answer me something - Page 3 - Racing Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: answer me something
Saturday, February 19, 2011 1:19 PM
anything but your 18's




Re: answer me something
Saturday, February 19, 2011 1:35 PM
They might work better than the old 14's.



Re: answer me something
Saturday, February 19, 2011 4:02 PM
colt45 wrote:

Although I don't have any real track experience, I'm not completely devoid of practice. The car does have a list of victims, ranging from some riced out civics, to a few Nissan Altimas (whatever the V6 is) to a couple Mustang GTs. Thing does launch well at the right rpm. Just need to find out if the tires I'm gonna probably be stuck using are gonna bite well enough.


Just curious if your saying you have raced a bit (which include these cars u listed) or you have beat these cars? Cause the said cars you just listed are 14 second cars.



Re: answer me something
Sunday, February 20, 2011 6:36 PM
Your telling me a riced civic is a 14 second car? Or a mid 90s mustang gt? Or an Altima?



Re: answer me something
Sunday, February 20, 2011 6:42 PM
Bolt on 90's GT with a good driver could do 14's. But stock they were solidly in the low 15's as tested by dudes who write magazine articles for a living.


1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by: Kronos Performance

WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
Re: answer me something
Sunday, February 20, 2011 6:54 PM
Well I don't know what mustang your talking about but my buddies 87 with nothing done to it runs 13's and I raced an 08 mustang and it ran a 14.7 ( and the driver was almost 70 years old) and the v6 altimas run a mid 14 easy (my buddies ran a 14.1) so I' not sure what 2.2 OHV you have but I want it! PS the altimas have 245hp, maybe your OHV has more power than my car since you can beat those cars. We should race this summer!



Re: answer me something
Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:00 PM
Matthew Jollymore wrote:

Well I don't know what mustang your talking about but my buddies 87 with nothing done to it runs 13's and I raced an 08 mustang and it ran a 14.7 ( and the driver was almost 70 years old) and the v6 altimas run a mid 14 easy (my buddies ran a 14.1) so I' not sure what 2.2 OHV you have but I want it! PS the altimas have 245hp, maybe your OHV has more power than my car since you can beat those cars. We should race this summer!


Ford Mustang 0 to 60 mph and Quarter Mile Times
1964 Ford Mustang (V8) 0-60 mph 7.3 Quarter mile 15.5
1966 Ford Mustang (V8, Auto) 0-60 mph 10.8 Quarter mile 17.7
1967 Ford Mustang (V8) 0-60 mph 7.3 Quarter mile 15.4
1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 0-60 mph 5.6 Quarter mile 14.1
1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1 0-60 mph 5.6 Quarter mile 13.7
1970 Ford Mustang Boss 302 0-60 mph 6.4 Quarter mile 14.7
1971 Ford Mustang (V8) 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter mile13.8
1971 Ford Mustang Boss 351 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter mile 13.6
1973 Ford Mustang 0-60 mph 8.8 Quarter mile 16.1
1974 Ford Mustang II 0-60 mph 14.1 Quarter mile 18.6
1974 Ford Mustang II (Auto) 0-60 mph 15.5 Quarter mile 19.2
1975 Ford Mustang II (V8) 0-60 mph 9.5 Quarter mile 17.3
1977 Ford Mustang II (V8) 0-60 mph 11.2 Quarter mile 17.5
1980 Ford Mustang 0-60 mph 11.7 Quarter mile 18.3
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra 0-60 mph 11.2 Quarter mile 18.2
1981 Ford Mustang M81 McLaren (2.3L Turbo) 0-60 mph 9.6 Quarter mile 17.2
1982 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 7.4 Quarter mile 15.9
1984 Ford Mustang SVO 0-60 mph 7.8 Quarter mile 15.6
1985 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.3 Quarter mile 14.7
1987 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.3 Quarter mile 14.2
1988 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.3 15.0
1989 Ford Mustang GT 5.0L (Manual) 0-60 mph 6.1 Quarter mile 14.6
1990 Ford Mustang LX 5.0L 0-60 mph 6.3 Quarter mile 14.7
1991 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 7.2 Quarter mile 15.6
1992 Ford Mustang LX 5.0L 0-60 mph 6.1 Quarter mile 14.6
1993 Ford Mustang Cobra 0-60 mph 5.9 Quarter mile 14.4
1993 Ford Mustang GT (Auto) 0-60 mph 7.9 Quarter mile 15.9
1994 Ford Mustang Cobra 0-60 mph 5.3 Quarter mile 13.8
1994 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.6 Quarter mile 14.9
1994 Ford Saleen Mustang S-351 0-60 mph 5.8 Quarter mile 14.1
1995 Ford Mustang 3.8L 0-60 mph 9.8 Quarter mile 17.1
1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.6
1996 Ford Mustang Cobra 0-60 mph 5.4 Quarter mile 13.8
1996 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.7 Quarter mile 15.1
1996 Ford Mustang Saleen S351R Speedster 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.5
1998 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 0-60 mph 5.3 Quarter mile 13.8
1999 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 0-60 mph 5.3 Quarter mile 13.7
1999 Ford Mustang Convertible (V6) 0-60 mph 8.5 Quarter mile 16.3
1999 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 5.4 Quarter mile 13.9
1999 Ford Mustang GT Convertible 0-60 mph 6.1 Quarter mile 14.4
2000 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra R 0-60 mph 4.3 Quarter mile 12.7
2000 Ford Saleen Mustang S-281 0-60 mph 4.7 Quarter mile 13.2
2000 Ford Mustang Saleen S281 Supercharged 0-60 mph 5.0 Quarter mile 13.6
2000 Ford Mustang Roush Stage 3 0-60 mph 5.0 Quarter Mile 13.3
2001 Ford Mustang Bullitt GT 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.9
2001 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 0-60 mph 4.7 Quarter mile 13.3
2001 Ford Mustang Roush Stage 3 0-60 mph 4.2 Quarter mile 12.9
2003 Ford Mustang Roush 380R 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter Mile 13.7
2003 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 0-60 mph 4.4 Quarter mile 12.2
2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1 (Auto) 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.7
2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1 (Manual) 0-60 mph 4.6 Quarter mile 13.0
2004 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 0-60 mph 4.4 Quarter mile 12.6
2005 Ford Mustang 0-60 mph 6.8 Quarter mile 15.1
2005 Ford Mustang GT (4.6L V8) 0-60 mph 5.0 Quarter mile 13.3
2005 Ford Mustang GT Convertible 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.6
2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT 0-60 mph 4.9 Quarter mile 13.4
2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 0-60 mph 4.4 Quarter mile 12.7
2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 Convertible 0-60 mph 4.4 Quarter mile 12.7
2007 Ford Mustang Shelby GT-H 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter mile 13.7
2007 Ford Mustang Roush Stage 3 0-60 mph 5.0 Quarter Mile 13.4
2008 Ford Mustang Bullitt 0-60 mph 4.9 Quarter mile 13.4
2008 Ford Mustang Convertible 0-60 mph 7.2 Quarter mile 15.5
2009 Ford Mustang GT (Glass Roof Option) 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter Mile 13.6
2010 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 0-60 mph 4.5 Quarter mile 12.8
2010 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 4.9 Quarter mile 13.5
2010 Ford Mustang (Manual) 0-60 mph 6.5 Quarter Mile 15.1
2010 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 Convertible 0-60 mph 4.6 Quarter Mile 12.8
2011 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 0-60 mph 4.0 Quarter Mile 12.2
2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 Convertible 0-60 mph 4.6 Quarter Mile 13.0
2011 Ford Mustang 0-60 mph 5.3 Quarter Mile 13.8
2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 0-60 mph 4.5 Quarter Mile 13.0
2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302 0-60 mph 4.2



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:00 PM

1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by: Kronos Performance

WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
Re: answer me something
Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:09 PM
Well first point is the 96 is the heavier of the mustangs hence why it was so slow. So the 87 does 14.2 on stock tires. So buddy had some proper tires on his car, stock motor and ran a 13.8. The 08 was completely stock and ran a 14.8. My buddys altima v6 completely stock ran a 14.1. Well I didn't know a stock 2.2 OHV ran 14's. Now a stock civic with a fart can I can believe. I have been in numerous 2.2 OHV and know how they work so its not like you can say a bold statement like beating a 14 second car. Even a 15.1 mustang would be hard to beat on the streets as their main advantage is low end torque and they get off the line rather well but fall on their faces at the end. I'll be at the track so we can all have a good time and have legitimate races and have slips to prove times. There is no comparison to racing on the street vs a track.



Re: answer me something
Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:13 PM
irrc the 94-95 sn95 body style mustangs are only 3-400 pounds heavier than the fox body it replaced, and almost all of that weight went to strengthening the chassis which should theoretically make it hook up better. Well the 96 is about 300 pounds heavier than the 94-95 because the 4.6 mod motor is about 300 pounds heavier than a standard 302 Windsor, but it has a better torque curve and should theoretically be better at higher rpm's due to the over head cam rather than the cam in block (of course I've seen LSx based engines scream at 10k rpms and make big n/a power and sound @!#$ sexy as hell).


