yes i did indeed beat a 1995 Mustang GT. It's my friends car, all he has is a muffler, well 4 tips now. I beat him every time we raced, and I even drove the mustang and raced my own car, my car still beat his ass. weird shit? his car has 90,000mi on it, whatchu guys think?

 

Usually a GT and CLS will be a close race but nice kills!

 

'95 GT mike?...sounds right to me...

 

i've beaten an older GT also with my CLP, i think they are slower than the new ones.

 

woops i just saw cl-P ...if your friend was auot id say its possible

 

I'd say it'd be possible if you had a CLS and he had an AOD. Even w/ '95-'97 not being the best of years for Stangs, even an auto Stang w/ stock gears should be able to make little work of taking a CL. He had "a muffler"??? You sure it wasn't a V6?

 

no big bad v8. i think it's a 5.0, not sure though.

 

Good Kill! Those GT's have 5.0L 215hp 295tq.
My friend Rusty has a 91 GT Mustang Auto w/I/H/E and I beat his ass in my 2001 Honda Accord V6 w/I/Mufflers. His car is slow because of the Auto. The gears suck on that car. I beat him off the line by 1 car and pull all the way through the 1/4 mile. 3-4 Cars is what I kill him by. Now if we are starting off on a rolling start then he comes very close.

 

Jagv - your friend Rusty was either not racing and toying w/ you or is one hell of a bad driver. A '91GT ad 225/300 fwhp stock.....depending on the i/h/e combo he shoud've been close to 300 (you'd be lucky to see 225fwhp w/ your i/muffer). The stock gears in that car are 3.07's or 3.27's........and they are more tha enough to take you out of the hole so bad it would've been a waste of his gas $$$. 3-4 cars at the 1/4? That car w/ those mods would be pulling low-mid 13's and trapping about 101-103. I call BS on this one. You'd be lucky to break into the 14's w/ your AV6.

 

Here we go again.. lol

The only Stang that has a chance with us guys is the 99+ GT's. All the others will loose.

 

I think most stangs made after '79 have a chance, especially if they're modded at all. The 5.0 with I/H/E, i'm guessing means intake, headers, exhaust won't really do shit on a car without head work. I highly doubt stock 5.0 89-95 with I/H/E will get to 13s. Maybe sub 14.5. But it will still walk all over a stock CL-S.

 

lol, i am a CL-P with CAI, and the gt aint shit...im telling you, i drove the GT and raced my car, and my car won...the 95 stang is not fast at all...

 

Have any of you stang killers actually been to the track.

 

Hey Darkman. LOL. Of course they haven't....but they do read Car & Driver. They just think cause they cruise at hwy speeds and pass a few Stangs they won a race and the "stang ain't shit"...it's quite funny. Hell, I travel at 80-85mph everytime I hit a hwy....I pass all sorts of cars, does this mean my '00 Toyota Echo (it's a 5speed and I've got stickers ) has really killed vettes, porsches, stangs, camaros, and yes (believe it or not) the almighty CLS??? I DON'T THINK SO! Get real fellas. Acuras are nice cars, but they can't hang w/ stangs, camaros, vettes etc.....sorry!

 

gawd damn it, listen to me...i beat a 1995 mustang gt. that is final, theres no way that peice of shit could out run me. slow as shit, now maybe if it was newer and had less miles than 92,000 then fuck whatever, i lost, but quote me on this one "I BEAT A GT" thanks bye

 

Well, just to make sure, how about I find a '94-'96 GT on one of my boards that lives near you in Cali and you can just do it again.....to show it wasn't just a fluke? Let me know.

 

anytime. bring it

 

No problem...trying to set something up for your CLS as we speak. Would you like your beating on the street or at the track.....one lump or two? Where is la habra by?

 

this post caught my eye so I thought I would throw in my .02, not like any of you acura owners are going to like it.
My best friend has a 01 type-s, and we have gone at it several times, stand still, highway, all sorts of rolling speeds. All arguments aside, the car is very quick, but needless to say, you know what the outcome was!

I'M SPEAKING STOCK vs STOCK. ACURA, HONDA, NISSAN, I DON'T CARE IF YOU OWN ANY OF THESE CAR MAKES, BUT IF YOU RACE A 99+ GT YOU SHOULD/WILL LOSE WHETHER ITS STICK/AUTO. UNLESS THE GUY NEXT TO YOU HAS NO CLUE HOW TO RACE A CAR. ITS JUST THAT SIMPLE, IF YOU BEAT A 99+ MUSTANG THEN YOU CAN MARK ONE UP FOR GOOD LUCK FOR NOT GETTING ONE WITH A DRIVER THAT KNOWS HOW TO DRIVE. YOU DIDN'T BEAT THE CAR, YOU BEAT A PERSON THAT HAS NO CLUE HOW TO DRIVE WHAT HE HAS. I DON'T KNOW WHY ALL YOU RICERS CAN'T GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEADS.

