chickened out when the rear end started lifting up off of the ground). the
guys at mustangworld.com have seen 150 in theirs. of course, the calibration
is probably not "radar gun" accurate.
robert
Ankur Patel wrote in message <6i72hf$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>does anyone know the top speed on a 1998 mustang gt with the optional
>ratio axle??
>thanks
>
>
> Ankur "@nkuse" Patel
>
>
DriveSpy
Whatever it is its lower than 143 MPH. In a magazine article about 6 months
ago on the Contour SVT, a representative from Ford said the Contour would out
top-end a Mustang GT. The Contour SVT is speced from Ford at 143 I believe.
Bill Jones
On 29 Apr 1998, Michael J. Stepanek wrote:
> >does anyone know the top speed on a 1998 mustang gt with the optional
> >ratio axle??
> >thanks
>
> I wouldn't be worried about it. Even with the optional axle ratio, it should
> still be high enough for anbody. If you really want to figure it out, all you
> have to do is multiply the top speed without the option by the ratio of the
> standard axle and the optional axle, i.e. multiply whatever Ford says is the
> Mustangs top speed (for a manual with the 2.73s) by 2.73 / 3.27. I've always
> seen numbers like 150MPH for top speed (in 4th). That would come to about
> 125MPH with the optional axle ratio. Remember, however, that the number I
> gave you is in 4th gear, not 5th. I think 5th gear is 0.67 from the tranny
> and 4th is 1.00, making the real top speed at around 185 (220 without the
> option) with the optional axle ratio... both numbers seem a little high, but
> that's what the math gives (unless I did it wrong). I'm not sure if Ford
> limits it to 150, or not.
>
> BTW, I could be way off, but I think I'm pretty close.
No, you're not far off, but there's a lot more to top speed than just
calculating what it should be. Like you said, if you figured redline in
5th gear, you'd be going well over 200 mph! Even 4th gear at 5900 rpms
would calculate to something like 165 mph or so with the 2.73 rear axle.
But those speeds are not attainable, mainly due to aerodynamics. Also, to
get a Mustang even up to say 140 mph would take a fairly long stretch of
road. My guess would be that the top speed really wouldn't be affected
much by gearing, unless the gear was so steep that engine rpms limited the
top speed. Anyone know for sure?
<remove 7of9 for email replies>
--
Bill Jones e-mail addresses:
Computer Sciences Corp. (work) wjon...@csc.com
Norwich, Connecticut (play) bi...@snet.net
(860) 437-5650 WWW: http://pages.cthome.net/billj
mp...@tidalwave.com
>No, you're not far off, but there's a lot more to top speed than just
>calculating what it should be. Like you said, if you figured redline in
>5th gear, you'd be going well over 200 mph! Even 4th gear at 5900 rpms
>would calculate to something like 165 mph or so with the 2.73 rear axle.
>But those speeds are not attainable, mainly due to aerodynamics. Also, to
>get a Mustang even up to say 140 mph would take a fairly long stretch of
>road. My guess would be that the top speed really wouldn't be affected
>much by gearing, unless the gear was so steep that engine rpms limited the
>top speed. Anyone know for sure?
>
i gave up on the fox4 mustangs since it came out.....a V6 mazda
millenia comfy family car with less horsepower has higher top speed.
last time i checked a magazine, think Motor Trend, had to duct tape
the grill and foglights; remove air filter...of a '95 COBRA to get it
to 140mph.
hahahahahaha
that's a freaking joke
that means that the the new design of the fox4 mustangs have the same
aerodynamic capability of my '87 mustangs.....since both top out about
136mph stock.
Michael J. Stepanek
>No, you're not far off, but there's a lot more to top speed than just
>calculating what it should be. Like you said, if you figured redline in
>5th gear, you'd be going well over 200 mph! Even 4th gear at 5900 rpms
>would calculate to something like 165 mph or so with the 2.73 rear axle.
>But those speeds are not attainable, mainly due to aerodynamics. Also, to
>get a Mustang even up to say 140 mph would take a fairly long stretch of
>road. My guess would be that the top speed really wouldn't be affected
>much by gearing, unless the gear was so steep that engine rpms limited the
>top speed. Anyone know for sure?
Yeah, I forgot about that whole aerodynaimcs thing. I guess I whould get a
pilots license before I go out and buy my Mustang this summer.
Jamey Johnston
> does anyone know the top speed on a 1998 mustang gt with the optional
> ratio axle??
> thanks
The '96 top end was 140mph. I think the '98 is probably the same.
Eric J. Simpson
The '98 GTs might be a little faster, to the tune of 142 (?).
The previous (5.0) SN95s couldn't pull any faster than 135 - 137 because
of the power/gearing characteristics...
The '96 on GT are at a minimum 140 mph cars with the 3.27s... expect
about 135 in 4th gear with the stock 2.73s.
End of subject. Now end this thread, please(?).
-EJS
Steven Fisher
>i gave up on the fox4 mustangs since it came out.....a V6 mazda
>millenia comfy family car with less horsepower has higher top speed.
What are you snorting? What do you buy a car for, something as stupid as
saying "I can do 150" or something functional like acceleration? How
incredibly material.
david
"Jamey Johnston" <jam...@SPAMcounty.SPAMorg> wrote:
My friends does 136
98 1LE Z28
13.12@109.2 stock with Free Ram Air Mod
f-body member
CUBS FAN
Who cares about top end Get rid of those 2.73's and get 3.55 or 3.73 rear ends and
have some real fun!
Lou
Ty85gris wrote:
> >From: mste...@vt.edu (Michael J. Stepanek)
>
> >I wouldn't be worried about it. Even with the optional axle ratio, it should
> >
> >still be high enough for anbody. If you really want to figure it out, all
> >you
> >have to do is multiply the top speed without the option by the ratio of the
> >standard axle and the optional axle, i.e. multiply whatever Ford says is the
> >Mustangs top speed (for a manual with the 2.73s) by 2.73 / 3.27. I've always
> >
> >seen numbers like 150MPH for top speed (in 4th). That would come to about
> >125MPH with the optional axle ratio. Remember, however, that the number I
> >gave you is in 4th gear, not 5th. I think 5th gear is 0.67 from the tranny
> >and 4th is 1.00, making the real top speed at around 185 (220 without the
> >option) with the optional axle ratio... both numbers seem a little high, but
> >that's what the math gives (unless I did it wrong). I'm not sure if Ford
> >limits it to 150, or not.
> >
> >BTW, I could be way off, but I think I'm pretty close.
>
mp...@tidalwave.com
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:19:05 -0700, "Steven Fisher" <s...@srf.com>
wrote:
hey dumbass
the thread is about TOP SPEED.
LOL
mp...@tidalwave.com
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 09:52:09 -0500, "Sleeper96" <slee...@sn95.com>
wrote:
>I have seen the needle at 140 in my 96 GT and it was still pulling (i
>chickened out when the rear end started lifting up off of the ground). the
>guys at mustangworld.com have seen 150 in theirs. of course, the calibration
>is probably not "radar gun" accurate.
>robert
>Ankur Patel wrote in message <6i72hf$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>does anyone know the top speed on a 1998 mustang gt with the optional
>>ratio axle??
>>thanks
>>
>>
>>--
>> Ankur "@nkuse" Patel
>>
>>
>
>
you must have not been on a flat surface or your speedo is wrong....or
you're modified.
Motor Trend couldn't get a STOCK '95 Cobra to 140mph
they had to remove the air filter and duct tape the grill & fog lights
to hit 140mph
mp...@tidalwave.com
>>i gave up on the fox4 mustangs since it came out.....a V6 mazda
>>millenia comfy family car with less horsepower has higher top speed.
>
>What are you snorting? What do you buy a car for, something as stupid as
>saying "I can do 150" or something functional like acceleration? How
>incredibly material.
>
>
also dumbass...if i wanted good acceleration, i'd buy a z/28
hahahahahaa
Steven Fisher
>>I have seen the needle at 140 in my 96 GT and it was still pulling (i
>>chickened out when the rear end started lifting up off of the ground). the
>>guys at mustangworld.com have seen 150 in theirs. of course, the
calibration
>>is probably not "radar gun" accurate.
>>robert
>
>you're modified.
>
>Motor Trend couldn't get a STOCK '95 Cobra to 140mph
>
>they had to remove the air filter and duct tape the grill & fog lights
>to hit 140mph
You're making the assumption that Motor Trend's results are the
end-all-be-all, which they simply are not.
Steven Fisher
>>>i gave up on the fox4 mustangs since it came out.....a V6 mazda
>>>millenia comfy family car with less horsepower has higher top speed.
>>
>>What are you snorting? What do you buy a car for, something as stupid as
>>saying "I can do 150" or something functional like acceleration? How
>>incredibly material.
>
>also dumbass...if i wanted good acceleration, i'd buy a z/28
Then go to the Camaro newsgroup and leave us alone child.
Oodleoff
>i gave up on the fox4 mustangs since it came out.....a V6 mazda
>millenia comfy family car with less horsepower has higher top speed.
>
>the grill and foglights; remove air filter...of a '95 COBRA to get it
>to 140mph.
>
>
Hmmmm I had my '91 Mustang 5.0 to 138 pretty dang quickly then ran out of room,
about a 2 mile road. And my '96 Cobra I have had to 150 with no problems.
Oodleoff
>also dumbass...if i wanted good acceleration, i'd buy a z/28
>
>
>
Then you'd be the dumbass, Congratufuckinlations.
TiggerSVO
Screw Motor Trend's numbers....you people got to stop taking these magazines
too seriously. All these tests are taken under different circumstances. If
you wantto race your Mustang against your buddy's Millenium or Volvo wagon...
take it to the track!!! End this bullsh@&t about top speed and all that other
crap!!
White Tornado Jr.
>last time i checked a magazine, think Motor Trend, had to duct tape
>the grill and foglights; remove air filter...of a '95 COBRA to get it
>to 140mph.
>
>
>that's a freaking joke
>
>that means that the the new design of the fox4 mustangs have the same
>aerodynamic capability of my '87 mustangs.....since both top out about
>136mph stock.
Mustangs have never been known for their long legs. The aero of the
car isn't ideal for top speed runs.
The fastest I've gone in a car is 140mph twice. Once when I got my
AWD new. Once just a week ago spanking a C4 Vette on the highway.
I could have stopped a 120, he was toast by then anyway, but while I
was up there.....
It was absurdly fast and I kindof felt a little stupid after going
that fast on a public road. It still had a bunch more pull left
though.
White Tornado Jr.
>Driving back from Nashville last Sunday, I was on cruise control for most of
>Tennessee at 80mph. Up through Virginia on I-81, I cruised at 75mph with
>occasional bursts over 100. That's one of the best runs I've had, and that
>highway is wonderfully maintained.
I just went 100 today on a back road. 2nd was done, I got into 3rd,
it was pulling so nicely that I didnt' want to stop. Before you know
it.
I need to calm myself before I end up in jail.
