2006 SS/SC vs Fox Body GT STang vert.
07-06-2006, 08:17 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-19-05
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Matty
Back when the 88's were new, I had a friend who did a 13.9. No word on if there was a tailwind or not. 
07-06-2006, 08:35 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-27-06
Location: eh
Posts: 2,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blainestang
Yeah, all it takes is a quick search on corral.net to find plenty of Fox Mustangs that went low 14's or better stock.
07-07-2006, 09:03 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-19-05
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AZSS
I am curious how that proves anything? I can dig up an article where a magazine posted numerous "typos" concerning acceleration times.
But if you honestly believe they can go that quick, I will take your word for it.
But if you honestly believe they can go that quick, I will take your word for it.
Like I said... all it takes is a quick search at corral.net to find plenty of low-14 second stock Fox Mustangs.
Take this thread for instance...
http://www.corral.net/forums/showthr...ighlight=Stock
See Posts: 2, 4, 7, 9, 38
Of course, none of this proves that this guy did it, but proves the feasibility of the time.
07-07-2006, 10:24 AM
#30
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 04-27-06
Location: In the cornfield
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys -
I had an 86 GT that I bought new - it had no torque.
I never ran it for a time-slip, but I have serious doubts that it would have been quicker than my current Cobalt.
The Stang was a fun car, and I loved it, but I eventually found that the F-body GM cars were a better all around vehicle and were actually (with the l98) faster.
best regards -
mqqn
I had an 86 GT that I bought new - it had no torque.
I never ran it for a time-slip, but I have serious doubts that it would have been quicker than my current Cobalt.
The Stang was a fun car, and I loved it, but I eventually found that the F-body GM cars were a better all around vehicle and were actually (with the l98) faster.
best regards -
mqqn
07-07-2006, 11:21 AM
#32
Member
Join Date: 03-17-06
Location: Niagara Ontario
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i had a 90 5.0 coupe and I took 3 runs in it, the best being 14.8 at 98mph
Now my friend had the same car and ran 14.2
For the most part stock 5.0's (87-93) are high 14 sec cars (convert low 15's) but they feel alot faster due to the big v8 rumble LOL
Now my friend had the same car and ran 14.2
For the most part stock 5.0's (87-93) are high 14 sec cars (convert low 15's) but they feel alot faster due to the big v8 rumble LOL
07-07-2006, 05:20 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-27-06
Location: eh
Posts: 2,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Acidangel_5.0
87-88 models tend to be faster stock also then the 89-93 fox bodies because they were running speed density setup and not mass-air 
Too true. I hated switching to mass air, but the idle was too sparatic when the mods started.
Oh ya I forgot..the 88 California cars were mass air.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post