93GTP Posted April 25, 2004 Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 A 4.6 Mustang GT has a 14.0 second 1/4 mile stock (this number is from a 98 ). That's not as slow as people are making them out to be. And I don't get it, does no one in any of the places any of you guys live modify their Mustangs? A 4.6 supercharged wont have any problems beating on most cars on the road. I don't really feel like arguing on here anymore, most of the people saying Mustang's are slow are people driving 4 doors with 3.1's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaloutsider Posted April 25, 2004 Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 Mustang 4.6's are next to impossible to beat with a 2.8/3.1 W-body. Now, the little V6 pieces of shit.. I can take those with no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted April 25, 2004 Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 I don't really feel like arguing on here anymore, most of the people saying Mustang's are slow are people driving 4 doors with 3.1's... so far only two people have said they are slow, and only one of them has 3.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93GTP Posted April 25, 2004 Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 The topic has come up several times, and every time everyone says they are slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mihela816 Posted April 25, 2004 Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 Slow for a RWD V8 muscle car, that's for damn sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THe_DeTAiL3R Posted April 25, 2004 Report Share Posted April 25, 2004 Slow for a RWD V8 muscle car, that's for damn sure. But they also don't cost as much as a Camaro, T/A, Corvette, or any of the other RWD Muscle cars did/do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 5.0, or as i learned, 302s, arn't impressive. my dad's '69 notchback mustang, 302 automatic, isn't really all that quick at all, it'll just chirp the tires off the line and thats it, and these are cheap ass $25 tires I'm sure his '69 is a cool car, but thats back in the days of carbs . Wouldn't be surprised if it was a 2bbl. Hell, I drove a '71 with a 351 4bbl and it wasn't tuned properly (running rich) and it couldn't spin the tires much. I test drove a '89 fuel Injected 5.0 GT Mustang 5 speed and although I'm not great at driving stick (especially with crappy Ford gearboxes) that thing had some power under the hood. Not saying it can beat a LT1 or something, but it would smoke a stock n/a w-body no problem. yes, it is a 2 barrel maybe i have to be ultra specific on this board. i meant that any comparable car shouldn't have any problem. comparable cars would include camaro's or firebird's, and a LT1 shouldn't have a problem, and a LS1 certianlly won't have a problem by the way, what's wrong with carbs? i'll take a 4 barrel big inch motor anyday over today's small ass engines with fuel injection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 Slow for a RWD V8 muscle car, that's for damn sure. But they also don't cost as much as a Camaro, T/A, Corvette, or any of the other RWD Muscle cars did/do. that's what killed the camaro/firebird, gm wanted too much money for them ever notice how a gm muscle car is worth more than a comparable ford muscle car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mihela816 Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 two words: fuel consumption carbs are less efficient, and large inch motors use more fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 two words: fuel consumptioncarbs are less efficient, and large inch motors use more fuel. a large inch motor can throw you back in the seat in a way no small engine can...sure small turbo motors are quick but you have turbo lag, a big inch carburated motor has much better throttle response than a small fi engine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 I love how the off-topic flamewars have migrated to the general section now so people can still be post whores with high counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutlessSupreme Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 Engine degreaser is the shit. I just did a few spots quick thought, still needs a lot of cleaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mihela816 Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 A big inch motor or a high performance turbo 4 cyl, both will hit you at the pump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 A big inch motor or a high performance turbo 4 cyl, both will hit you at the pump. my 4cyl 2.5L Intercooled Turbo GTS gets pretty good gas mileage and it's probably in the high 14s right now. i have yet to test it but it aint bad at all. if i have a lead foot, MPG goes down, sure - just like any other car. and BTW, i have virtually no turbo lag with the tiny Mitsu turbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90lum31v6euro Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 the ASG 5.0L !!!!! :shock: i love it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudefyet Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 two words: fuel consumptioncarbs are less efficient, and large inch motors use more fuel. a large inch motor can throw you back in the seat in a way no small engine can...sure small turbo motors are quick but you have turbo lag, a big inch carburated motor has much better throttle response than a small fi engine wtf is turbo lag.....in a well designed turbo system turbo lag doesn't exsist you could bolt a turbo on a 2.5 iron duke and get hp numbers around 200 and tq numbers more around 300 imo 300lb ft of torque is enough to jerk you back perrty darn good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted April 27, 2004 Report Share Posted