Schtoo
I've done that in a paltry 77' BMW 528. With a good car, it comes up
quick, and you really don't notice it. The petition for speed limit
abolition starts here...................
j...@email.com
EXT15 wrote:
>
> I hate to tell all you boys who have been having a pissing contest about the
> top speed, but the GT is governed unless it has the 17" wheels. The axle has
> squat to do with it...
>
> EXT15
> Whether it is for show or go, do it in a 5.0...
Top speed is governed only with the H-rated tires...
I have the 16 ZR tires stock and can assure you that 140 is not a
problem... never attempted much more but could probably see 150 if there
was enough room.
j...@email.com
TFrog93 wrote:
>
> Here in beautiful Pennsylvania, the Mustang's top speed is still 65mph.
>
> Driving back from Nashville last Sunday, I was on cruise control for most of
> Tennessee at 80mph. Up through Virginia on I-81, I cruised at 75mph with
> occasional bursts over 100. That's one of the best runs I've had, and that
> highway is wonderfully maintained.
>
> else. You can tell when you cross the state line into PA, without seeing a
> sign saying "Welcome to Pennsylvania". The difference in road surface is that
> dramatic.
> Nashville to Philadelphia in 12 hours... Not bad for an old man.
>
> dwight
Dwight... that is quite impressive - 12 hours? Very impressive.
You must have gotten to philly and stopped at a rest area to stop the
stopwatch and empty the gallon jugs full of pee! (Bet you were glad to
have a tilt wheel)
Very nice run - did you use a Radar Detector?
I drive to Philly often and never get over 80 due to the high amount of
law enforcement on I95.
j...@email.com
Scott
What were you driving to "spank" a new C4? If it was a stock GT, WAKE
UP!!!!
White Tornado Jr. wrote in message <35493c41....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>...
Michael J. Stepanek
Fuck you! Don't you have anything better to do than to read messages that you
don't want to read in the first place and then complain to everybody about.
BTW, thanks for the e-mail message you sent me. I do plan to stay in school
in order to better myself, but I'm sure as hell not going to do it because you
think I need more education. I'd simply love to compare grades/knowledge any
day of the week. You may beat me at the track (if you truly do own the car
implied by your name... although I doubt it... you're probably some
middle-school brat). I'm pretty sure I'd kick your ass in the education
bracket, even if I don't know all the odds and ends about simple aerodynamics,
not that I even care about that shit because that's not what I'm studying in
school.
So I made a simple mistake. Big fucking deal (it obviously is around here).
Well, that's the last time I post anything in order to try to help anybody. I
don't have to take this kind of shit from assholes like you. Isn't just great
how 1% of the population can simply piss off the other 99%, simply by being
themselves. BTW, I'm glad I could be of assistance to you in boosting your
(obviously deminished) ego for the day.
White Tornado Jr.
>>I just went 100 today on a back road. 2nd was done, I got into 3rd,
>>it was pulling so nicely that I didnt' want to stop. Before you know
>>it.
>
>I've done that in a paltry 77' BMW 528. With a good car, it comes up
>quick, and you really don't notice it. The petition for speed limit
>abolition starts here...................
The problem is it is a 35mph zone. It's just back there in the woods
with some farm houses around. I use it as my little G-Tech tuning
test strip. I use it so much, I know I am going to get busted one of
these days.
In fact, not a month ago I was G-Teching, revved, ready to dump the
clutch and I saw some lights coming at me. So I let the rpm drop and
just took off normally, sure enough it was "the man." I wouldn't have
gotten it that bad as I was only planning a 0-60 run. But still...
It would have sucked.
I pop up to 100mph briefly on the highway all the time. It only takes
a few seconds to get there from 65-70, so why not eh? Well I got
busted for that about a month ago on a rural part of I-95 in the
Carolinas. 60-100-60-100-60-100-60-100. What the hell I was bored.
On the way down from 100, somewhere in the 80s I passed a cop.
Carolina has a 65mph limit. I didn't even wait for him to pull up
behind me. He barely started moving and I just pulled over and
waited. Why bother?
I was all, "dude I just got this car yesterday and was playing with
it." He was amused, and told me to get a radar detector. Let me off
with a 9mph ticket, only $50 and no insurance penalty. Then he was
all "this is a SWEET ride, where did you get it? How much? etc"
Whatever, it pays to not be an asshole to cops.
Michael J. Stepanek
>I was all, "dude I just got this car yesterday and was playing with
>it." He was amused, and told me to get a radar detector. Let me off
>with a 9mph ticket, only $50 and no insurance penalty. Then he was
>all "this is a SWEET ride, where did you get it? How much? etc"
I wish I met more cops like that... in fact, I wish I didn't meet any cops at
all. Honestly, though, some of them aren't too bad. I've met a couple of
nice cops. Unfortunately, they're never the ones who get me.
White Tornado Jr.
>What were you driving to "spank" a new C4? If it was a stock GT, WAKE
>UP!!!!
A 93 RX-7 R1 with the Pettit base performance package.
White Tornado Jr.
>I wish I met more cops like that... in fact, I wish I didn't meet any cops at
>all. Honestly, though, some of them aren't too bad. I've met a couple of
>nice cops. Unfortunately, they're never the ones who get me.
Every once in a while I guess you can luck out and run into a car guy
cop. They are out there. Not enough of them IMHO.
Ty85gris
>TheWhit...@yahoo.com (White Tornado Jr. )
>>What were you driving to "spank" a new C4? If it was a stock GT, WAKE
>>UP!!!!
>
>A 93 RX-7 R1 with the Pettit base performance package.
>
>
He don't know you too well, do he? ; } That is why I like my sig, no
one posts stuff like that when I say my Camaro beat brand X car!
TFrog93
>Dwight... that is quite impressive - 12 hours? Very impressive.
>You must have gotten to philly and stopped at a rest area to stop the
>stopwatch and empty the gallon jugs full of pee! (Bet you were glad to
>have a tilt wheel)
('93 Mustangs didn't come with tilt steering wheels. We gave that up when Ford
gave us driver-side airbags.)
>Very nice run - did you use a Radar Detector?
>I drive to Philly often and never get over 80 due to the high amount of
>law enforcement on I95.
Ha! I'm old, and I don't do 12-hour non-stop runs anymore. No, I had four (I
think) "rest stops", and refilled the tank several times. The trick is to
watch the fluid intake (only two cups of coffee). It also helped that I was
alone (i.e.: my wife wasn't with me). Otherwise, I'd have been stopping every
hour on the hour. As it was, I left Nashville at 6:45AM on a Sunday morning
and arrived home at 7:45PM. Allowing for the time zone, it was exactly 12
hours.
I-81 was a great highway, and traffic was running fairly fast. With the cruise
control on 80mph, I still had a handful of other cars passing me, so I took it
off cruise and had some fun. The car was running strong, and I spent the first
eight hours in 5th gear. Up toward the West Virginia part of I-81, I started
playing with a Mazda RX7, and we kind of egged each other on, setting the pace
at about 90mph for awhile. On the uphill stretches, I would routinely push it
up over 100, figuring that any state troopers would be setting up their traps
on either downhill or flat stretches.
I had only one mishap. A trucker was "dawdling" in the left lane, so I moved
right to pass. As I stomped on the gas, he finally decided to pull into the
right lane, and I fried my brakes coming down from about 90mph before he could
squeeze me off the roadway. Ah, the smell of burning Kevlar!
I saw only one patrol car. Coming around a curve in the highway, I saw an
uphill stretch ahead of me that was clogged with trucks, barely moving. I had
just enough time to slow and decide to make a hasty exit off onto Route 11,
before I would be stuck in the traffic. (It's a stick shift, and I don't savor
crawling in stopped traffic for what could be miles...) I took 11 north for
awhile, and then skipped back onto I-81, beyond whatever the problem was. As I
accelerated onto the highway, I took the left lane, behind a truck that was
passing a slow-moving car. When the truck passed the car and started to move
right, I had just nailed the accelerator when I looked in the rearview mirror
and saw a patrol car coming up behind me. I was in time to cut off the
acceleration just shy of 75mph, and moved right in front of the truck. The
patrol car slowed to check me out, then moved on.
Otherwise, the trip was uneventful, except that I was in the rain all the way
from Harrisburg to Philly...
Oh...and I never play on I-95. That's just asking for trouble.
dwight
White Tornado Jr.
> He don't know you too well, do he? ; } That is why I like my sig, no
>one posts stuff like that when I say my Camaro beat brand X car!
I kind of like it.
mp...@tidalwave.com
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:55:31 -0700, "Steven Fisher" <s...@srf.com>
wrote:
>>>>i gave up on the fox4 mustangs since it came out.....a V6 mazda
>>>>millenia comfy family car with less horsepower has higher top speed.
>>>
>>>What are you snorting? What do you buy a car for, something as stupid as
>>>saying "I can do 150" or something functional like acceleration? How
>>>incredibly material.
>>
>>also dumbass...if i wanted good acceleration, i'd buy a z/28
>
>
>Then go to the Camaro newsgroup and leave us alone child.
>
>
>
what if i have currently have 2 mustangs and 0 camaros dumbass?
mp...@tidalwave.com
>>What were you driving to "spank" a new C4? If it was a stock GT, WAKE
>>UP!!!!
>
>A 93 RX-7 R1 with the Pettit base performance package.
>
those RX-7s are nice....i'm thinking of either that or a z/28....what
worries me is that wanker (wankel?) engine.
mp...@tidalwave.com
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:55:02 -0700, "Steven Fisher" <s...@srf.com>
wrote:
>>>I have seen the needle at 140 in my 96 GT and it was still pulling (i
i see...so they were testing about 50 cars from $150,000 Porches to
$15,000 Toyotas....
they have professional drivers
they have a track to theselves
cool equipment
and similar mags have had similar results
who should i believe?
you on an interstate highway long enough or them?
mp...@tidalwave.com
On 1 May 1998 14:52:31 GMT, mste...@vt.edu (Michael J. Stepanek)
wrote:
>>Screw Motor Trend's numbers....you people got to stop taking these magazines
>>too seriously. All these tests are taken under different circumstances. If
>>you wantto race your Mustang against your buddy's Millenium or Volvo
>>wagon...
>>take it to the track!!! End this bullsh@&t about top speed and all that
>>other
>>crap!!
>
the whole point is that if you're going to put your ass in debt for 5
years, paying sky high insurance rates, get scared to death everytime
there's a 2 inch accumulation of snow, visit the gas station 3 times a
week......
you should at least be getting some fucking decent aerodynamics that
will at least beat a Mazda Millenia that have a lot less horsepower.
i'm not picking at little things like a CUP holder.....i'm talking
about aerodynamics which affects lots of shit....for starters,
MPG....and if you drive fast in a mustang you should know that it can
get scary on windy days doing 100+ mph.
and Motor Trend's test was with a '95 COBRA which would include the
high performance tires and big wheels....138mph...this is a joke.
mp...@tidalwave.com
On 30 Apr 1998 22:41:22 GMT, oodl...@aol.com (Oodleoff) wrote:
>>i gave up on the fox4 mustangs since it came out.....a V6 mazda
>>millenia comfy family car with less horsepower has higher top speed.
