Mazda MX-6 Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is the f&cking 2nd time I have had to retype this freakin' story!!!! So It is going to be short as hell. F&CK!! What key combination am I hitting to delete all my text? This has never happened before until tonight.

Anyway, I got to race 2 Mustangs Saturday night, both the last 2 body revisions. someone tell me what the years are? I know they changed from the 5.0 to the 4.6 and a new body in 1994, I believe they didn't change it again until 1999.

1st race,
I beat a about 1996 Mustang GT, from about 40mph to 70mph-we had to let off because of traffic, then beat him from a red light. It was the 4.6L GT, no convertable.

2nd race,
Hung with a 1999+ GT from a red light to about 70mph.


The stories were a little better, but maybe it is good that they are short and sweet. Anyone say I'm BSn, just bring it ;).
 
G

·
Sure, It seems funny that you guys post this shit, lets see some times on that monster, because I've said it before that the new 4.6s aren't the slugs the old ones were. why don't you BSers go pick on some probes and post a believable kill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Obviously it wasn't a 2001 GT, I know them things are packing 320horses. I would still race one--knowing that I would lose, but just to see how bad a$$ they really are. I don't have times, I'm not saying my car is bad ass.

I also didn't beat the 1994--1998 by much. I had typed that originally, but for some reason, all that I typed kept getting deleted. You might also note, that I said I hung with the newer. If you don't know what "hung" means, that means I didn't gain or lose any ground to the newer one.

Like I said also, I'm not sure of what the years span is on the last 2 body revisions.
 
G

·
Last I checked I believe that the 99-01 have the SAME engine, 265hp--4.6. Yes, I understand what HUNG implies, and wouldn't have hung with a new GT. The GT should have left you. Are you guys sure these GTs are racing and not just toying w/ you? I don't own a Mustang, nor am I a big fan, but I RESPECT it, and realize it doesn't take a fool to smell BS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Well, I'm no BSer--not even a little. I will admit, I was not in the car with either of them so I cannot verify that they were giving it their all, but it sure sounded like it. I even saw the 1994 style, the guy downshifted and appeared/sounded like he floored it. On the other one, I don't know. You might also note, the 1994 to 1998's, the fast one was the Cobra GT (about 305 hp), the 1999+ is the SVT Cobra (whopping 320hp). The ones I raced were about 260hp, which still surprises me, and I guess that makes it sound unbelievable--and it does shock me--I wouldn't buy one of those Mustangs, I would be mad that a little 147hp 4 banger beat me.

Our GTs (1st gen Mazdas) go 0-60mph in about 7.5 seconds or so, and about 15.5 in the 1/4 mile--that is stock. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to find the 0-60mph times and 1/4 mile times for the GT mustangs of those years.

Kris, have you ever lined up with one of those, you might be shocked at how bad you would beat one with your Z28-dependent upon which Z28 you got.
 
G

·
I have a 93 Z28 It was the first year of the LT1 F-bodies, It came stock with 275 hp and with the mods I have, I think I should be pushing 300hp at the crank. And yes I have raced a 2000 GT from a stop, and I know what these cars can do, I KNOW they aren't the slouches the pre-99 4.6s were. If you would have said an Automatic 98 or older 4.6 I might have believed it(A friend has one and I driven it, and wasn't impressed at all), but not a newer GT, sorry just call me a skeptic.
 
G

·
1987-1992 Mustang GT had 5.0 225hp and 300ft-lbs of tq @ approx. 3000lbs.
1993- Mustang GT had 5.0 205hp and 275ft-lbs of tq @ approx. 3000lbs.
1994-1995- Mustang GT had 5.0 215hp and 285ft-lbs of tq @ approx. 3300lbs.
1996-1998- Mustang GT had 4.6 225hp and 290ft-lbs of tq @ approx. 3300lbs.
1999-present- Mustang GT had 4.6 260hp and 320ft-lbs tq @ approx. 3300lbs.

Now Jiffy, I do NOT like Mustangs at all, BUT as Kris stated, I do respect them too and I am pretty sure that my 6 (which is basically the same as yours) can not take a Stang. I do not know from expierience but I am pretty sure I would lose. Although I do hope to find out b4 too long!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I was wanting to hear the 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times. This is my last post on this subject, because I have no proof. So the fact that I know what happened, I was there, and I've ran against a Mustang GT with my other MX6GT, it was about a 1996 also, and I hung with it, are irrelevant. My aunt was with me, and she was also surprised/scared. A car pulled out in front of us when I was racing the newer one (I just went around it-never letting off).

I understand yall's reasoning to call this a BS story, my car is stock, and I'm saying I ran with and even barely beat one mustang GT. I guess that is hard for people to believe--if I hadn't done it myself, then I would have trouble believing someone else also.

But Like you said, I guess it is possible that they were toying with me--even the guy who had 2 girls with him, cause I wasn't in the car with him. If he was toying, he did a pretty good job of reving the pipes. And I hope you do get to race a stock Mustang GT in the year ranges I have Matt with your 88 GT. If your car is running right, you are in for a real treat, and you'll be posting about it!
 
G

·
I've taken at least 3 Mustang GTs in my stock 95 MX6lsv6 through 3rd. I have a bad 3rd gear sincro or something so it is allways giving me hell when I shift. Anyways anything less than a GT (v6) might as well keep it at home. I've taken more of those than I can count.
 
G

·
these time are approx. give or take a couple .1's of a sec
1987-1992 GT's- 0-60 in 6.7
1993 GT's- 0-60 in 7.1
1994-1995 GT's- 0-60 in 7.0
1996-1998 GT's- 0-60 in 6.8
1999-present GT's- 0-60 in 6.1

Currect me if these are way off guys. Thanx
 
G

·
The new GTs should be low 14, high 13 sec 1/4 mile cars. The gap only become larger with mods, and I have yet to meet up with abone stock Mustang GT of any year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
The new ones are nothing short fo impressive. In fact, the new ones have got me considering the Mustang (year 2001 on up). I might point out that I used to be a hardcore TransAm fan. They are still tempting because of the performance, but I just don't like the feel of them. But that is a can of worms that I don't want to open--Ford vs Chevy, so lets not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Oh yeah, and there is no doubt in my mind about how well Mustangs respond to modifications. And how fast you can make them. If you got the money honey ;).

One time, I read a story (on another website) about a guy in a 1999 Mustang GT smoking a like 1998 or 1997 GT, and he was saying he beat him and all that. Then at the end, he was like "I can't wait to start modding this thing, and unleash the power of this 4.6L." I was thinking, why would you pay so much for a sports car, that you have to modify to get any serious performance? Unless you've just got that kind of money.

I have this car, the 89 MX6 GT, cause it is cheap, performs well, responds to mods well, and I don't have to pay full coverage insurance. I paid $2350 for it, runs/looks good. Every thing works, has a sunroof, CD, A/C, and with a few hundred $$ spent, I can make it pretty darn fast.

And Kris, I hope you get to run a few non modded GTs, I think you might change your mind about my post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
all right, here are the true times:
1994-1998..1/4 mile 15.4
1999-2001.....1/4 mile 14.1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
all right, here are the true times:
1994-1998..1/4 mile 15.4
1999-2001.....1/4 mile 14.1
you couldve beat the 94 gt, but no way the 99 gt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Like I said, I didn't beat the newer one, I just hung with him, and the race ended at 70mph--although he kept on, and was out of site pretty quick. To be more specific, We took off, and he moved my front bumper to about his rear wheel, where I stayed until 70mph or so, then I let off--70 in a 40mph zone. So technically, he beat me, but the fact that he couldn't pull further ahead makes me call it about a tie.

I have said this in a previous post somewhere, I have no doubt in my mind that about around 80 to 90mph on up, the torque of that V8 would surely leave me in the dust.

The 1999 had the same 260hp I thought? It is the 2001 that has been beefed, right?

Look at this even

http://www.edmunds.com/vehicles/2001/ford/mustang/gtpremium2drcoupe46l8cyl5m.html

Even the 2001 GT has only 260hp, the SVT GT is the one with 320hp. That is according to http://www.edmunds.com anyway.

So on the 1999+, how did they achieve a 14.1 1/4 mile with the same engine/horsepower as between 1994 and 1998? What did they change? That light weight Mustang with 320hp has to be fun, dam!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
One other interesting point, that 320hp comes from a completely different 4.6L motor.
Quote from Edmunds.com

Because of production problems with '99 SVT Mustang Cobras (they weren't making the power they were supposed to), Ford took the car off-line for 2000 to get everything sorted out.

The Ford SVT Mustang Cobra is a high-performance Mustang that has been heavily modified by Ford's Special Vehicle Team (SVT). Available in either coupe or convertible, the
SVT Cobra's main calling cards are a totally different engine, a revised suspension, and an improved interior. The Cobra's firepower comes from a 4.6-liter, 32-valve DOHC V8.
While based on Ford's family of modular V8s, the Cobra's engine is considerably more advanced. The engine produces 320 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 317 ft-lbs. of torque at
4,750 rpm.
Note, you only get the 320ponies at 6000rpm that is really rapping it out ain't it? The TransAm is getting 305hp @5200rpms with 335ft/lbs of torque. That is a 5.7L, vs 4.6L, The SVT must have done a pretty good job at making the 4.6L very efficient. The 350 Chevy is 1.1L larger than the ford
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top