April 27, 2004 two words: fuel consumptioncarbs are less efficient, and large inch motors use more fuel. a large inch motor can throw you back in the seat in a way no small engine can...sure small turbo motors are quick but you have turbo lag, a big inch carburated motor has much better throttle response than a small fi engine wtf is turbo lag.....in a well designed turbo system turbo lag doesn't exsist you could bolt a turbo on a 2.5 iron duke and get hp numbers around 200 and tq numbers more around 300 imo 300lb ft of torque is enough to jerk you back perrty darn good and 450 horsepower, 500 lb ft of torque on a '70 LS6 will jerk you back harder, and pull the useful life out of rear tires in a couple of minutes... ever drive a volvo? once you rev up the engine, they move pretty good, but when you floor it at low rpm's you have to wait for the engine to respond before you get any power, you're actually waiting for the turbo to spool up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted April 27, 2004 Report Share Posted April 27, 2004 well, maybe not harder. all depends on traction really. i wouldn't judge all turbo cars because of some Volvo, lol....and a big ass 454 aint gonna fit into most modern cars. this thread is getting OLD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted April 27, 2004 Report Share Posted April 27, 2004 well, maybe not harder. all depends on traction really. i wouldn't judge all turbo cars because of some Volvo, lol....and a big ass 454 aint gonna fit into most modern cars. this thread is getting OLD a sawzall and a few metal blades and you can make it fit i'm not judging all turbo cars, i'm just saying i'd rather have a big carburated v-8 over a small boosted 4 or 6, i like instant power, not ower where you have to rev up to get boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudefyet Posted April 27, 2004 Report Share Posted April 27, 2004 well, maybe not harder. all depends on traction really. i wouldn't judge all turbo cars because of some Volvo, lol....and a big ass 454 aint gonna fit into most modern cars. this thread is getting OLD a sawzall and a few metal blades and you can make it fit i'm not judging all turbo cars, i'm just saying i'd rather have a big carburated v-8 over a small boosted 4 or 6, i like instant power, not ower where you have to rev up to get boost. ever driven a tgp? cause there ain't no revving up to get power...all the torque is right there when you need it...it'll leave a 10ft patch of rubber from a standstill and throw ya back in the seat i hate it people develop the connitation that all turbo engines are torqueless dogs btw the volve you drove was most likely a DOHC...not know for gobs of torque redturbo...do your duty and lock this now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutlessSupreme Posted April 27, 2004 Report Share Posted April 27, 2004 a smaller turbo will spool up faster, and hence you'll have more power down low. but having a smaller turbo, you're also losing some top end (correct me if that's wrong). that's why some cars (like the VR4) have twin turbos, of of them being a small one to make all the power down low while the larger turbo is taking time to spool up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted April 28, 2004 Report Share Posted April 28, 2004 well, maybe not harder. all depends on traction really. i wouldn't judge all turbo cars because of some Volvo, lol....and a big ass 454 aint gonna fit into most modern cars. this thread is getting OLD a sawzall and a few metal blades and you can make it fit i'm not judging all turbo cars, i'm just saying i'd rather have a big carburated v-8 over a small boosted 4 or 6, i like instant power, not ower where you have to rev up to get boost. ever driven a tgp? cause there ain't no revving up to get power...all the torque is right there when you need it...it'll leave a 10ft patch of rubber from a standstill and throw ya back in the seat i hate it people develop the connitation that all turbo engines are torqueless dogs btw the volve you drove was most likely a DOHC...not know for gobs of torque redturbo...do your duty and lock this now no, i haven't driven a tgp, but i know that a 396, 427, or a 454 big block will develop more torque off the line than a turbo motor. the 1966 Chevelle SS 396 4 speed that my dad owned in high school would lay down more than a 10 foot patch of rubber. yes, the volvo was a DOHC, all it's power was in the high end. of the line, it wouldn't even spin the tires, it only started moving once i revved it past 3000 rpms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudefyet Posted April 28, 2004 Report Share Posted April 28, 2004 well, maybe not harder. all depends on traction really. i wouldn't judge all turbo cars because of some Volvo, lol....and a big ass 454 aint gonna fit into most modern cars. this thread is getting OLD a sawzall and a few metal blades and you can make it fit i'm not judging all turbo cars, i'm just saying i'd rather have a big carburated v-8 over a small boosted 4 or 6, i like instant power, not ower where you have to rev up to get boost. ever driven a tgp? cause there ain't no revving up to get power...all the torque is right there when you need it...it'll leave a 10ft patch of rubber from a standstill and throw ya back in the seat i hate it people develop the connitation that all turbo engines are torqueless dogs btw the volve you drove was most likely a DOHC...not know for gobs of torque redturbo...do your duty and lock this now no, i haven't driven a tgp, but i know that a 396, 427, or a 454 big block will develop more torque off the line than a turbo motor. the 1966 Chevelle SS 396 4 speed that my dad owned in high school would lay down more than a 10 foot patch of rubber. yes, the volvo was a DOHC, all it's power was in