>>
>>last time i checked a magazine, think Motor Trend, had to duct tape
>>the grill and foglights; remove air filter...of a '95 COBRA to get it
>>to 140mph.
>>
>>
>
>Hmmmm I had my '91 Mustang 5.0 to 138 pretty dang quickly then ran out of room,
>about a 2 mile road. And my '96 Cobra I have had to 150 with no problems.
exactly my point....the aerodynamics of the Fox Ford Fairmont
Mustangs are better than that of the Fox4 new Mustangs.
another obvious is the road....is it flat....because a mag like
mototrend gets a track to themselves during testing....the '96 cobra
have the dohc engine...the '95 cobra had the 5.7L i think...cant
remember.
Nick Totoro
mp...@tidalwave.com wrote...
<<and Motor Trend's test was with a '95 COBRA which would include
the high performance tires and big wheels....138mph...this is a joke.>>
Ford actually has a little bit if electronic trickery in the
'94-'95 Cobras. This is the reason for it's relatively low top speed,
not drag. The computer starts to cut timing in the low 90mph range and
fuel not much higher than that. The feel is very gradual and can fool
you. It is not present in the GT's EEC-IV, only the Cobra. Most Cobra
owners either switch to a GT computer or have a chip burned for the EEC
to get around this, depending on what modifications are done. Then
again, I wouldn't know that either if I only read Motor Trend...
Nick
_______________________________________________________________
#6, #99 & #94 in the quest for the Cup
1994 Ford SVT Mustang Cobra #728
My home away from home... http://ntotoro.home.mindspring.com/
_______________________________________________________________
Subic Sailor
I haven't read all of this thread, but I know I have had my speedo bouncing
off my trip odometer before, not to long after I bought it new in '91. One
time was with the CHP in pursuit.
As I was rounding another bend, at the speed limit, another CHP 'lit me up'.
We waited for over 5-6 minutes for his partner to arrive, the one who
originated the chase.
The only reason they didn't arrest me was the fact that I was active duty US
Navy at the time. We even sat and BS'd for awhile. The officers were both
polite and didn't even blink an eye that I was kickin' ass on the road.
Seemed like another ticket to them. One of them mentioned the fact that he
could understand the feeling of a new car though, but seriously advised me
to slow it down so the next time he wouldn't be seeing me in a body bag.
The coolest part was they only ticketed me for 75+ so I could erase the
record from my DMV record.
Lucky for me it wasn't needed.
BTW. Beat the ticket in Mendocino County Court by pointing out the fact the
CHP couldn't POSITIVELY identify me due to the fact they lost sight of the
vehicle they initiated the pursuit on. Of course I didn't bother telling
the Judge they DID have the right car.
That was in late '91. Guess what? That was the only time I had been
ticketed north of Long Beach...until just about a month ago. Same County.
Same HWY, 101 northbound(last one was southbound). Same agency(CHP). Same
court.
The CHP is usually invisible from Oregon to San Francisco, at least on HWY
101.
'91 5.0 LX Sedan
ASmall9494 wrote in message
<199805030139...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
:Wow this is a pointless thread. First off to those driving 140+ on the
:highways, its stupid. Even WT says its stupid. How many of you 140+
bandits
:have a calibrated speedo for those speeds? My guess is zero. BTW, radar
:detectors aren't that accurate either. The best way is the closed course
lap
:time method or straight line timing light method which MT uses. Cool, huh?
:They also do a run in both directions and report the average to take out
the
:wind and slope of the road if any. Cool, huh? Watch MT tv sometime, those
:guys don't drive as bad as everyone says. And to top the whole thread off,
:Oodleoff went 150 in his 96 Cobra. Oodleoff, tell me how you can go 150 in
a
:car you don't even have? Can you send me a pic of your car Oodle? Of
course
:not, you don't have a scanner. Typical AOL. I on the other hand do own
the
:car and I have pictures. Check it out. And I've been 115 at the drag
strip.
:I left it on the floor until redline in 3rd one time. I have awesome
brakes so
:its not much of a concern. Try driving safe speeds from now on, you may
kill
:someone including yourself. Don't give me that crap about I'm an awesome
:driver. Ever see what a blowout does to a street car at those speeds? I
have.
:
:
:
:
:riored97cobra#301
:13.88 @ 102.5
:http://riored.fordpower.org
:mustang circuit site 142
:
White Tornado Jr.
>those RX-7s are nice....i'm thinking of either that or a z/28....what
>worries me is that wanker (wankel?) engine.
They are tempermental and expensive. Once you are behind the wheel
there is nothing like it.
It's best as a second car and if you aren't on a tight budget.
ASmall9494
NoOption5L
In article <354B5D0E...@mindspring.com>, Nick Totoro
<nto...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> Ford actually has a little bit if electronic trickery in the
>'94-'95 Cobras. This is the reason for it's relatively low top speed,
>not drag. The computer starts to cut timing in the low 90mph range and
>fuel not much higher than that. The feel is very gradual and can fool
>you. It is not present in the GT's EEC-IV, only the Cobra. Most Cobra
>owners either switch to a GT computer or have a chip burned for the EEC
>to get around this, depending on what modifications are done. Then
>again, I wouldn't know that either if I only read Motor Trend...
Nick,
Where did you read or here this? I've always wondered why the '94-95 Cobras
always posted such a low top end number.
Patrick
Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
NoOption5L
In article <354b674a...@Newsdesk.tidalwave.net>, mp...@tidalwave.com
writes:
>>Hmmmm I had my '91 Mustang 5.0 to 138 pretty dang quickly then ran out of
>room,
>>about a 2 mile road. And my '96 Cobra I have had to 150 with no problems.
>
>exactly my point....the aerodynamics of the Fox Ford Fairmont
>Mustangs are better than that of the Fox4 new Mustangs.
The old Fox LXs posted a .36 and the GTs posted a .38. What is the aero
numbers for the new GT and Cobras?
>another obvious is the road....is it flat....because a mag like
>mototrend gets a track to themselves during testing....the '96 cobra
>have the dohc engine...the '95 cobra had the 5.7L i think...cant
>remember.
'95 Cobra had a 5 liter with GT-40 heads.
NoOption5L
In article <354bc4d2....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>, TheWhit...@yahoo.com (White
Tornado Jr. ) writes:
I saw a beauty today! BRIGHT yellow last generation RX7. Rolled right up next
to me a traffic light. Awesome! I also had a DOHC Cobra with two younger guys
on board and very sharp looking newer Talon cruise up next to me. What did I
do? Not a damn thing! I was driving the wife's Accord. =-(
Never fails, I mean NEVER fails, EVERYTIME I take her car to do so running
around, every performance car in town parades next to me. I can zip her car
right back home and jump in the Mustang, but as soon I behind the wheel on
Mustang every car on the road is a minivan, SUV, econo cars, PUs, ect.
Man, this is really starting to p*ss me off! Anyone with an explanation for
this phenomenon. ??? I knew I should have convinced Suzanne to buy the Impala
SS. DL, any chance you'd swap the GN for an Accord?
I'm thinking of trying to out smart this occurance. I'll drive the Accord and
have the wife follow behind with the Mustang. Then when a performance car gets
near we'll do the old '50's driver switch at the traffic light. I'll jump into
the Mustang and Suzanne will jump into Accord. What do you all think?
NoOption5L
In article <199805030139...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
asmal...@aol.com (ASmall9494) writes:
>Wow this is a pointless thread. First off to those driving 140+ on the
>highways, its stupid.
Back east, yes this is true. C'mon out west. Try I25 south of Albuquerque.
Nothing but tumbleweeds. Well into the triples...no problem...I do nearly
every week.
Patrick
ASmall9494
>From: noopt...@aol.com
>>Wow this is a pointless thread. First off to those driving 140+ on the
>>highways, its stupid.
>
>Back east, yes this is true. C'mon out west. Try I25 south of Albuquerque.
>Nothing but tumbleweeds. Well into the triples...no problem...I do nearly
>every week.
Yes you are right. High speed driving is safer on isolated roads out west.
I'm from Tx and I've seen many a deserted road. But like I said before one
blowout and its all over. Do you know whats on that road? Can you stop fast
enough if your going 140 and some idiot construction company lost a box of
nails or dry wall screws? No, you won't be able to. If you really have a high
speed need or desire, I really suggest you take it to a race track. BTW, even
in TX on those deserted roads anything over 100 is go straight to jail. I
really discourage high speed driving on public highways. Not to say that I've
never done it, but it was stupid and now I'd rather go to the track instead.
Now if you want to do the Open Road Race Series in Nevada or something like
that; by all means knock yourself out. Did I ever tell you all the story of my
82 GT? My dad had the car run 140 for a 9 mile average on a test track one
day. I told him he wasn't too bright for driving that car that fast, but he
didn't care. Anyway, after I got married I sold it to a local kid in TX. He
nearly killed himself in that car. He was doing some high speed testing of his
own a desserted road, and he rolled the car somewhere around 5 times or
something. It was beat all to hell. And think, he was lucky. I'd hate to
have my neighbor die in my old car out of stupidity, and I'd hate for the same
to happen ot any of you. It's pointless. There are so many tracks where such
activity is legal, rules are enforced, and safety is at least considered. Do
yourself a favor and go try one out. The best part is meeting fellow speed
freaks as well. I'm not saying driving fast isn't fun, but it has no place on
my street.
NoOption5L
In article <199805030619...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
asmal...@aol.com (ASmall9494) writes:
>>>Wow this is a pointless thread. First off to those driving 140+ on the
>>>highways, its stupid.
>>
>>Back east, yes this is true. C'mon out west. Try I25 south of Albuquerque.
>
>>Nothing but tumbleweeds. Well into the triples...no problem...I do nearly
>>every week.
>Yes you are right. High speed driving is safer on isolated roads out west.
>I'm from Tx and I've seen many a deserted road. But like I said before one
>blowout and its all over. Do you know whats on that road? Can you stop fast
>enough if your going 140 and some idiot construction company lost a box of
>nails or dry wall screws?
Good point
>No, you won't be able to. If you really have a
>high
>speed need or desire, I really suggest you take it to a race track.
I do, at Albuquerque Dragway.
BTW, even
>in TX on those deserted roads anything over 100 is go straight to jail.
Again, there is nothing out there. Cops...in the middle of the hot, barren
desert?
>I really discourage high speed driving on public highways. Not to say that
>I've never done it, but it was stupid and now I'd rather go to the track
instead.
The speed limit is 75mph, and most cars are traveling around 80 or so. I
cruise around those numbers when I'm near other motorists, but when the road is
*clear* I tach it up.
>Now if you want to do the Open Road Race Series in Nevada or something like
>that; by all means knock yourself out. Did I ever tell you all the story of
>my
>82 GT? My dad had the car run 140 for a 9 mile average on a test track one
>day. I told him he wasn't too bright for driving that car that fast, but he
>didn't care. Anyway, after I got married I sold it to a local kid in TX. He
>nearly killed himself in that car. He was doing some high speed testing of
>his
>own a desserted road, and he rolled the car somewhere around 5 times or
>something.
