Questions: At the drags yesterday I kept a close eye on two newer GT's. One
automatic, one 5 speed. Both appeared stock, but I did not see under the
hoods. Both ran low 16's. (We're at 3075 feet elevation.) If you had a newer
GT, and you just floored it in drive, shouldn't it run better than 16's? I
can understand someone not knowing how to drive a stick, but an auto?? What
are the magazines quoting for 1/4 mile times? Can these engines (4.6 3
valve) really make 300 horsepower as delivered?

Al

Big Al wrote:
I'm not Patrick but from all the dyno runs I have seen for the 3 valve
engines show they produce a solid 300 hp. In fact, they may be slightly
under rated and seem to respond nicely (20-30 rwhp increase) to a few
tuning tweaks. IMO, ET's at the drag strip aren't necessarily good
indicator of HP under the hood. Most drivers aren't that good, make
errors, tires don't hook up, track conditions are bad etc. and these
things greatly affect times. Trap speed can be a better indication of
horsepower than ET. If they are trapping high numbers then the
horsepower is there and something else is causing the high ETs.

On Feb 11, 9:14 am, "Big Al" <s... (AT) qwest (DOT) net> wrote:
Al,

You must have either the slowest 3-valve GTs and/or the worst drivers
of these cars in the country.

These cars are easy low-14 second pieces (at sea level). In your area
(3K feet of elevation), if these guys can't cut a sub 15, they should
trade them in for Kias.

What are there trap speeds?

Patrick

<NoOption5L (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote

Don't really remember. I'll watch next race. Been watching them for a long
time. Don't see any stockers running 14's here.

Al

On Feb 12, 12:41 am, "Big Al" <s... (AT) qwest (DOT) net> wrote:
They have 300 net = about 250-260 RW and they weigh about 3,400-3,500
pounds. They should be running as hard or harder than a '96-'97 Cobra
but get a better hook due to better weight distro.

Patrick

NoOption5L (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:
Long time no see, Patrick. Been a while since I cruised RAMFM.

In any event - just for historical purposes, my '97 Cobra ran 13.8 @
100.7 with about a 2.0 60' time (I know I'm not the world's best driver)
with Nitto 555DRs and a Tri-ax - otherwise stock car/weight. Track
elevation there was 1250'. It's pretty sad if these guy in new GTs
can't even break into the 15's. Traction control (or lack thereof) a
factor?

On the miserable street tires the car came with (not the originals) I
was in the high 14's / low 15's if I remember right, as I couldn't hook
to save my life.

How's everything been?

JS

On Feb 18, 10:00 am, JS <nob... (AT) home (DOT) now> wrote:

Hey, JS!

I know! It's sad. Perhaps the traction control being left on is it,
but I can't imagine the performance being affected that much. I do
know these cars rock. I enjoyed the hell out of my '05 test
drive!

But the mph was there, as it should be with these cars. At sea level,
they should be trapping over 100 mph.

Good!. My '93 keeps humming along. It's now at 125K miles. I need
about another 100 horses, but I am not going to mess with it until it
needs to be freshened. Then it'll either be a stout new crate motor
or I'll get something new(er). An '05 GTO, Hemi car, 3-valve GT and a
WRX head the list, but who knows... oh, and can't wait to see/drive
the new Camaro!

Do you still have your '97?

Patrick

NoOption5L (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:
I haven't had any seat time behind the '05's, though I'd love to. Glad
to hear you got to give one a rip! I'm thinking maybe traction control
was turned off and the drivers couldn't handle the car. Maybe they'd be
better leaving it on?

Agreed. If my '97 Snake can trap over 100 mph at just about 1/4 mile
above sea level, these cars should be running much, much harder than the
times show.

Yours is a '93 Cobra, right? Glad to hear it's still running strong.
I'd love to have a '93 Cobra to go along with the '97 - always was a
sucker for a Fox. I know the feeling of needing a bit more power... my
daily toy is a '95 Eclipse GSX with 158k on it... it's noisy (famous
Chrysler 4-cylinder lifter click), but still quick. Just needs a bit
more balls. Another 100hp would be great! My friend's building a 600hp
turbo/nitrous Talon... so it makes me wish I had just a bit more.

A few months ago I saw the prototype Camaro - wasn't impressed with the
styling. I thought Ford hit the mark with the Mustang but GM missed it
a bit with the Camaro. I think it'll be a fun car to drive, but I'm not
huge on the styling. Whatever you buy, I'm sure you'll have a good time
test driving all of them.

Yeah, but I didn't take it with me when I moved to NY. It's back in PA,
safe in a garage. I miss it - last time I took it for a spin was in
June. I'll probably be back in PA in a few years' time, then it's time
for Mustang fun again.

JS