1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by: Kronos Performance

WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
Re: answer me something
Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:16 PM
The fox body is pure sex IMO. My buddy just picked up a 1990 GT (fuel injected) and it put down a mere 550whp. Not too shabby I suppose



Re: answer me something
Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:17 PM
I like the fox bodies, but they really dont handle for @!#$. And I like going fast while turning. But if I ever build a dedicated drag car it will be a fox body with an LSx in it.


1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by: Kronos Performance

WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer

Re: answer me something
Monday, February 21, 2011 5:06 AM
Just on a side note, I never did say a straight up drag race. And in fairness, the altima sucked from launch. The guy driving it was only in his early twenties, and couldn't shift worth anything.



Re: answer me something
Monday, February 21, 2011 11:01 AM
Matthew, ill race ya if you at greenfield this year, i'd like to see what a basically stock ecotec sunfire can do against a turbo'ed LD9 cavy LOL



Re: answer me something
Monday, February 21, 2011 1:57 PM
dxdean3 wrote:

Matthew, ill race ya if you at greenfield this year, i'd like to see what a basically stock ecotec sunfire can do against a turbo'ed LD9 cavy LOL


I race agains't anything...often times at races you line up with whatever. I've raced a 18 second suv and 7 second rail car. I do it for the fun and try to improve my times. It takes practice but its something I couldn't imagine not doing. I went all last summer without a car so I am definitely getting anxious to get back into it this summer. Hopefully moving back to the valley in a few months.



Re: answer me something
Monday, February 21, 2011 2:10 PM
sweet, youll have to come to a few of our valley meets then, and i plan on racing against anything at greenfield



Re: answer me something
Monday, February 21, 2011 3:34 PM
I'm hoping they have a test and tune there. I've been living in PEI for a while now and they always had a test and tune on tuesday nights for 20 bucks.



Re: answer me something
Saturday, March 05, 2011 8:05 PM
colt45 wrote:

Just to confirm what was said, at 65 mph, the 2200 is at almost exactly 3500 rpm. I do believe my tach was saying somewhere around 3300-3400.

ohv with 5 speed is just under 2500 rpms at 65mph



Re: answer me something
Sunday, March 06, 2011 9:18 AM
In what gear?



Re: answer me something
Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:15 AM
colt45 wrote:

In what gear?

5th....but idk if you guys were talking highest gear or what, i just saw your one post saying that



Re: answer me something
Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:17 AM
95LsCoupe wrote:

colt45 wrote:

In what gear?

5th....but idk if you guys were talking highest gear or what, i just saw your one post saying that

also my moms 2002 2200 with 4sped auto will do 70 at around 2500ish(litte higher maybe), so idk whats wrong with your car if it's up there in overdrive



Re: answer me something
Sunday, March 06, 2011 11:54 AM
I posted the 3300 or so to confirm that 65mph in third gear was just below FACTORY rated peak torque.




Re: answer me something
Sunday, March 06, 2011 10:51 PM
Oh gotcha, i shoulda read back a few posts sorry...and to the OP, did you guys race yet? im curious to see what times were ran



Re: answer me something
Monday, March 07, 2011 8:23 AM
Your car with its mods probably has 130hp at best. Let's do a comparison

2001 Cavi 4-dr..........................2000 Honda Civic SOHC 2-dr EX
1st - 2.95 (10.70)................................3.25 (13.81)
2nd - 1.62 (5.88).................................1.909 (8.11)
3rd - 1.00 (3.63).................................1.250 (5.31)
4th - 0.680 (2.46)................................0.909 (3.86)
5th - NA.................................................0.702 (2.98)
FD - 3.63...............................................4.25
***Effective Gearing shown in brackets

2001 Cavi 4-door .................2000 Honda Civic SOHC 2-dr EX
Weight - 2676lbs............................. 2262lbs
hp -130hp*(modded)........................127hp
lbs per hp - 20.58 lbs/hp..................17.81lbs/hp

In summary, you have worse effective gearing than a stock civic and a worse power-to-weight ratios. How are beating all these cars you speak of? Oh, that's right! You're not! You're just trying to pull the wool over our eyes. We are not stupid, so stop trying to fool us. It only makes you look dumb and not us. Congratulations you're almost as fast stock Honda Civic. Go race some Tercels, I heard they are super fast especially with shift kits. lol




Re: answer me something
Monday, March 07, 2011 8:42 AM
What planet are you on where a civic weighs only 2200 lbs? 127 hp? So a full exhaust and a few other things is good for 15 bhp? What you don't seem to realize is that a car can have 800 hp and still be beat if the driver is unable to use the power.



Re: answer me something
Monday, March 07, 2011 9:20 AM
So, after checking, I can can guarantee that even a base 2000 civic weighs over 2500lbs. And with a whopping 106 ft/lbs of torque at 5000rpm, I seriously doubt it would be hard to beat. Please try again.



Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search