How did the accident happen? Mechanical problem? Tire? ???
>It was beat all to hell. And think, he was lucky. I'd hate to
>have my neighbor die in my old car out of stupidity, and I'd hate for the
>same
>to happen ot any of you. It's pointless. There are so many tracks where
>such
>activity is legal, rules are enforced, and safety is at least considered. Do
>yourself a favor and go try one out. The best part is meeting fellow speed
>freaks as well. I'm not saying driving fast isn't fun, but it has no place
>on
>my street.
I agree the track is the best and safest place. But for my highway romps, I
*always*, keep my car very well maintained, keep safe distances, and use my
blinkers when changing lanes.
I think there are many motorists out there that are at a much bigger risk on
urban highways and streets because of those who who don't follow my
precautions. Doing the bob-and-weave in heavy traffic especially around
tractor trailers. How many times have we all seen this happen? And the idiots
with the rear shocks removed (Pro Hoppers) or the cars with the no profiles
mounted on the offset wheels.
Again, I appreciate your concern and you have some very good points. Yes, I
realize that there is life and death risk in my highway romps, but there is the
same risk in everyday traffic as well as your/and our ocassional(?) run through
the gears. So, I guess my point is when we are "out playing" is to try and
minimize the risk as much as possible.
Nick Totoro
noopt...@aol.com wrote...
<<Nick, Where did you read or here this? I've always wondered why
the '94-95 Cobras always posted such a low top end number.>>
I've heard it from my mechanic, the SVT tech line, the SVT list and
about a dozen '94-'95 Cobra owners who have either switched computers or
had chips burned and gotten around the problem. A few owners first took
notice because their trap speeds at the strip were not reflective of
thier ET's.
I'm not sure about the '93 Cobras, but the '94-'95's are definately
electronically neutered. You can do a search on the Cobra EEC-IV through
Dejanews and it'll return posts about it from the Corral. The topic
comes up every so often. Ever wonder why it's not uncommon to see GT's
with higher top speeds? Ever wonder why the '94-'95 Cobras are marketed
as having a "specially calibrated EEC-IV..." 8 (
Most guys have a chip burned once modifications are done. This way
they can change a few parameters, such as the operating temperatures of
the fan, as well as help drivability with a particularly hot cam. My
mechanic says the only true way to improve the Cobra is to switch
computers, however most guys will advise going the route of a custom
chip because of the Cobra's 24 lb/hr injectors. It's also probably less
expensive (+/- $250) to have a chip burned than get an EEC-IV. If you do
futher modifications, you can have the chip re-calibrated for about $50
a pop.
You can control pretty much everything with a custom chip... too
much for me at which to even take a stab. APE can do it much better. I
plan on having a chip burned in the future and they and Chris Johnson
one of the ones I'm sighting...
Schtoo
>The problem is it is a 35mph zone. It's just back there in the woods
>with some farm houses around. I use it as my little G-Tech tuning
>test strip. I use it so much, I know I am going to get busted one of
>these days.
>
I did get busted on a local test spot, flat and straight for about a
mile. I said I wasn't doing that much, just trying it out, the fresh
rubber under the guards, and hot tyres didn't help my cause. But the
turbo did. The cop hadn't seen one like it, and forgot all about the
ticket, as long as I gave him a go in his car. The cars they have are
fast, and he killed me. But I missed a ticket, no, prison cell.
>In fact, not a month ago I was G-Teching, revved, ready to dump the
>clutch and I saw some lights coming at me. So I let the rpm drop and
>just took off normally, sure enough it was "the man." I wouldn't have
>gotten it that bad as I was only planning a 0-60 run. But still...
>It would have sucked.
Lucky, lucky.
>
>I pop up to 100mph briefly on the highway all the time. It only takes
>a few seconds to get there from 65-70, so why not eh? Well I got
>busted for that about a month ago on a rural part of I-95 in the
>Carolinas. 60-100-60-100-60-100-60-100. What the hell I was bored.
>On the way down from 100, somewhere in the 80s I passed a cop.
>Carolina has a 65mph limit. I didn't even wait for him to pull up
>behind me. He barely started moving and I just pulled over and
>waited. Why bother?
You can't around here, detectors are illegal, and they have every
revenue raiser you can get. Just too risky unless you know where you
are.
>
>I was all, "dude I just got this car yesterday and was playing with
>it." He was amused, and told me to get a radar detector. Let me off
>with a 9mph ticket, only $50 and no insurance penalty. Then he was
>all "this is a SWEET ride, where did you get it? How much? etc"
>
>Whatever, it pays to not be an asshole to cops.
>
I have found this out, and very quickly too. As a result I still drive
myself around. Funny thing, you know all these Honda clowns around
here, I fixed a new Prelude the other night, he had the closed lane,
and about 80 more hp, but I fixed him, he got all silly on the brakes
when he realised I wasn't backing off for him. Just as well I know my
car well, and he was just a "bill me for the work" guy. Otherwise, you
could nail me and my current wheels in a Yugo. Just a funny thing
about these guys sometimes. BTW you got no problem in your new thing,
as long as you don't go all stupid on it, and pay stupid money for
things you can do cheaper. Can you say 200mph?
Michael J. Stepanek
>those RX-7s are nice....i'm thinking of either that or a z/28....what
>worries me is that wanker (wankel?) engine.
Yeah, it's wankle... with an 'l'. At least, that's how it's pronounced. I'm
not sure if I got the spelling right. I think it should also be
capitalized... I think it's somebody's name. I'm sure there's plenty of info
on the web if you're interested. I went to a site a while ago (forgot the
address). It was pretty good. It explained how they work, and all. It's
kind of an interesting idea, but it doesn't seem to have much support, which
means that it would be expensive to keep.
Gary H
On 03 May 1998 01:39:30 GMT, asmal...@aol.com (ASmall9494) wrote:
I on the other hand do own the
>car and I have pictures. Check it out. And I've been 115 at the drag strip.
>I left it on the floor until redline in 3rd one time. I have awesome brakes so
>its not much of a concern. Try driving safe speeds from now on, you may kill
>someone including yourself. Don't give me that crap about I'm an awesome
>driver. Ever see what a blowout does to a street car at those speeds? I have.
I left my foot in it once at Englishtown as well. I saw somewhere in
the mid 120s before I backed off. I never did it again though, as my
Dad said they will ban you from the track for doing something like
that....As far as top speeds go, it really depends on the road. I
have been on roads where 110 mph felt 'fast', other roads I have seen
130mph and its smooth.
94 White Firebird Formula
A4 3.23, K&N, Edelbrock Cat-Back
13.66 @ 100.56 MPH
ASmall9494
>From: noopt...@aol.com (NoOption5L)
> If you really have a
>>high
>>speed need or desire, I really suggest you take it to a race track.
>
>I do, at Albuquerque Dragway.
Excellent>BTW, even
>>in TX on those deserted roads anything over 100 is go straight to jail.
>
>Again, there is nothing out there. Cops...in the middle of the hot, barren
>desert?
Well, in my younger years I blew past the sheriff in the middle of no where
going that fast, and its a good thing it is a small county (population wise)
and he knew me. I got off with one heck of an ass chewing.
>The speed limit is 75mph, and most cars are traveling around 80 or so. I
>cruise around those numbers when I'm near other motorists, but when the road
>is
>*clear* I tach it up.
>
>
Yes, following the flow of traffic is important. And if you must go for some
serious speed make sure your tires are in good shape and your engine is full of
oil and coolant. I know that you, Patrick probably do all these religiously,
but there are those who do not.
>He was doing some high speed testing of
>>his
>>own a desserted road, and he rolled the car somewhere around 5 times or
>>something.
>
>How did the accident happen? Mechanical problem? Tire? ???
I don't know for sure. But the car needed tires when I sold it, but I doubt he
bought new ones. I shudder at the thought of 120+ on those tires. I doubt he
had the skills for driving such speeds anyway.
>I agree the track is the best and safest place. But for my highway romps, I
>*always*, keep my car very well maintained, keep safe distances, and use my
>blinkers when changing lanes.
>
>
At least you have the safety of yourself and others in mind. Lots don't.
Remember that post about 3 months ago of the guy who did 140 in his new Cobra,
but had to slam on his brakes and nearly ran over a minivan because there was a
car coming in the opposite lane? That kind of stuff is real scary. My wife
could have been driving that minivan or the oncoming car.
>I think there are many motorists out there that are at a much bigger risk on
>urban highways and streets because of those who who don't follow my
>precautions. Doing the bob-and-weave in heavy traffic especially around
>tractor trailers. How many times have we all seen this happen? And the
>idiots
>with the rear shocks removed (Pro Hoppers) or the cars with the no profiles
>mounted on the offset wheels.
I agree, and some states are beginning to crack down on that stuff. A lot of
people get pissed when they get a ticket because their car is too low. Back
home I saw a lowrider have a hydraulic rupture on the street and the chassis
ended up cratering the pavement pretty good when they drove away in it. It
took quite a while to repair that intersection as a result.
>Again, I appreciate your concern and you have some very good points. Yes, I
>realize that there is life and death risk in my highway romps, but there is
>the
>same risk in everyday traffic as well as your/and our ocassional(?) run
>through
>the gears. So, I guess my point is when we are "out playing" is to try and
>minimize the risk as much as possible.
Again I'm glad that you go about this as safetly as possible, since so many
don't. Have fun and maybe one day I'll see in you in Nevada at the ORRC
series.
ASmall9494
>From: ga...@injersey.net (Gary H)
>.As far as top speeds go, it really depends on the road. I
>have been on roads where 110 mph felt 'fast', other roads I have seen
>130mph and its smooth.
You are right there it depends a lot on the road. I saw 170 in a race car one
time and it scared the hell out of me. Why? It was on a 9 mile circle and the
car had a 8:1 road racing rack and pinion in it. If I looked at the wheel
funny the thing would change lanes on me. Combined with the drift at those
speeds it was scary. Dad drove the same car to a 209 mph average the same day,
but I've always thought he was insane. This is what finally convinced me that
maybe racing wasn't for me. Of course, I regret not pursuing it more now.
That was 9 years ago and all the race cars I had access to are gone now.
mp...@tidalwave.com
>Patrick
>
>Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
oh yeah i remember now...it was the Cobra-R that had the 5.7L
mp...@tidalwave.com
>mp...@tidalwave.com wrote...
>
> <<and Motor Trend's test was with a '95 COBRA which would include
>the high performance tires and big wheels....138mph...this is a joke.>>
>
> Ford actually has a little bit if electronic trickery in the
>'94-'95 Cobras. This is the reason for it's relatively low top speed,
>not drag. The computer starts to cut timing in the low 90mph range and
>fuel not much higher than that. The feel is very gradual and can fool
>you. It is not present in the GT's EEC-IV, only the Cobra. Most Cobra
>owners either switch to a GT computer or have a chip burned for the EEC
>to get around this, depending on what modifications are done. Then
>again, I wouldn't know that either if I only read Motor Trend...