Don't get me wrong, we take my friends out all the time, and its a awesome ride and very quick, but he is an ex cobra owner and even admits that his old 93 Cobra and his old 98 Cobra would of creamed his type-S.

I see tons of these things accross your boards about acura's, maxima's and other ricers beating mustangs, vette's, and crap-maro's, C'MON GUYS GET A CLUE!!!

Ron
99GT

 

hey ron your opinion on racing and who would win what, is welcome, however your rice comments are not. unless you refer to a specific i.e lexus wagon with double decker aluminum wing...here's a clue for you. i personally have run a 9.1 1/8th ,which will beat all stock 99+GT's on most days. i dont think you're gonna find too many people here that think a stock cl auto will beat a 99+Gt.. now i think a stock 6mt cl-S will beat an auto GT and certainly a vert auto....what you maynot realize is, headers and intake on our car average 30 whp and extend the torque curve nicely, and at that point with some descent tires a CL-S auto or 6 has a good chance at a lightly modded GT. i say lightly ,like K&N drop in and tires...there's no limit to mods for stangs and they can be made very fast and can quickly be out of our league...concider the source and take what you read with a grain of salt,,,the day i ran my 9.1 a C5 ran a 9.0 to a 98 cobra (modded) 8.9 ...so i guess i can drive great and nobody else can..

 

Couple quick things.

one: gears on a 95 GT aod-e are going to be 2.73 stock, plus the trans is narrow ratio in them, jump to 96 and up in the mustang and hte auto gets 3.27 in the rear and a wide ratio trans that has a 2.84 vs 2.4 first gear (6.5 vs 9.2 effective ratio)

two: 90k miles, anything can be going on. Burned plug wire, plugs that are shot, burned rotor, etc. all those could seriously hamper this car. Also, the MAF sensor on these cars can be a problem, esp if you have a k&n; over oil it and you got oil on the sensor and the car will run like shit.

Point in case:
My dad recently bought a 95 gt aod-e vert, 34k miles. Ran like ass, he hit the usual suspects.
fuel filter, plugs, wires, cap, rotor, oil change, cleaned air filter (k&n), ran fuel injector cleaner through it.

Then comes to visit, about 175 miles to my house, getting SES lights on the highway, feeling pretty weak. My younger brothers had the car out prior to this and were spanking it bad with my youngest brothers 3.8 n/a 97 firebird auto.

The only things I could think of were the maf sensor and IAT sensor. Cleaned them with alcohol, they were pretty dirty as evidenced by the cotton swab. The car felt like a new ride for sure. STill hampered by the crappy gears but much better.

My brother's then found the GT initially falling off the 3.8 firebird to say 30, pulling even by about 60-70 and then walking away.

so ya, a CLP can definitely beat a GT, if it's not driven right, or just isn't in tune (surely possible when your 7-10 yrs old with 90k miles).

Remember we have relatively new cars which should be as good as ever...whereas the older pony car generation, (guys building 350s and 302s with this and that, etc. etc.) only have one thing in common, they're all loud...and a craps shoot. Some will be done right and run 10-12s, but many will be shitted up and lucky to keep pace with a civic.

 

the 94-95 mustang GT's were the slowest mustangs made, every mustang owner with half a brain knows this. Unless we start talking 1964.5 with a 289, those aren't all that fast either, but i'm talking modern. I'm sure Pull-T who seems to know his shit will agree with me on this one. Now A CL-P beating this car is likely and possible, being how slow that model GT was. And he says he did so then we have to take his word and he did, nice kill btw. But you put him up against a 96+ gt, he's shit. He has nothing, a CL-S vs one of these, is again a drivers race. These cars are very equal in performance numbers. Given the mustangs gearing and the CL-S weight, this puts them about even. Now mustangs have more peak torque, as do the GTP's, but like i said about the gtp's i dont know the stangs torque curve and powerband, but i'll tell you this, i got my car dynoed at mustang magic in deerk park for all you new yorkers, and even THEY were shocked at the torque curve on my car and they were all really impressed, a couple of guys even said "shit i gotta make more money this things fuckin fast". No flaming, just some words

 

Sorry about the ricer comment, the type-s's are obviously very nice cars, which give a great ride, and are very quick as I said before. As for the c-5 that went 9.0, thats equal (I could be wrong) to over a 14.0 in the quarter, which is way slower then a c-5 should be, besides you have to consider that the c-5 once its gets past the 1/8 is going to pull your car like mad as speed increases therefore his quarter will be much less then yours. I'm not much for 1/8 mile racing, personally I think 1/8 tracks are good for nothing except getting a good launch down for 60-ft's, I only have raced the quarter. Now about the modded 98 cobra, either that car is a freakin rat, or the dude has no clue how to drive becuase my car (h-pipe, 373's, and a drop in K&N) went 13.8 @ 103 w/ a 8.8 1/8th spinning 1st and 2nd gear.

Now if your car has headers and a intake that make 30 exta RWHP combined thats absolutely incredible. Don't know enough about acura parts and rwhp numbers on them to flame, but that sounds like ads talking, not a dyno. Just my .02.