the high end. of the line, it wouldn't even spin the tires, it only started moving once i revved it past 3000 rpms oh ok excuse me then since i guess turbos do suck...and your some sort of god that know everything about turbos and engines in general you drive a fuckin cutlass you grandpa gave you...how old are you 16, 17, 18...but apparently you know that nothing will ever beat a big block i could argue all fuckin night about how new engines could destroy older one but it wouldn't matter...who gives a fuck new engines are 20 times more efficent then older ones....who cares about overhead cams and fuel injection...it will never beat a good ol 4bbl on a a chevy...jesus you sound like a god damn hick...is that what you are? So wrapped up in the fact that you think GM is the only car company that makes good cars I'm tired of arguing about the stupidest shit...and personally hearing any shit from you about how mustangs suck or how turbos don't produce torque...fucking grow up...get a job adn learn some shit about cars that way you can really help this goddamn board i don't give a fuck if you or anyone flames me...i done with this stupid ass board...so unless you wanna make me a mod or really give a fuck about a 2004 W-Body all the idiots on the board can go to fucking hell...i'm gone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaroonRegal Posted April 28, 2004 Report Share Posted April 28, 2004 a smaller turbo will spool up faster, and hence you'll have more power down low. but having a smaller turbo, you're also losing some top end (correct me if that's wrong). that's why some cars (like the VR4) have twin turbos, of of them being a small one to make all the power down low while the larger turbo is taking time to spool up Sort of. A lot of planning and work goes in to designing the best Turbo system. So much that most cars equipped with a Turbocharger from the factory aren't designed that way. If you really want the whole scoop, read Maximum Boost by Corky Bell, but I'll quickly talk about turbo lag. Turbo lag is the time it takes to achieve full boost not the RPM at which you reach it, that's the boost threshold. Most OEM turbo cars are designed for a low boost threshold, because there are lots of consumers out there who think like our friend 93CutlassSupreme. Scared of "turbo lag." Ideally, the boost threshold is 1/3 the way to the engine's redline. Also ideally, the system is designed so that the engine can keep it's stock Compression ratio (or at least a reasonable one). When it become necessary to lower compression ratios, turbo lag begins to matter, because the engine is sluggish under non-boost conditions. If you take a strong NA engine and turbo it, without changing the CR, (and without applying so much boost that it develops a knock) you'll have a strong engine until say, 2500 RPM, and a total ass kicker from 2500 - 6000RPM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
93CutlassSupreme Posted April 29, 2004 Report Share Posted April 29, 2004 well, maybe not harder. all depends on traction really. i wouldn't judge all turbo cars because of some Volvo, lol....and a big ass 454 aint gonna fit into most modern cars. this thread is getting OLD a sawzall and a few metal blades and you can make it fit i'm not judging all turbo cars, i'm just saying i'd rather have a big carburated v-8 over a small boosted 4 or 6, i like instant power, not ower where you have to rev up to get boost. ever driven a tgp? cause there ain't no revving up to get power...all the torque is right there when you need it...it'll leave a 10ft patch of rubber from a standstill and throw ya back in the seat i hate it people develop the connitation that all turbo engines are torqueless dogs btw the volve you drove was most likely a DOHC...not know for gobs of torque redturbo...do your duty and lock this now no, i haven't driven a tgp, but i know that a 396, 427, or a 454 big block will develop more torque off the line than a turbo motor. the 1966 Chevelle SS 396 4 speed that my dad owned in high school would lay down more than a 10 foot patch of rubber. yes, the volvo was a DOHC, all it's power was in the high end. of the line, it wouldn't even spin the tires, it only started moving once i revved it past 3000 rpms oh ok excuse me then since i guess turbos do suck...and your some sort of god that know everything about turbos and engines in general you drive a fuckin cutlass you grandpa gave you...how old are you 16, 17, 18...but apparently you know that nothing will ever beat a big block i could argue all fuckin night about how new engines could destroy older one but it wouldn't matter...who gives a fuck new engines are 20 times more efficent then older ones....who cares about overhead cams and fuel injection...it will never beat a good ol 4bbl on a a chevy...jesus you sound like a god damn hick...is that what you are? So wrapped up in the fact that you think GM is the only car company that makes good cars I'm tired of arguing about the stupidest shit...and personally hearing any shit from you about how mustangs suck or how turbos don't produce torque...fucking grow up...get a job adn learn some shit about cars that way you can really help this goddamn board i don't give a fuck if you or anyone flames me...i done with this stupid ass board...so unless you wanna make me a mod or really give a fuck about a 2004 W-Body all the idiots on the board can go to fucking hell...i'm gone i've had a job since i was 14, asshole, oh and i'm sorry, i forgot i know nothing about cars, and have nothing of value to add to this board, but at the same time you have vast amounts of car knowledge, hell, you forget more about cars while you're pinching a loaf than i will ever know. i guess i'm a little out of my league here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts