anyone jump ship to a 2015+ Mustang GT?

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Jaden

a 260whpish twin is like a 430 bhp car that's 1000lbs+ heavier... that's all I've said. a 480-530ish whp twin is like a 650-700hpish car that's 1000lbs+ heavier.

But then it comes down to getting the power to the ground which is more difficult in our light cars due to tire size constraints.

Jaden

But....it isn't. You are only considering the peak HP and weight. You aren't taking in to account gearing, transmission gearing, tires, torque (at all apparently) etc..... There are way too many variables. Even these 280 HP twins with superchargers and turbo kits aren't running like there peak HP and weight suggest they should.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Packofcrows

Nope. Test drove a few now and it feels heavy when driving straight. Pedals feel to my feet heavier. It is comfier and almost as good as our twins. Especially on sharp curves. I just dont like the shape and im biased, 'its a Ford.'

Now for the, "if i boost my twin to XHP, it would beat a mustang..." etc b.s.

Well, if you boost the mustang, and hit 450hp+ would it beat a twin?

This is a never ending thing. They are both X variables dependent of a common Y variable. Add X+1= twin+1 and mustang+1.

Either way the mustang will beat us. Just live with it. Same way a Civic Si will beat us. Our cars are more fun and i prefer our look. That is all.

Of course, you can just get an eforce for the mustang and be making 520 to the wheels on a carb tune...

But then you're 15-20K over the cost of the frs... that's all I've ever said that for the money (with ability and know how) the frs is an awesome tuner platform and it was made to be that.

also for 15-20K with the know how and ability you can do an LS swap and be right there as well. Less if you turn around and sell the stock twin components and as I've pointed out you will NEVER strip 1000lbs off the heavier platforms but you can always add the power to the twins.

That's not even considering weight reduction on the twins making them even lighter.

650hp at 2300 lbs is not out of the realm of feasibility at less than a total cost of 50-60K and with serious skillz, less than 40-45K...

I'd love to see that beat with any other newer than 2010 platform...

Jaden

[Summerwolf]

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7613


http://ls1tech.com/forums/drag-racin...stock-11s.html


http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16739


Just saying.....

[Summerwolf]

Also....this thread is bench racing at its finest. Let it die.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

But....it isn't. You are only considering the peak HP and weight. You aren't taking in to account gearing, transmission gearing, tires, torque (at all apparently) etc..... There are way too many variables. Even these 280 HP twins with superchargers and turbo kits aren't running like there peak HP and weight suggest they should.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDzQsXdnqyo"]2015 Mustang GT Stock 1/4 Mile vs. 2012 Mustang GT Drag Race by AmericanMuscle.com - YouTube[/ame]

so you're telling me that S/C'd twins aren't running low to mid 13's???

umm because dipstick_swp ran a 12.21@116 on 91 pump gas...so maybe you're going off old information when the cars were still getting figured out?

I don't know... I mean there just seems to be a lot of hate on an 86 forum for these cars and any time someone comes on defending them, they're labeled a fan boy...and people keep saying stupid shit like these cars weren't meant for that, those cars are all gonna beat them no matter what you do etc...

It just gets fuckin tired...

Jaden

[Summerwolf]

First off, low to mid 13's is still a slow car. I am active in this forum, so I'm not going off old information at all. It is reality. It is sad to see so many people not grasp how fast some of these other "comparable" cars are. To make a twin fast, or even be a truly "quick" car involves a lot more money, time, and knowledge than most people want to admit.


Also in that video the STOCK mustang runs a 12.91@ 110

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Summerwolf

First off, low to mid 13's is still a slow car. I am active in this forum, so I'm not going off old information at all. It is reality. It is sad to see so many people not grasp how fast some of these other "comparable" cars are. To make a twin fast, or even be a truly "quick" car involves a lot more money, time, and knowledge than most people want to admit.


Also in that video the STOCK mustang runs a 12.91@ 110

I'm not, nor have I EVER said that some joe blow can go buy a twin and put $3000 in it and be faster than even a toyota camry...

I've said, if you have the KNOWLEDGE, SKILLSET and desire, you can relatively cheaply make a twin out perform these other cars...

Also, it needs to be said that many people can't afford a newer car that's more expensive than a twin (I'm not one of them, I chose the twin because I love building things up, love the way the car looks and REALLY like how light and nimble it is from the start), and having the ability to save up over time to make it the car you really want can be a big deal to some.

Jaden

and since when is a 12.91 a better 1/4 mile than a 12.21?

[Chad11491]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I'm not, nor have I EVER said that some joe blow can go buy a twin and put $3000 in it and be faster than even a toyota camry...

I've said, if you have the KNOWLEDGE, SKILLSET and desire, you can relatively cheaply make a twin out perform these other cars...

Also, it needs to be said that many people can't afford a newer car that's more expensive than a twin (I'm not one of them, I chose the twin because I love building things up, love the way the car looks and REALLY like how light and nimble it is from the start), and having the ability to save up over time to make it the car you really want can be a big deal to some.

