If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ping: Patrick
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ping: Patrick
Big Al wrote:
> 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? 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ping: Patrick
On Feb 11, 9:14 am, "Big Al" > wrote:
> 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, 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ping: Patrick
> wrote in message ups.com... > On Feb 11, 9:14 am, "Big Al" > wrote: > > 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, > > 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 > 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ping: Patrick
On Feb 12, 12:41 am, "Big Al" > wrote:
> > wrote in message > > On Feb 11, 9:14 am, "Big Al" > wrote: > > > 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, > > 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? > 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. 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 > Al |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ping: Patrick
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ping: Patrick
On Feb 18, 10:00 am, JS > wrote:
> Long time no see, Patrick. Been a while since I cruised RAMFM. Hey, JS! > 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? 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! > 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. But the mph was there, as it should be with these cars. At sea level, they should be trapping over 100 mph. > How's everything been? 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ping: Patrick
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ping NoOp Patrick -- 50 Fastest Shootout | [email protected] | Ford Mustang | 8 | May 17th 06 02:37 AM |
PING> Paul, Joe, Patrick ....??? | SVTKate | Ford Mustang | 15 | October 21st 05 05:43 PM |
Ping -> Patrick - Here We Go Again | Joe | Ford Mustang | 13 | August 30th 05 12:29 PM |
PING>>>>>>Patrick, '93 Cobra | Alias | Ford Mustang | 1 | June 24th 05 10:47 PM |
PING: Patrick (NoOption5L) | Ford Mustang | 2 | March 1st 05 03:46 AM |