> Nick
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>#6, #99 & #94 in the quest for the Cup
>1994 Ford SVT Mustang Cobra #728
>My home away from home... http://ntotoro.home.mindspring.com/
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>
i see, so Ford is selling you a car that is purposefully slower?
not a little slower....but a lot slower on the top end than say...a
'93 z/28.
interestingly, you are not saying how many more MPH your Cobra will
gain with the GT's computer....
2-3 mph maybe?
bottom line....aerodynamics on the Fox4 platform is inferior.
mp...@tidalwave.com
On 03 May 1998 01:39:30 GMT, asmal...@aol.com (ASmall9494) wrote:
>Wow this is a pointless thread. First off to those driving 140+ on the
>highways, its stupid. Even WT says its stupid. How many of you 140+ bandits
>have a calibrated speedo for those speeds? My guess is zero. BTW, radar
>detectors aren't that accurate either. The best way is the closed course lap
>time method or straight line timing light method which MT uses. Cool, huh?
>They also do a run in both directions and report the average to take out the
>wind and slope of the road if any. Cool, huh? Watch MT tv sometime, those
>guys don't drive as bad as everyone says. And to top the whole thread off,
>Oodleoff went 150 in his 96 Cobra. Oodleoff, tell me how you can go 150 in a
>car you don't even have? Can you send me a pic of your car Oodle? Of course
>not, you don't have a scanner. Typical AOL. I on the other hand do own the
>car and I have pictures. Check it out. And I've been 115 at the drag strip.
>I left it on the floor until redline in 3rd one time. I have awesome brakes so
>its not much of a concern. Try driving safe speeds from now on, you may kill
>someone including yourself. Don't give me that crap about I'm an awesome
>driver. Ever see what a blowout does to a street car at those speeds? I have.
>
>
>
>
>riored97cobra#301
>13.88 @ 102.5
>http://riored.fordpower.org
>mustang circuit site 142
>
this is not pointless as you're spending money on a car with
unimproved aerodynamics.
Nick Totoro
mp...@tidalwave.com...
<<i see, so Ford is selling you a car that is purposefully
slower?>>
When you're giving up that much in terms of CID and power compared
to the f-bodies, the car is going to be slower unless it weighs 1000lbs
less. I'm sure the guys at SVT didn't sit in a room and discuss why the
car needed to be slower. That question is completely ludicrous and a
poor crack at the fact that I've thrown a unexpected monkey wrench in
your argument.
<<not a little slower....but a lot slower on the top end than
say...a '93 z/28.>>
See my first response. They're giving up an awful lot of power to
those cars... enough to make the difference.
<<interestingly, you are not saying how many more MPH your Cobra
will gain with the GT's computer.... 2-3 mph maybe?>>
More like 7-8, a fairly substantial amount. The difference is
noticed more in acceleration at those speeds, where the car continues to
pull. Dragstrip trap speeds show a pretty nice gain with modified Cobra
EEC's, but only slightly quicker times. There's more reason than speed
to modify the EEC, however.
<<bottom line....aerodynamics on the Fox4 platform is inferior.>>
Inferior to what? Let's get some cars in the wind tunnel, then
discuss drag and downforce numbers. Until then, you're just talking
mess.
mp...@tidalwave.com
granted that not everyone can get to top speed on interstates....it's
still pretty stupid to buy a high performance car that will beat you
to death on long trips, gets high insurance premium, nice 5-year debt,
gas guzzling...and can't drive in 2 inches of snow.....and say....i
don't care about top speed and aerodynamics
if aerodynamics is not important to you then you're either lying or
you drive like a pussy.....
i've never hit top speed on my ~280hp '87 GT, but i've been in the 3
digits MPH often it is frightening sometimes when you have to make
quick lane changes because the idiot a 1/4 mile infront cant judge how
fast i'm coming up on him when he suddenly decides to get in my lane.
and dont even talk about strong gusts of wind at this speed....
aerodynamics affects all of this regardless of whether or not you have
the balls to hit top speed.
Just some guy who tries to take a totally unbiased approach towards my opinions about cars.
Steven Fisher <s...@srf.com> wrote in article
<6ialjb$6...@news.microsoft.com>...
> >>I have seen the needle at 140 in my 96 GT and it was still pulling (i
> >>chickened out when the rear end started lifting up off of the ground).
the
> >>guys at mustangworld.com have seen 150 in theirs. of course, the
> calibration
> >>is probably not "radar gun" accurate.
> >>robert
> >
> >you must have not been on a flat surface or your speedo is wrong....or
> >you're modified.
> >
> >Motor Trend couldn't get a STOCK '95 Cobra to 140mph
> >
> >they had to remove the air filter and duct tape the grill & fog lights
> >to hit 140mph
>
> You're making the assumption that Motor Trend's results are the
> end-all-be-all, which they simply are not.
>
yea, some people can push down on the pedal harder, (through the foorboard)
resulting in higher top speed.
ASmall9494
>From: mp...@tidalwave.com
>this is not pointless as you're spending money on a car with
>unimproved aerodynamics.
Thanks for the compliment troll man. Why is this a troll? 'cause you're only
here trying to piss off stang owners. In other words this is a compliment from
a dork like you. Care to run me in your camaro? Come to WA and we'll go to
the racetrack. You are a waste of air that my car could be using instead.
ASmall9494
>From: mp...@tidalwave.com
>granted that not everyone can get to top speed on interstates....it's
>still pretty stupid to buy a high performance car that will beat you
>to death on long trips, gets high insurance premium, nice 5-year debt,
>gas guzzling...and can't drive in 2 inches of snow.....and say....i
>don't care about top speed and aerodynamics
>
>if aerodynamics is not important to you then you're either lying or
>you drive like a pussy.....
>
>i've never hit top speed on my ~280hp '87 GT, but i've been in the 3
>digits MPH often it is frightening sometimes when you have to make
>quick lane changes because the idiot a 1/4 mile infront cant judge how
>fast i'm coming up on him when he suddenly decides to get in my lane.
Why in the hell should he expect anyone to be coming up on him at that speed
anyway? It's your fault for being the dumb fuck stupid enought to drive that
fast in traffic, not his. Don't believe me? Run into him sometime and take it
to court. Your ass will be in a sling, not his.
>and dont even talk about strong gusts of wind at this speed....
>
>aerodynamics affects all of this regardless of whether or not you have
>the balls to hit top speed.
And you think any street car this side of a Ferrari is really stable at these
speeds? You'd be a moron for thinking it. Porsche's and Ferrari's are some of
the only cars in the world designed with a 170 mph romp in mind. You can add
hp to an american car to get there, but its far from safe at those speeds.
You'll end up a Darwin award winner for sure. Just keep driving 100+ in
traffic and blame your stupidity on others. You are well on your way.
Gary H
On Sun, 03 May 1998 23:53:24 GMT, mp...@tidalwave.com wrote:
>i've never hit top speed on my ~280hp '87 GT, but i've been in the 3
>digits MPH often it is frightening sometimes when you have to make
>quick lane changes because the idiot a 1/4 mile infront cant judge how
>fast i'm coming up on him when he suddenly decides to get in my lane.
No, thats your fault. At 120mph you are covering a 1/4 mile in 7 1/2
seconds. It is not other people's problem that you are going that
fast, its yours. I always try to wait for an open stretch of road,
you never want to blow by people going that fast. Its very startling
for one thing, and if they were to ever change lanes without looking,
it doesn't really matter who is right and who is wrong because you are
all dying anyways....
>and dont even talk about strong gusts of wind at this speed....
>
>aerodynamics affects all of this regardless of whether or not you have
>the balls to hit top speed.
Very true.
Gary H
On Sun, 03 May 1998 23:34:24 GMT, mp...@tidalwave.com wrote:
>>'95 Cobra had a 5 liter with GT-40 heads.
>>
>>
>>Patrick
>>
>>Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
>
>
>oh yeah i remember now...it was the Cobra-R that had the 5.7L
The '95 Cobra-R had a 351, its technically a 5.8 :-)
White Tornado Jr.
>I saw a beauty today! BRIGHT yellow last generation RX7. Rolled right up next
>to me a traffic light. Awesome! I also had a DOHC Cobra with two younger guys
>on board and very sharp looking newer Talon cruise up next to me. What did I
>do? Not a damn thing! I was driving the wife's Accord. =-(
That sucks. Same story here. I pulled up to so many worthy opponents
while driving the Escort. I'll get like two 17 year olds in a C5 at
every light. I get into a fast ride, it's minivans and SUVs.
I did have to turn down a race in the RX-7. I had a pesky #2 turbo
problem that had the #2 turbo not working at all if you hammered it
starting at too high an RPM. It was a couple of year old Z28 that was
wanting to play on the highway. I tracked it down to my own
stupidity, I forgot to plug in the soleniod that controls it. Duh.
>I'm thinking of trying to out smart this occurance. I'll drive the Accord and
>have the wife follow behind with the Mustang. Then when a performance car gets
>near we'll do the old '50's driver switch at the traffic light. I'll jump into
>the Mustang and Suzanne will jump into Accord. What do you all think?
It won't work.
White Tornado Jr.
>Yeah, it's wankle... with an 'l'. At least, that's how it's pronounced. I'm
>not sure if I got the spelling right. I think it should also be
>capitalized... I think it's somebody's name. I'm sure there's plenty of info
>on the web if you're interested. I went to a site a while ago (forgot the
>address). It was pretty good. It explained how they work, and all. It's
>kind of an interesting idea, but it doesn't seem to have much support, which
>means that it would be expensive to keep.
The replacement engines really aren't that expensive. You can get a
short block for $1800 from Mazda. You can get a totally ported and
built engine from PFS or Pettit for $3000.
The problem is if you don't live near PFS or Pettit you better know
how to turn a wrench, cause no one knows how to work on these cars.
Thankfully there is a very large and helpful internet group.
mp...@tidalwave.com
>mp...@tidalwave.com...
>
> <<i see, so Ford is selling you a car that is purposefully
>slower?>>
>
> When you're giving up that much in terms of CID and power compared
>to the f-bodies, the car is going to be slower unless it weighs 1000lbs
>less. I'm sure the guys at SVT didn't sit in a room and discuss why the
>car needed to be slower. That question is completely ludicrous and a
>poor crack at the fact that I've thrown a unexpected monkey wrench in
>your argument.
>
hi...
and nice reply to the WRONG question...read the rest of the
thread...im not making a statement, im repeating what the other guy
said.
but here's your answer...
SN95 Mustangs R&D was $800 million.
this explains why the '93 z/28 is faster, more powerful, better aero,
has a 6th gear, and costs less....the mustang may outweigh the z/28
about 100lbs....while the trans am are heavier...but still faster.
> <<not a little slower....but a lot slower on the top end than
>say...a '93 z/28.>>
>
> See my first response. They're giving up an awful lot of power to
>those cars... enough to make the difference.
what accesories are u talking about here that exists on the Mustangs
while not on the Z/28s?
could it be the fucking 5.7L engine vs. a 4.6L ?
>
> <<interestingly, you are not saying how many more MPH your Cobra
>will gain with the GT's computer.... 2-3 mph maybe?>>
>
> More like 7-8, a fairly substantial amount. The difference is
>noticed more in acceleration at those speeds, where the car continues to
>pull. Dragstrip trap speeds show a pretty nice gain with modified Cobra
>EEC's, but only slightly quicker times. There's more reason than speed
>to modify the EEC, however.
haha...this is funny...you're quoting car magazine results while
telling me not to accept car magazine's tests as the final word (in a
previous post)
>
> <<bottom line....aerodynamics on the Fox4 platform is inferior.>>
>
> Inferior to what? Let's get some cars in the wind tunnel, then
>discuss drag and downforce numbers. Until then, you're just talking
>mess.
> Nick
ok hotshot...do you have new GT and a new Z/28 and a wind tunnel?
and who's gonna buy my round trip airfare for me to visit you?
until then....we just go by the car magazines.
cheers...
'87 GT (low 13s)
'87 LX 5.0L (stock)
'87 MR2
'87 Subaru XT
Nick Totoro
mp...@tidalwave.com wrote...
<<and nice reply to the WRONG question...read the rest of the
thread...im not making a statement, im repeating what the other guy
said.>>
If that's the case, then I apologize about the direction in which I
have cast my reponse. Regardless, I'm still sure there of what I say.
<<but here's your answer...>>
I don't remember asking a question...
<<SN95 Mustangs R&D was $800 million. this explains why the '93
z/28 is faster, more powerful, better aero, has a 6th gear, and costs
less....the mustang may outweigh the z/28
about 100lbs....while the trans am are heavier...but still faster.>>
The money went for more than motor. The same money could have been
spent and a Windsor put in the car, but I have no complaints and am
happy with what I have and happy to modify it. The T56 could have been
put in the car, also, however it's only advantage in a Mustang
application is its higher torque capacity, not the sixth gear. It
doesn't improve the economy in Mustangs that much, as two cars I know
with them have shown.
<<what accesories are u talking about here that exists on the
Mustangs while not on the Z/28s?>>
No... what are *you* talking about? I didn't mention anything about
accessories. I said the '94-'95 Cobras were giving up power to the
f-bodies. I didn't say anything about accessories.
<<could it be the fucking 5.7L engine vs. a 4.6L ?>>
It could, but we were talking about '94-'95 Cobras, which don't
have a 4.6 whether SOHC or DOHC.
<<haha...this is funny...you're quoting car magazine results while
telling me not to accept car magazine's tests as the final word (in a
previous post)>>
What magazine article did I quote? I used fellow Cobra owners at
the dragstrip as example. Wow... I must have really upset you that now
you're making up stuff. I *never* quote magazine article numbers as a
valid example. You can look me up through Dejanews as far back as you
want.
<<ok hotshot...do you have new GT and a new Z/28 and a wind
tunnel?>>
No, but you've made my point. You can't blab about aerodynamics
when it's the one factor you have little chance of proving.
<<until then....we just go by the car magazines.>>
I don't recall drag number for either car posted anywhere. If they
are, and someone can supply them, I'll admit there's a problem if there
is more than a .02-.03cd difference, however anything less than that is
insubstantial.
Rob Prince
HEHE we hit 105 comin back to VT after easter....not a cop in sight...were
cruisin at 85-95 the whole way...
rob
Thomas J. Klinect
Let's not be an "instant gratification" person. You have to pay some dues or
inherit money. I've been working over 20 years in the same field and it's
only now that I can start to afford toys like this.
I had such a difficult decision to make before the purchase of my Cobra. I
love speed and the Vett's a great toy, however the luxury of the LS400 calls
out to me. In the bottom analysis the Vette lost since it lacked back seats
and the LS400 lost due to an inept powertrain. I have two small children and
the Cobras power and back seats won my money.
Heck, the Cobra was a compromise.
The best advice is the one that hurts the most, stay in school and take the
harder path. Don't jump at every great, sure to get rich quick scheme. Apply
yourself in the field that you are drawn into (and enjoy) and excel farther
than all of your piers. In the end you'll reap all of the benefits of
success and hard work, both personally and professionally.
Take care and good luck.
White Tornado Jr. <TheWhit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
354d3306....@NEWS3.IBM.NET...
>>I saw a beauty today! BRIGHT yellow last generation RX7. Rolled right up
next
>>to me a traffic light. Awesome! I also had a DOHC Cobra with two younger
guys
>>on board and very sharp looking newer Talon cruise up next to me. What did
I
>>do? Not a damn thing! I was driving the wife's Accord.
>
Michael J. Stepanek
>HEHE we hit 105 comin back to VT after easter....not a cop in sight...were
>cruisin at 85-95 the whole way...
Did you go on Saturday or Sunday? What time? I think they only come out
during the peak travel hours to get the most bang for the buck. In any case,
up until a week ago, I was on probation for a speeding ticket, so I've been
taking it pretty easy. That means that I just find somebody like you to
travel a couple car lengths behind :)
NoOption5L
In article <354d3306....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>, TheWhit...@yahoo.com (White
Tornado Jr. ) writes:
>>I'm thinking of trying to out smart this occurance. I'll drive the Accord
>and
>>have the wife follow behind with the Mustang. Then when a performance car
>gets
>>near we'll do the old '50's driver switch at the traffic light. I'll jump
>into
>>the Mustang and Suzanne will jump into Accord. What do you all think?
>It won't work.
DAMN, that's what I thought!
j...@email.com
TFrog93 wrote:
>
> I had only one mishap. A trucker was "dawdling" in the left lane, so I moved
> right to pass. As I stomped on the gas, he finally decided to pull into the
> right lane, and I fried my brakes coming down from about 90mph before he could
> squeeze me off the roadway. Ah, the smell of burning Kevlar!
>
Been there... I drive 40 miles of interstate every day to and from
work... many a truck has run me off into the median. I have started
using third to pass these guys, they barely have time to react before
they could read my license plate.
Even still, the other day one saw me coming and moved over into me...
but as I have learned my lesson I never pass a truck anymore unless it
is a grass median that I'm not afraid to drive on. I have been quite
impressed with the recovery ability of the new Mustang... it has gotten
me out of some tight spots. No Eibach springs for me... 1 inch lower to
the ground and I would be scraping the oil pan in no time! I drive
around here in the south where some development (ok trailer parks) have
six to eight inch deep holes that you have to maneuver.
> I saw only one patrol car. Coming around a curve in the highway, I saw an
> uphill stretch ahead of me that was clogged with trucks, barely moving. I had
> just enough time to slow and decide to make a hasty exit off onto Route 11,
> before I would be stuck in the traffic. (It's a stick shift, and I don't savor
> crawling in stopped traffic for what could be miles...)
Again, been there... daily. My old knee injury is actually irritated
quite frequently. Sometimes I swear the Mustang clutch has a tensioner
on it... feels like a workout machine getting harder and harder - As
much as it hurts, and as often as I complain, you won't see me purchase
an automatic.
> I took 11 north for
> awhile, and then skipped back onto I-81, beyond whatever the problem was. As I
> accelerated onto the highway, I took the left lane, behind a truck that was
> passing a slow-moving car. When the truck passed the car and started to move
> right, I had just nailed the accelerator when I looked in the rearview mirror
> and saw a patrol car coming up behind me. I was in time to cut off the
> acceleration just shy of 75mph, and moved right in front of the truck. The
> patrol car slowed to check me out, then moved on.
Often I ask myself what they think they will see... bodies in the back
seat and me smoking a blunt with a hose running beer to me from the keg
in the trunk.
j...@email.com
mp...@tidalwave.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 12:55:02 -0700, "Steven Fisher" <s...@srf.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>>I have seen the needle at 140 in my 96 GT and it was still pulling (i
> >>>chickened out when the rear end started lifting up off of the ground). the
> >>>guys at mustangworld.com have seen 150 in theirs. of course, the
> >calibration
> >>>is probably not "radar gun" accurate.
> >>>robert
> >>
> >>you must have not been on a flat surface or your speedo is wrong....or
> >>you're modified.
> >>
> >>Motor Trend couldn't get a STOCK '95 Cobra to 140mph
> >>
> >>they had to remove the air filter and duct tape the grill & fog lights
> >>to hit 140mph
> >
> >You're making the assumption that Motor Trend's results are the
> >end-all-be-all, which they simply are not.
> >
> >
>
> $15,000 Toyotas....
>
> they have professional drivers
>
> they have a track to theselves
>
> cool equipment
>
> and similar mags have had similar results
>
> who should i believe?
>
> you on an interstate highway long enough or them?
I drive 80 miles of interstate each day... now granted I am usually just
waking up or exhausted from a long day, when traffic is non-existent and
I am awake I frequently push the upper limits... I have seen 130 in
fourth with pull to go... unless there is some aerodynamic resistance
around 135 that instantly stops acceleration, I shouldn't have any
trouble seeing 140. The car loses stability above 130 (really above
120) so I haven't tried it, and probably won't. I am not quite
interested in top speed as I have the 3.27 gears... for acceleration -
but for my two cents I am not surprised at all that a '96 GT did 140.
Mine is a '97, which is basically the same car. I do have K&N,
flowmasters, and the 3.27 ratio... so that may mean something. If you
say it is not possible, please let me know so that I can get my speedo
checked.
j...@email.com
Mike Herauf
Gary H wrote:
> On Sun, 03 May 1998 23:34:24 GMT, mp...@tidalwave.com wrote:
>
> >>'95 Cobra had a 5 liter with GT-40 heads.
> >>
> >>
> >>Patrick
> >>
> >>Black/Grey '87 5 liter 5 speed LX
> >
> >
> >oh yeah i remember now...it was the Cobra-R that had the 5.7L
>
> The '95 Cobra-R had a 351, its technically a 5.8 :-)
As long as we're picking nits, it's 5.75L ;-)
(61.024 cu in/L)
Mike Herauf
'65 C-code conv
mp...@tidalwave.com
On Tue, 05 May 1998 09:58:50 -0400, j...@email.com wrote:
>I drive 80 miles of interstate each day... now granted I am usually just
>waking up or exhausted from a long day, when traffic is non-existent and
>I am awake I frequently push the upper limits... I have seen 130 in
>fourth with pull to go... unless there is some aerodynamic resistance
>around 135 that instantly stops acceleration, I shouldn't have any
>trouble seeing 140. The car loses stability above 130 (really above
>120) so I haven't tried it, and probably won't. I am not quite
>interested in top speed as I have the 3.27 gears... for acceleration -
>but for my two cents I am not surprised at all that a '96 GT did 140.
>Mine is a '97, which is basically the same car. I do have K&N,
>flowmasters, and the 3.27 ratio... so that may mean something. If you
>say it is not possible, please let me know so that I can get my speedo
>checked.
>j...@email.com
hi...again...the things to consider....when you are comparing your car
to that of test cars in car magazines like Motor Trend, Car & Driver,
etc...who've couln't get a GT40 '95 Cobra past 138mph.
1. they had a test track, you're on the interstate with hills and such
2. they had radar clocking equipment....you have a factory speedo
>trouble seeing 140. The car loses stability above 130 (really above
>120) so I haven't tried it, and probably won't.
this proves that the aero on the SN95 Mustangs are not very
good.....Z/28s can sit at 120mph all day.
i think that you're not on a flat surface and that your speedo is
off....and also, 4th gear is where you wanna be to test top speed
anyways.
my point was not all about top speed, but about the aero of this
car...which affects everyday driving and especially if you go into the
3 digits....i wouldn't have probs with the car if it were $3000
cheaper....but it's about the same as Z/28 with inferior design.
mp...@tidalwave.com
if this were The Price Is Right, I would win as the other guy went
over.
Nick Totoro
<<hi...again...the things to consider....when you are comparing your car
to that of test cars in car magazines like Motor Trend, Car & Driver,
etc...who've couln't get a GT40 '95 Cobra past 138mph.>>
Me, again. You have obviously forgotten my posts the last couple of
days around which you keep dancing. The '94-'95 Cobra's low top speed is
in the electronics, not aerodynamics. It can pull higher, but hits a
wall with power and fuel/spark cutdown. I have even told you where on
the WWW to look for evidence of this, but you have obviously been afraid
to see the truth. There is nothing inherently wrong with the SN95's
aerodynamics. You want to whine paying for a brick? Take a look at any
M-series BMW and its price...
<<this proves that the aero on the SN95 Mustangs are not very
good.....Z/28s can sit at 120mph all day.>>
Then I'll share you my experience. Yes, I have been those speeds in
my Cobra, on the track, before and after chassis/suspension
modifications. The problem is mechanical grip, not aero. Stock Mustangs
of any year have fairly poor mechanical grip. Using a fairly modified
suspension, 120mph+ is a walk in the park and the only sound you hear is
the roar of the motor & exhaust.
Now, I doubt you'll believe me, simply because I disagree with you,
however I've given you just as much evidence as the post with which you
are in agreement... none more than my word. You must accept both posts
equally.
<<....but it's about the same as Z/28 with inferior design.>>
The second day in a row, I challenge you to prove to me the Z28's
aerodynamics are superior enough. Anything less than .02-.03cd is
unsubstantial in terms of stability or speed. Actually, the car with the
higher cd might make more downforce and be more stable at speed. You
forgot about downforce, eh?
BrianC302
>
> Then I'll share you my experience. Yes, I have been those speeds in
>my Cobra, on the track, before and after chassis/suspension
>modifications. The problem is mechanical grip, not aero. Stock Mustangs
>of any year have fairly poor mechanical grip. Using a fairly modified
>suspension, 120mph+ is a walk in the park and the only sound you hear is
>the roar of the motor & exhaust.
> Now, I doubt you'll believe me, simply because I disagree with you,
>however I've given you just as much evidence as the post with which you
>are in agreement... none more than my word. You must accept both posts
>equally.
What is mechanical grip?
Nick Totoro
bria...@aol.com wrote...
<<What is mechanical grip?>>
It is, rather simply put, how the suspension grips the road. As
speeds increase, there is an awful lot of body roll with a stock
suspension, which wreaks havoc on the suspension's ability to grip the
road... keep all four tires planted evenly. Also, the feel is poor
because of how much sway there is. It can be hairy if pushed too hard in
poor situations.
Downforce contributes to the suspension's ability to keep the car
planted, but the same downforce on a car with poor mechanical grip isn't
going to do an awful lot of good. Keeping the Mustang's nose down
actually contributes to stability, also, but giving less frontal area.
So, lowering the car can acually help the car, no pun intended, break
the wind a little more efficiently. It's not enough to change the drag
numbers, but it reduces lift under the front end, which is where the air
hits first.
Steven Fisher
Not hard to do, remeber the 1984 Vettes (which I assume is C4) had 215
horsepower and crappy suspension. Bone stock GT's (a 97 or 98) have been
able to keep up with them around the track from reports I've heard.
Scott wrote in message <6icel7$2vh$1...@supernews.com>...
>What were you driving to "spank" a new C4? If it was a stock GT, WAKE
>UP!!!!
>
>
>White Tornado Jr. wrote in message <35493c41....@NEWS3.IBM.NET>...
>>>last time i checked a magazine, think Motor Trend, had to duct tape
>>>the grill and foglights; remove air filter...of a '95 COBRA to get it
>>>to 140mph.
>>>
>>>hahahahahaha
>>>
>>>that's a freaking joke
>>>
>>>that means that the the new design of the fox4 mustangs have the same
>>>aerodynamic capability of my '87 mustangs.....since both top out about
>>>136mph stock.
>>
>>Mustangs have never been known for their long legs. The aero of the
>>car isn't ideal for top speed runs.
>>
>>The fastest I've gone in a car is 140mph twice. Once when I got my
>>AWD new. Once just a week ago spanking a C4 Vette on the highway.
>>I could have stopped a 120, he was toast by then anyway, but while I
>>was up there.....
>>
>>It was absurdly fast and I kindof felt a little stupid after going
>>that fast on a public road. It still had a bunch more pull left
>>though.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
j...@email.com
That doesn't surprise me... the 95 Cobras aren't all that special... my
4.6 breathes better (stock) or so I have heard.
didn't those 95s have something limiting their top-end anyway?
A gentleman where I work has a 95 cobra and it cannot keep up with my
4.6 - granted driver skill is a factor here, it certaintly is not with
top speed. Why do you care so much anyway? It seems you are beating a
point that nobody else really cares about.
-j
mp...@tidalwave.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 May 1998 09:58:50 -0400, j...@email.com wrote:
>
> >I drive 80 miles of interstate each day... now granted I am usually just
> >waking up or exhausted from a long day, when traffic is non-existent and
> >I am awake I frequently push the upper limits... I have seen 130 in
> >fourth with pull to go... unless there is some aerodynamic resistance
> >around 135 that instantly stops acceleration, I shouldn't have any
> >trouble seeing 140. The car loses stability above 130 (really above
> >120) so I haven't tried it, and probably won't. I am not quite
> >interested in top speed as I have the 3.27 gears... for acceleration -
> >but for my two cents I am not surprised at all that a '96 GT did 140.
> >Mine is a '97, which is basically the same car. I do have K&N,
> >flowmasters, and the 3.27 ratio... so that may mean something. If you
> >say it is not possible, please let me know so that I can get my speedo
> >checked.
> >j...@email.com
>
> hi...again...the things to consider....when you are comparing your car
> to that of test cars in car magazines like Motor Trend, Car & Driver,
> etc...who've couln't get a GT40 '95 Cobra past 138mph.
>
> 1. they had a test track, you're on the interstate with hills and such
>
> 2. they had radar clocking equipment....you have a factory speedo
>
> >trouble seeing 140. The car loses stability above 130 (really above
> >120) so I haven't tried it, and probably won't.
>
> this proves that the aero on the SN95 Mustangs are not very
> good.....Z/28s can sit at 120mph all day.
>
> i think that you're not on a flat surface and that your speedo is
> off....and also, 4th gear is where you wanna be to test top speed
> anyways.
>
> my point was not all about top speed, but about the aero of this
> car...which affects everyday driving and especially if you go into the
> 3 digits....i wouldn't have probs with the car if it were $3000
> cheaper....but it's about the same as Z/28 with inferior design.
^Nemesis^
I 'stang with an oil cooler could sit at 120 all day too.
Steven Fisher
>>>Motor Trend couldn't get a STOCK '95 Cobra to 140mph
>>>
>>>they had to remove the air filter and duct tape the grill & fog lights
>>>to hit 140mph
>>
>>You're making the assumption that Motor Trend's results are the
>>end-all-be-all, which they simply are not.
>
>i see...so they were testing about 50 cars from $150,000 Porches to
>$15,000 Toyotas....
>they have professional drivers
>they have a track to theselves
I don't care what they have, major mags rarely get the best times and that's
100% fact.
Steven Fisher
>hi...again...the things to consider....when you are comparing your car
>to that of test cars in car magazines like Motor Trend, Car & Driver,
>etc...who've couln't get a GT40 '95 Cobra past 138mph.
>
>1. they had a test track, you're on the interstate with hills and such
>
>2. they had radar clocking equipment....you have a factory speedo
That shows how much you know, the mags don't usually use radar for speed
measurement. Ever noticed that 5th wheel? Didn't think so.
>3 digits....i wouldn't have probs with the car if it were $3000
>cheaper....but it's about the same as Z/28 with inferior design.
That's funny, 2 out of 3 people don't think so.
Steven Fisher
>the whole point is that if you're going to put your ass in debt for 5
>years, paying sky high insurance rates, get scared to death everytime
>there's a 2 inch accumulation of snow, visit the gas station 3 times a
>week......
If that's true I would say you need to learn how to drive.
>i'm not picking at little things like a CUP holder.....i'm talking
>about aerodynamics which affects lots of shit....for starters,
>MPG....and if you drive fast in a mustang you should know that it can
>get scary on windy days doing 100+ mph.
Go bitch at VW then while you're at it. The Jetta gets 19mpg with the VR6.
>and Motor Trend's test was with a '95 COBRA which would include the
>high performance tires and big wheels....138mph...this is a joke.
The same goes for your reasoning ability.
TFrog93
In article <354f4ed7...@Newsdesk.tidalwave.net>, mp...@tidalwave.com
writes:
>my point was not all about top speed, but about the aero of this
>car...which affects everyday driving and especially if you go into the
>3 digits....i wouldn't have probs with the car if it were $3000
>cheaper....but it's about the same as Z/28 with inferior design.
Backing off, Mr. MP Ham?
...and how does "aero...affect everyday driving"? In my "everyday" driving,
I'm lucky to see the high side of 55mph...
(Side note: On the run back from Nashville, I didn't do any "top speed"
testing. But, on those few occasions when I topped 100mph, the car was very
well planted...and this with worn tires. The lowering springs seem to have put
an end to the crosswind buffetting, and higher speeds seem less threatening.)
dwight
'93 LX 5.0
NoOption5L
>that means that the the new design of the fox4 mustangs have the same
>>>aerodynamic capability of my '87 mustangs.....since both top out about
>>>136mph stock.
I believe it was C&D that ran a early '87 GT to a top speed of 148mph.
mp...@tidalwave.com
On 6 May 1998 02:06:05 GMT, tfr...@aol.com (TFrog93) wrote:
>In article <354f4ed7...@Newsdesk.tidalwave.net>, mp...@tidalwave.com
>writes:
>
>>my point was not all about top speed, but about the aero of this
>>car...which affects everyday driving and especially if you go into the
>>3 digits....i wouldn't have probs with the car if it were $3000
>>cheaper....but it's about the same as Z/28 with inferior design.
>
>Backing off, Mr. MP Ham?
: ) ok...my point is about top speed and top speed alone....
(btw...the play on my name is real clever considering that you're an
AOL'er :)
>
>...and how does "aero...affect everyday driving"? In my "everyday" driving,
>I'm lucky to see the high side of 55mph...
>
>(Side note: On the run back from Nashville, I didn't do any "top speed"
>testing. But, on those few occasions when I topped 100mph, the car was very
>well planted...and this with worn tires. The lowering springs seem to have put
>an end to the crosswind buffetting, and higher speeds seem less threatening.)
>
>dwight
>'93 LX 5.0
i have the same car.........and at 100mph+ this freaking car is scary
when there's a strong gush of wind and going straight is ok.....but
not when you're cutting through traffic....but it's ok...because the
'87-93 mustangs are great cars for the price
maybe my opinion is tainted due to the superb handling and
aerodynamics of my Toyota MR2 which can sit at 100mph all day
again....the Fox Mustangs are great cars for the price....the SN95
Mustangs are nice too....but compared to an LT1 Camaro....it is a
piece of shit considering that they are in the same PRICE BRACKET.
Steven Fisher
>granted that not everyone can get to top speed on interstates....it's
>still pretty stupid to buy a high performance car that will beat you
>to death on long trips, gets high insurance premium, nice 5-year debt,
>gas guzzling...and can't drive in 2 inches of snow.....and say....i
>don't care about top speed and aerodynamics
Mustangs are great cars for long trips, the insurance is worth it, all cars
put you in debt, and who cares about milege; 18-25 is good enough, and you
need to learn how to drive if you can't handle 2 inches of snow.
>if aerodynamics is not important to you then you're either lying or
>you drive like a pussy.....
Noone's saying they aren't important, but the Mustang's is good enough.
>i've never hit top speed on my ~280hp '87 GT, but i've been in the 3
>digits MPH often it is frightening sometimes when you have to make
>quick lane changes because the idiot a 1/4 mile infront cant judge how
>fast i'm coming up on him when he suddenly decides to get in my lane.
That's why you use your brain and don't do 3 digits with anyone else around.
>and dont even talk about strong gusts of wind at this speed....
My 97 GT takes strong winds just fine.
mp...@tidalwave.com
On 6 May 1998 04:29:31 GMT, noopt...@aol.com (NoOption5L) wrote:
>>that means that the the new design of the fox4 mustangs have the same
>>>>aerodynamic capability of my '87 mustangs.....since both top out about
>>>>136mph stock.
>
>I believe it was C&D that ran a early '87 GT to a top speed of 148mph.
>
>
hey....i have that magazine....i think they wrung out 14.4 or 14.6 on
a stock speed density LX 5.0L
dont think top speed was 148mph though...dont even think they did a
top speed run.
TFrog93
In article <3550a575...@Newsdesk.tidalwave.net>, mp...@tidalwave.com
writes:
>>Backing off, Mr. MP Ham?
>
> : ) ok...my point is about top speed and top speed alone....
>
>(btw...the play on my name is real clever considering that you're an
>AOL'er :)
What does my server have to do with this? Are you saying that you judge all
posts on this newsgroup in the same fashion as you judge automobiles? Would it
surprise you greatly to learn that NOT ALL AOLers are alike? If so, my only
advice would be that you turn your computer off NOW, and get out of the house.
You need a good dose of reality.
>>...and how does "aero...affect everyday driving"? In my "everyday" driving,
>>I'm lucky to see the high side of 55mph...
>>
>>(Side note: On the run back from Nashville, I didn't do any "top speed"
>>testing. But, on those few occasions when I topped 100mph, the car was very
>>well planted...and this with worn tires. The lowering springs seem to have
>>put an end to the crosswind buffetting, and higher speeds seem less
>>threatening.)
>>
>>dwight
>
>>'93 LX 5.0
>
>i have the same car.........and at 100mph+ this freaking car is scary
>when there's a strong gush of wind and going straight is ok.....but
>not when you're cutting through traffic....but it's ok...because the
>'87-93 mustangs are great cars for the price
Bald tires? Or did you install "heightening" springs by mistake? As I said
above, my '93 was very well planted, no matter what the maneuver. A trucker
tried to cut me off, and the car reacted very well to braking from high speed.
You don't live in Pennsylvania by any chance, do you? That might explain why
your car is scary at high speeds - very poor road conditions.
>maybe my opinion is tainted due to the superb handling and
>aerodynamics of my Toyota MR2 which can sit at 100mph all day
MR2....MR2.... Is that the little rollerskate model that looks like a
Matchbox? I didn't know they could REACH 100mph, let alone maintain it. A
woman that used to work at my company had a little blue MR2, and she thought it
was just the cutest thing. Couldn't get out of its own way, but it was cute!
>again....the Fox Mustangs are great cars for the price....the SN95
>Mustangs are nice too....but compared to an LT1 Camaro....it is a
>piece of shit considering that they are in the same PRICE BRACKET.
How do you figure that? "Piece of shit"? Based on what, exactly? I don't
care WHAT standard you use for comparison, the SN95 hardly comes out as a
"piece of shit" against a Camaro... "Piece of shit"? Then, what's the MR2?
dwight
AOLer from Hell
ASmall9494
>From: mp...@tidalwave.com
>On 6 May 1998 02:06:05 GMT, tfr...@aol.com (TFrog93) wrote:
>
>>In article <354f4ed7...@Newsdesk.tidalwave.net>, mp...@tidalwave.com
>>writes:
>>
>>>my point was not all about top speed, but about the aero of this
>>>car...which affects everyday driving and especially if you go into the
>>>3 digits....i wouldn't have probs with the car if it were $3000
>>>cheaper....but it's about the same as Z/28 with inferior design.
>>
>>Backing off, Mr. MP Ham?
>
> : ) ok...my point is about top speed and top speed alone....
>
>(btw...the play on my name is real clever considering that you're an
>AOL'er :)
>
>>
>>...and how does "aero...affect everyday driving"? In my "everyday" driving,
>>I'm lucky to see the high side of 55mph...
>>
>>(Side note: On the run back from Nashville, I didn't do any "top speed"
>>testing. But, on those few occasions when I topped 100mph, the car was very
>>well planted...and this with worn tires. The lowering springs seem to have
>put
>>an end to the crosswind buffetting, and higher speeds seem less
>threatening.)
>>
>>dwight
>
>>'93 LX 5.0
>
>i have the same car.........and at 100mph+ this freaking car is scary
>when there's a strong gush of wind and going straight is ok.....but
>not when you're cutting through traffic....but it's ok...because the
>'87-93 mustangs are great cars for the price
>
>maybe my opinion is tainted due to the superb handling and
>aerodynamics of my Toyota MR2 which can sit at 100mph all day
>
>again....the Fox Mustangs are great cars for the price....the SN95
>Mustangs are nice too....but compared to an LT1 Camaro....it is a
>piece of shit considering that they are in the same PRICE BRACKET.
You MR Ham are not too bright. I'm going to explain it like this. High speed
handling was never intended for a street car; they all float and dart around at
high speeds. Even a Ferrari will not be planted at 180 mph. Why?
Aerodynamics. A low drag coefficient and having the car handle well at high
speeds contradict one another. Its easy to brag about a low cd and say my car
has a high top speed. Is it safe? Not at all. A good cd for a car is 0.2 -
0.3, and with 400+ hp you can see 180-200+ mph. Now the opposite extreme a
well handling high speed car, such as an F1 or Indy type car. Cd? Try 4.5 to
5 on for size. Top speed? Around 250+ with over 750 hp. Why does it take so
much power? Drag. If you expect to have a street car that handles well at
high speeds, you are seriously misled.
If you want to talk about high speed handling any street car is a POS. Now if
you want a nice car; I'd rather have a stang and so would most auto enthusiasts
that buy pony cars. If you want top speed with low hp, welcome to the world of
ill handling at those speeds.
riored97cobra#301
13.88 @ 102.5
http://riored.fordpower.org
mustang circuit site 142
mp...@tidalwave.com
On 7 May 1998 00:57:04 GMT, tfr...@aol.com (TFrog93) wrote:
>In article <3550a575...@Newsdesk.tidalwave.net>, mp...@tidalwave.com
>writes:
>
>>>Backing off, Mr. MP Ham?
>>
>> : ) ok...my point is about top speed and top speed alone....
>>
>>(btw...the play on my name is real clever considering that you're an
>>AOL'er :)
>
>What does my server have to do with this? Are you saying that you judge all
>posts on this newsgroup in the same fashion as you judge automobiles? Would it
>surprise you greatly to learn that NOT ALL AOLers are alike? If so, my only
>advice would be that you turn your computer off NOW, and get out of the house.
>You need a good dose of reality.
>
haha....1st time some1 bothered to defend this
mp...@tidalwave.com
On 7 May 1998 00:57:04 GMT, tfr...@aol.com (TFrog93) wrote:
>>>...and how does "aero...affect everyday driving"? In my "everyday" driving,
>>>I'm lucky to see the high side of 55mph...
aside from gas mileage....do you like paying the same money for a Z/28
and getting worse aero, less power, and no 6th gear?
u r a wise consumer
explains y u chose AOL
:-)
mp...@tidalwave.com
>>i have the same car.........and at 100mph+ this freaking car is scary
>>when there's a strong gush of wind and going straight is ok.....but
>>not when you're cutting through traffic....but it's ok...because the
>>'87-93 mustangs are great cars for the price
>
>Bald tires? Or did you install "heightening" springs by mistake? As I said
>above, my '93 was very well planted, no matter what the maneuver. A trucker
>tried to cut me off, and the car reacted very well to braking from high speed.
>You don't live in Pennsylvania by any chance, do you? That might explain why
>your car is scary at high speeds - very poor road conditions.
bullshit....at high speed....and you know it...
PA is one of the poorer states with crappy roads...especially compared
to Montgomery County, MD
look it up
mp...@tidalwave.com
On 7 May 1998 00:57:04 GMT, tfr...@aol.com (TFrog93) wrote:
>>maybe my opinion is tainted due to the superb handling and
>>aerodynamics of my Toyota MR2 which can sit at 100mph all day
>
>MR2....MR2.... Is that the little rollerskate model that looks like a
>Matchbox? I didn't know they could REACH 100mph, let alone maintain it. A
>woman that used to work at my company had a little blue MR2, and she thought it
>was just the cutest thing. Couldn't get out of its own way, but it was cute!
haha
runninng out of arguments now arent we?
interesting thing is that a turbo mr2 has higher top speed than your
v8
haha
mp...@tidalwave.com
On 7 May 1998 00:57:04 GMT, tfr...@aol.com (TFrog93) wrote:
>
>How do you figure that? "Piece of shit"? Based on what, exactly? I don't
>care WHAT standard you use for comparison, the SN95 hardly comes out as a
>"piece of shit" against a Camaro... "Piece of shit"? Then, what's the MR2?
>
>dwight
>AOLer from Hell
>
haha
u r a dumbass who buys cars because of the name
and u probably drive like a pussy to never realize the instability of
the Ford Fairmon with big tires and a V8