Jaden

and since when is a 12.91 a better 1/4 mile than a 12.21?

did you mean to gloss over the fact he has a fully built engine, which the block and heads cost 6K alone? Your arguments don't really make sense.

Here's the mod list from his sig to get that:

FullBlown base kit, FullBlown built 9.5:1 engine, PTE5858 turbo, 1000cc Bosch injectors, FullBlown flex fuel kit, FullBlown radiator and oil cooler, FullBlown custom 3" dual exit exhaust, fx400+ clutch, whiteline diff and subframe inserts, h&r super sports, hotchkiss 18mm rear sway, is300 3.73 differential


here's what a base model gt with headers, CAI, and a tune runs.

Originally Posted by steph93lx
Vehicle, Trim & Options: Base GT with factory option 3.55 gear
Modifications (if any):LT, Tune, CAI, Exhaust, Slick

60'.......................................... 1.533
330'........................................4.662
660'........................................7.176
660’ mph.................................95.97
1000'......................................9.381
1320'......................................11.242
1320’ mph….............................121.30
Name of the track: Napierville dragway
Date of pass:10/24/15


this is pure bench racing glossing over the fact you have a car with minor bolt ons blowing away a fully built car with well over 10 grand in them in mods. Your argument keeps changing. First it was a 250whp twin will blow away a 5.0 in any circumstance, then when it was proven wrong it was like, well....i meant they'll be about the same..... Then it's oh, a fully built, fully prepped car with built block (which has much more $$$ invested than a base gt with the mods listed) is faster than a 5.0! Now a minor bolt on one proved that wrong...

The cars just have different strengths. Who cares what goes the fastest in a 1/4 mile with what mods? The 86's are fan-f****g-tastic at what they do, and are amazing cars. They aren't the be all end all of automobiles like a lot of people here make them out to be, and neither is a 5.0, not by a long shot.

[Jaden]

Sorry that was NEVER my argument.

And your point still isn't valid to my argument.

10K in mods puts at about the same price as an stock GT...so my point is still valid. BOLT ONS is NOT stock...and I didn't say a 250hp twin would blow away a stock GT in any circumstance. I said a 260 to 270hp modded twin would beat a stock GT around most tracks.

I thought you said to just let this thread die? Oh I get it, you only want the thread to die if you get the last word in.. ok...

Jaden

OK then how about an 11.3 quarter on STOCK internals?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aBdFiFOWGms"]Accelerated Performance Scion FRS / Subaru BRZ 400 turbo kit world record 1/4 mile 11.3@ 127.4 mph - YouTube[/ame]

[Chad11491]

That wasn't me

It's not really valid to compare a basic bolt on car to one with a fully built engine and turbo'd out the a@@. How reliable is that compared to a car with just exhaust?

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Sorry that was NEVER my argument.

And your point still isn't valid to my argument.

10K in mods puts at about the same price as an stock GT...so my point is still valid. BOLT ONS is NOT stock...and I didn't say a 250hp twin would blow away a stock GT in any circumstance. I said a 260 to 270hp modded twin would beat a stock GT around most tracks.

I thought you said to just let this thread die? Oh I get it, you only want the thread to die if you get the last word in.. ok...

Jaden

I don't think you know how much a mustang costs....


http://www.sunsetfordstlouis.com/new...rchDepth=10:27


A brz limited is 28K and scion hovers around 25K


I'm still curious about the "around most tracks" comment, but from most aspects the mustang is a "better" bargain strictly by numbers.


Also, how much does that accelerated performance car have in it? Have you seen their build thread? If not: http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16680


Its a good read!

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Chad11491

That wasn't me

It's not really valid to compare a basic bolt on car to one with a fully built engine and turbo'd out the a@@. How reliable is that compared to a car with just exhaust?

I never once mentioned reliability...

I mentioned what can be done. I said a stock GT versus a 260-270 hp twin... the other people started bringing up the other mods and leads to the other arguments.

If your reasoning for "jumping ship" is that you want a faster straight line car that still has a warranty for more money and is more reliable, then go for it. I never said that people were STUPID for doing so.

If you Jump ship because you think the twin can't be made faster for equivalent money, then you're wrong.

Jaden

[Chad11491]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Sorry that was NEVER my argument.

And your point still isn't valid to my argument.

10K in mods puts at about the same price as an stock GT...so my point is still valid. BOLT ONS is NOT stock...and I didn't say a 250hp twin would blow away a stock GT in any circumstance. I said a 260 to 270hp modded twin would beat a stock GT around most tracks.

But it wasn't enough to post a faster lap than an old solid axle '12 gt that was stock except for a strut brace and 4 pot front brakes lol.

Originally Posted by Jaden

OK then how about an 11.3 quarter on STOCK internals?

Still slower than the minor bolt on gt posted lol.

[Summerwolf]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I didn't say a 250hp twin would blow away a stock GT in any circumstance. I said a 260 to 270hp modded twin would beat a stock GT around most tracks.

Originally Posted by Jaden

So you're down to just being 1000 lbs heavier than a stock twin...with 420 bhp...

wow so I have to get to a whole 265 whp to destroy you in every way...

I think I'll stick with the twin TYVM....

Jaden

??????????