1Bad69

my friend had an 87 stang. i had a 73 BB..he feels he would have spanked me off the lights..i say no way..stang was 225hp stock,300ft/lbs. torque..
my vette was 400 at crank, 395ft/lbs. torque, 3spd. auto...stang was 5spd.....what do you think???? :boxing

mountainmotor

Drag start with slicks= Mustang 1 car lenght in 60 foot.Then Vette engine blows from sucking the Ford into the intake so just run an air filter to avoid this common occurance :yesnod:

SuperFast80

I have been in your '73 and in a 5.0 and there is NO CONTEST. Tell you friend to lay off the wiper fluid. :lol:

Top_Notch

If he can drive you'll be sucking fumes.

1Bad69

hey flav.....he is pretty adament about this..he says he would have beat me..and we are work, so i am sure he is not drunk.....

1Bad69

hey top_notch...yuor not drinking are you???? please explain why i would be sucking fumes?? :jester

SuperFast80

OK, a stock 5.0 is a decent car off the line but so is Rob's L48. The LS-4's ONLY problem off the line in your car would have been traction.

Mustang owners tend to be deluded. They truly believe the 5.0 to be a benchmark for V8 engines and seem to forget that L98 powered f-bodies didn't have any problem with them on the street or track.

The low compression BBs have gotten worse press than they ever deserved because as a street engine, they were as tough as any. They're shortcomings were in airflow and compression and the higher end of the rpm band. Down low, 395 lb/ft NET ALWAYS beats 300lb/ft when traction is not an issue.

Tell him to grow up. Mustangs are for 17 year olds.

1Bad69

AMEN.. :blueangel: ....i think i had you guys in my t-bird the other day..i ran out of room to go... :boxing


[Modified by 1bad69, 11:28 AM 1/31/2002]

Top_Notch

The '73 454 was rated @ 275hp
The '87 5.0 was rated @ 225hp

The '73 weighed ~3,400lbs
The '87 weighed ~3000lbs

You stated the '73 was running a slushbox the 5.0 a T-5.

The '87 5.0's were speed density and were produced before cam revisions
were made for NHV improvements. They were some of the hardest charging (stock) 5.0's made.

So, my hunch...being lighter, quicker, geared better, and with less drivetrain losses you'd be choking on fumes...assuming he could row a 5 speed.


...but we all know there is only 1 way to find out for sure...

1Bad69

we dont have the cars anymore...what about the torque?? i had an extra 100 on him?? i believe the stang was a few hundred pounds more than that too....

69 N.O.X. RATT

MountainMotor: Thanks for the advise on how to keep those pesky mustangs out of my intake (they fly right past my flowed out 850 dp) sometimes they will hang up in my three inch exhaust, any suggestions :chevy

Tom454

I have a 90 5.0 HO with a AOD which is stock, never been worked on, 125,000 miles.
I have a 1970 LS5 454 4spd., 56,000 miles, recent valve job, Holley spreadbore.
Forgive me guys, but I do like my Mustang... it is a sweet toy.

The LS5 is faster than the Ford.... the torque puts you back in the seat, and if you shift fast enough (I can & do) it will keep you there. I have driven a 88 Mustang (clutch) with the supercharger correctly installed, and that car will probably spank my LS5.

The 90 Ford (MAF, stock cam etc) is on more equal footing with my 66 Vette 327/350 HP. 4 spd.

Since I can drive a clutch (speed shift) just as easily as a slush box, I can't make any comments on variance in that arena.


Tom

SuperFast80

Therein lies the deciding factor. TORQUE RULES THE STREET.

BTW, I think you gave Rob a little too much competition there. I was embarrased for him. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: