[JPK]

BUT I DID!!!!

It was one of the mid to late '80's hatchback style mustangs. I followed him down the back road out of my subdivision. I guess he heard my exhaust because while waiting at a stop sign, he started to rev and when he took off, gave his tires a nice squeal.

Next stop sign you have to turn left onto a highway. The traffic cleared and he went. I didn't even stop and followed closely behind him and then got in the lane to the right of him. As soon as he saw me changing lanes to get beside him, I heard his exhaust start screaming so I follow suit!!!

We started off and my front fender was at his rear passenger side quarter panel. He was dragging out first gear, but I was in second already and pulling pretty hard. I heard him shift into second as I nosed past him and then I put the RL in third. By the time we both had to brake, it was completely opposite from the start. His front bumper was at my rear quarter panel. We got up to about 100 mph. He slowed way the hell down and stayed back.

At the next light, he pulled in behind me even though the lane next to me was open and we could have chatted while waiting for the light, but he didn't. Wonder why???

The best part is, this guy lives in my subdivision and I pass his house all the time and he's hanging out front. From now on, everytime I see him out there and I pass by, I'm gonna rev her up.

You can come on here and say all you want that it's not possible, he wasn't trying or whatever, but I heard his exhaust and he was ON IT the whole time. I KNOW that these cars can be made very fast but I also think they are heavy too and I don't think he had too much on his.

 

[goofyguy]

those old boxes GT trim came with less than 200hp. The cobra only had 235 or close to that. But its still a showy car that needs to be beat on.

 

[JPK]

Yeah, but the fact that a Saturn beat him has got to hurt, regardless.

 

[mbhmustang98]

those old boxes GT trim came with less than 200hp. The cobra only had 235 or close to that. But its still a showy car that needs to be beat on.

Since 1984 the GT has never came with less then 200 horsepower. The 84 had 200 horses and since then has been over that. They are sorta heavy but an older 5.0 that has been ragged out all its life would prolly lose. Just know hardly any are stock and now they are being rebuilt since their engines are old and u can make some serious fast cars out of them for CHEAP. I would love to have an older one, i did at one time. There are SOOO many mods for them and cheap!!

 

[mbhmustang98]

U can beat them for price/performance. A 88 vette runs like a 14.6 in the quarter and an 88 LX 5.0 coupe runs the same except was alot cheaper. In the 80's the stangs ruled the domestic scene. Camaros and trans-ams didnt have the upper hand then.

 

[Blu_Redline]

Remember this, only the mustang fan club of amerika sings the high praises of everything Ford. They are not all invincible and some are POS, but some are quick. But then so is my buddy's neighbor's Chevette - it runs mid 11s in street trim, all motor - no bottle. Anything can be fast with the right amount of money and parts, well.... except Yugos

 

[MrCleanY0]

yeah....good kill. You know how those mustang guys always thing their car is THE fastest . Way to put him in his place.

 

[JPK]

I couldn't believe how strongly I was pulling on him.

Like mbhmustang said, these cars can be made FAST real cheap. I know this to be true.

Next time I see that guy outside his house I'm gonna stop and ask what all he has in his. That is, if he'll even talk to me now.

 

[elohdaeh78]

The fastest mustang in the 80s was the late 80s early 90s 5.0 LX which was capable of 14.8s with a perfect run, i think they had somewhere around 225hp but they had gobs of torque, that autos suffered and were much slower. When the body style changed in i believe 1994 the mustang was terrible slow i think the 1994 mustang was running mid 15s for the 5.0 5speed and the auto 5.0 was a 16.3 car at the time, very pathetic. The 80s mustangs can be hit or miss, you will find some that are really fast and some that are really slow, it all depends on what has been done to them and how they have been taken car of over the years.

 

[mbhmustang98]

The fastest mustang in the 80s was the late 80s early 90s 5.0 LX which was capable of 14.8s with a perfect run, i think they had somewhere around 225hp but they had gobs of torque, that autos suffered and were much slower. When the body style changed in i believe 1994 the mustang was terrible slow i think the 1994 mustang was running mid 15s for the 5.0 5speed and the auto 5.0 was a 16.3 car at the time, very pathetic. The 80s mustangs can be hit or miss, you will find some that are really fast and some that are really slow, it all depends on what has been done to them and how they have been taken car of over the years.

Umm a 94-95 5.0 is slower then its fox siblings but a 5 speed can still run a high 14. Autos usually run low 15's not 16's. hell a 94-98 v6 5 speed stang can run a mid 16 stock. Not so fast but i seen it done first hand. Last time a 5.0 was in the 16s was like in 83. My 98 auto with the NPI 4.6 motor with 225 horses stock ran 15.3 with a drop in filter and weld in flows which maybe helped a tenth? I like the redline alot and saturn cars even tho they are GM but mustangs will always be my first love! lol I want an 82 GT stock..not for speed but just to show, one in good shape....mmmmm or an SVO which was a 4 banger that ran high 14's with a turbo and could prolly handle as good as an 80's vette for less money.

 

[Sp00ner]

Umm a 94-95 5.0 is slower then its fox siblings but a 5 speed can still run a high 14. Autos usually run low 15's not 16's. hell a 94-98 v6 5 speed stang can run a mid 16 stock. Not so fast but i seen it done first hand. Last time a 5.0 was in the 16s was like in 83. My 98 auto with the NPI 4.6 motor with 225 horses stock ran 15.3 with a drop in filter and weld in flows which maybe helped a tenth? I like the redline alot and saturn cars even tho they are GM but mustangs will always be my first love! lol I want an 82 GT stock..not for speed but just to show, one in good shape....mmmmm or an SVO which was a 4 banger that ran high 14's with a turbo and could prolly handle as good as an 80's vette for less money.

I dunno about the speed, but there's no way it will handle with a Vette, I've got a '77, and even though it weighs a ton, it handles better than most cars I've ever been in. I've been in alot of Mustangs and Camaros... come on now... the old style LX mustangs were ok, maybe better than some of the Camaros, I wont argue but...

 

[mbhmustang98]

I dunno about the speed, but there's no way it will handle with a Vette, I've got a '77, and even though it weighs a ton, it handles better than most cars I've ever been in. I've been in alot of Mustangs and Camaros... come on now... the old style LX mustangs were ok, maybe better than some of the Camaros, I wont argue but...

No offense..but do u know about the SVO's? They were made to handle and did so way better then anything in the 80's domestic wise except maybe, i dunno, the vette. They never caught on cuz the 5.0 was cheaper for the same amount of power and people loved the v8

 

[dL_RL]

This is my first domestic car, domestic cars are starting to grow on me. I was always pro import sport compact enthusiasts. The 5.0 V8 stang is starting to grow on me, so is the cobra's and camaro SS's.

 

[elohdaeh78]

No offense..but do u know about the SVO's? They were made to handle and did so way better then anything in the 80's domestic wise except maybe, i dunno, the vette. They never caught on cuz the 5.0 was cheaper for the same amount of power and people loved the v8

I had an 1988 Turbo t-bird with the 5 speed and the 2.3 turbo svo engine in it, it was a neat car for my first car. The t-bird only had 190hp, im pretty sure the SVO mustang was pushing 200 or 210 due to a few minor changes.

 

[elohdaeh78]

Umm a 94-95 5.0 is slower then its fox siblings but a 5 speed can still run a high 14. Autos usually run low 15's not 16's. hell a 94-98 v6 5 speed stang can run a mid 16 stock. Not so fast but i seen it done first hand. Last time a 5.0 was in the 16s was like in 83. My 98 auto with the NPI 4.6 motor with 225 horses stock ran 15.3 with a drop in filter and weld in flows which maybe helped a tenth? I like the redline alot and saturn cars even tho they are GM but mustangs will always be my first love! lol I want an 82 GT stock..not for speed but just to show, one in good shape....mmmmm or an SVO which was a 4 banger that ran high 14's with a turbo and could prolly handle as good as an 80's vette for less money.

Not trying to be a dick or anything since you are a mustang guy, but your numbers are blown up a bit. The SVO mustang which had 210hp at the most didn't run 14s, it was a 15 second car, much like the t-bird that shared the same engine ran a 16.3-16.4 in the 1/4, yes its heavier and yes it had a more restrictive exhaust but you arent going to drop over a second in a half in the 1/4 with those minor changes. The 1994 auto 5.0 ran a 16.1 or a 16.3 go check the numbers, the 1994 GTs were low 15 second cars with great drivers and mid 15 second cars with average drivers, to see a bone stock 1994 mustang GT run a 14 second pass is as likely as seeing a wrx run a 14.1. I guess you could argue that the car is capable of those numbers but 99 times out of 100 its gonna run in the 15s. I used to be big into fords, since i got my 1988 turbo t-bird in 1995 i know alot about the mustangs of that time period. All my friends had fox bodies and a few had 1994+ style mustangs. I raced my friend who had a 1990 5.0 GT 5 speed once with my 88 turbo t-bird, i held him off all the way through 2nd gear in which he then started to pull on me. I ran my t-bird at the track a number of times and managed a best of [email protected] I recall that road and track and car and driver both tested the 1988 turbo t-bird, one ran a 16.3 the other ran a 16.4, i was pretty impressed that i ran a 16.3 since my car was bone stock and had 136k miles on it. Anyway thats just my input on the things and research i have gathered over the past 10 years.

All these numbers are from motor trend and car and driver magazine

1984 Ford Mustang SVO 7.9 15.8
1985 Ford Mustang GT 7.2 15.9
1987 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.3
1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.0
1990 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.4 14.9
1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6
1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.2 14.8
1993 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.9 14.5
1993 Ford Mustang GT (auto) 8.0 16.1
1994 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.4 14.0
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.1
1995 Ford Mustang 3.8 9.9 17.3
1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R 5.2 13.8
1996 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.4 14.0
1998 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 14.0
1999 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 13.9
1999 Ford Mustang Convertible V6 8.6 16.5
1999 Ford Mustang GT 5.5 14.1

 

[redlineRACER]

i had a race with the same car...5.0 L looked like late 80s stang...from a stop two times...took his ass both times with crazy wheel hop by 1/2 car...the guy i raced was cool tho..he asked me is that the supercharged version..lol..first person to know about my car..and this was a couple months ago...this was also my first official street race

 

[mbhmustang98]

Not trying to be a dick or anything since you are a mustang guy, but your numbers are blown up a bit. The SVO mustang which had 210hp at the most didn't run 14s, it was a 15 second car, much like the t-bird that shared the same engine ran a 16.3-16.4 in the 1/4, yes its heavier and yes it had a more restrictive exhaust but you arent going to drop over a second in a half in the 1/4 with those minor changes. The 1994 auto 5.0 ran a 16.1 or a 16.3 go check the numbers, the 1994 GTs were low 15 second cars with great drivers and mid 15 second cars with average drivers, to see a bone stock 1994 mustang GT run a 14 second pass is as likely as seeing a wrx run a 14.1. I guess you could argue that the car is capable of those numbers but 99 times out of 100 its gonna run in the 15s. I used to be big into fords, since i got my 1988 turbo t-bird in 1995 i know alot about the mustangs of that time period. All my friends had fox bodies and a few had 1994+ style mustangs. I raced my friend who had a 1990 5.0 GT 5 speed once with my 88 turbo t-bird, i held him off all the way through 2nd gear in which he then started to pull on me. I ran my t-bird at the track a number of times and managed a best of [email protected] I recall that road and track and car and driver both tested the 1988 turbo t-bird, one ran a 16.3 the other ran a 16.4, i was pretty impressed that i ran a 16.3 since my car was bone stock and had 136k miles on it. Anyway thats just my input on the things and research i have gathered over the past 10 years.

All these numbers are from motor trend and car and driver magazine

1984 Ford Mustang SVO 7.9 15.8
1985 Ford Mustang GT 7.2 15.9
1987 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.3
1988 Ford Mustang GT 6.4 15.0
1990 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.4 14.9
1991 Ford Mustang GT 7.3 15.6
1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0 6.2 14.8
1993 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.9 14.5
1993 Ford Mustang GT (auto) 8.0 16.1
1994 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.4 14.0
1994 Ford Mustang GT 6.7 15.1
1995 Ford Mustang 3.8 9.9 17.3
1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R 5.2 13.8
1996 Ford Mustang Cobra 5.4 14.0
1998 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 14.0
1999 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 13.9
1999 Ford Mustang Convertible V6 8.6 16.5
1999 Ford Mustang GT 5.5 14.1

So u are saying based on the info u got a 94 Cobra with 30 more horses then a 94 GT runs 14 flat and a GT is over a second slower, this is based on a 30 horsepower difference??? And a 96 Cobra with 65 more horses then a 94 cobra runs the same quarter mile?? I think not. There is no way a 94-95 auto is gonna run a 16 second quarter. Thats what a 94-95 v6 5 speed does and why would anyone buy a 5.0 then? My car has 225 horses stock and ran 15.3 and its an auto and a 95 GT has 215 horses and runs a second slower over 10 horses??? I dont think so

 

[cvenom2122]

i wish i could say o beat a 1990 mustang he pooped nos on me and murdered me! I took him on a turn just kept pulling then we hit a 5 mile straight away (in delaware )
and i beat him like 5 times from a roll (35-40mph) then last time i was goin 100mph he looks over and smiles and his engine turns into a damn monster Vrooooooooooom gone
me and my 3 boys were like o shit!

 

[elohdaeh78]

So u are saying based on the info u got a 94 Cobra with 30 more horses then a 94 GT runs 14 flat and a GT is over a second slower, this is based on a 30 horsepower difference??? And a 96 Cobra with 65 more horses then a 94 cobra runs the same quarter mile?? I think not. There is no way a 94-95 auto is gonna run a 16 second quarter. Thats what a 94-95 v6 5 speed does and why would anyone buy a 5.0 then? My car has 225 horses stock and ran 15.3 and its an auto and a 95 GT has 215 horses and runs a second slower over 10 horses??? I dont think so

Perhaps you missed this 1995 Ford Mustang 3.8 9.9 17.3

A 6 cylinder mustang in 1994-1995 runs 17s not 16s the auto trans was terrible and the 94-95 mustangs were alot different then the 98s. Do a little research, hp isn't everything, there is also something called powerband, gear ratios and weight. I don't doubt your 98 auto stang ran a 15.3 cause thats what that year stang is capable of but the 94-95 stangs were some of the slowest stangs since the early 80s, do a little research, i was really into mustangs in the mid 90s and there was alot more info on them during those times. There were plently of magazine reviews and road tests in the mid 90s to back up my numbers, they are just a bit harder to find now. The 1994 auto GT was proven to run 16s, do a little research before you start bashing me.

I just found an article in road and track that ran a 15.9 with the 1994 GT auto ragtop, i am assuming that the review i found in which they ran a 16.XX was also a ragtop, i do recall it was in the back of one of the mags, car and driver/road and track etc in which they had a chart that just listed the 1/4 price etc. I am still searching for it.