I'd like to hear about the performance mods to your car, my friend would probably be interested, as of right now he wants to get rid of it!!!

 

Why do u keep saying the 94-95 is the slowest. The early modulars were actually slower.

 

well if you read i pretty much included the 1960's models and if you wanna get technical the 89-93 5.0's are faster than the 94-95. I was talking newer body styles, sorry allow me to clarify that, From 1994-2002 the 1994-95 mustangs were the slowest

 

I believe I am a mustang owner with half a brain, or a whole one I hope, anyway, I beg to differ !!!

The 96,97 GT's were the slowest because of thier weight and the new 4.6 motor. The 94 and 95's were just about equally as slow, but a little quicker because they still had the 5.0 in them which just edged the 96,97's out.

There is no doubt in my mind that the type-s my friend owns would beat a 94-98GT like a red headed step child, I have driven his car as well as every mustang you can imagine!!! The 98 GT would be close, but I think still the type-s would pull it no prob.

My argument was for the 99+ GT crowd!

Ron

 

No it wasnt....The 94-95 5.0 was quicker than earlier Modular 4.6s.

 

Just curious, but are your dyno numbers SAE or STD,etc. corrected????

 

dont remember threw the dyno sheet out when i cleaned my car and too lazy to get another one

 

no the 94-95's had much less power than the 96-98's, plus the 96-98's had the 3.27 gears correct? The 5.0's were only quick in the 80's and 90's.

 

You threw them out?!!??

Well the question I asked is a important one, why you ask, becuase SAE or STD correction is what the dyno uses to correct your hp and tq numbers for atmosphere indifferences.

I guess what I am getting at is your HP number seems way high for just an intake and headers. I don't exactly know what a "Comptech Axelback" so don't know if that could help or not???

I guess I am still waiting for "typeR" to weigh in as to the 30 HP from those two things, like I said before sound like the ads talking not the dyno!

Ron

P.S. Please refer to my comments on the the old mustangs vs each other, compared to a type-s. I have been into mustangs since I was 15, and am very knowledgeable about these cars, my 94,95 vs 96,97 comparison is right on, and I guess you don't have half a brain because you were wrong!!!

 

axelback being exhaust and iridiums being plugs, and i just called up the place no they were not corrected and it was 71 degrees.

 

sorry didn't finish reading, but just because you were into mustangs since you were 15 doesn't make you right. so i can say i've been into ferrari's since i was 4 that doesn't make everything i say right

 

DO ME A FAVOR AND DEFINE MUCH LESS POWER, AS IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 94-95'S HAD 215, AS THE 96-97'S HAD 215. BOTH HAD ABOUT 290 IN THE TQ DEPT. THE DIFFERENCE WAS THAT THE CURB WEIGHT OF ONE VS THE OTHER WAS AROUND 100 POUNDS LESS. WHICH IF YOUR A DRAG RACER, YOU KNOW THAT 100LBS IS ABOUT A TENTH OR SO IN THE QUARTER, WHICH IS WHY THE 94-95 WERE QUICKER THEN THE 96-97. THE 98 WAS A LITTLE FASTER THEN ALL 4 OF THESE MODEL YEARS BECAUSE IT CAME WITH A "REAL" 225 HP FROM THE FACTORY!!!

IT'S GUYS LIKE YOU THAT THINK YOU KNOW IT ALL THAT GET ME SO AGGRAVATED!!! WHICH IS WHY YOU GET THE NAME RICER!!!

Sincerely,
Ron

 

i thought ur car was totaled

 

SO AS I SUSPECTED YOUR NUMBERS MIGHT BE HIGH, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T CORRECTED!!!

WHEN REAL RACERS GO TO DYNO'S THEY MAKE SURE THAT THEIR NUMBERS ARE CORRECTED FOR A GOOD MEASURING TOOL TO COMPARE AGAINST OTHERS WHO HAVE SIMILAR DYNO NUMBERS!!!
YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SAE OR STD WAS, RIGHT???

YOU ARE A FOOL AND YOUR FERRARI ANALOGY IS JUST ABOUT THE MOST IDIOTIC THING I'VE HEARD IN A LONG TIME. IF YOU WERE INTO FERRARI'S SINCE YOU WERE FOUR THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE ON THEM, RIGHT??? WELL MY WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE IS ABOUT MUSTANGS BECAUSE OF ALL THE TECHNICAL RESEARCH I'VE DONE INTO THE CARS AND THE PARTS INVOLVED IN MAKING THEM GO FAST. YOU ARE THE TYPICAL MORON WHO HAS A PLATE LIKE ENVIOUS?, COULD YOU BE ANY MORE GAY!!!!

 

arrrr tough guy! first off did i say anything about PEAK power which is what you seem to live off of, the 96-97GT's had MORE OF A POWER BAND HENCE THE MORE POWER! ALSO I NOTICED YOU MENTION NOTHING OF THE GEARS, WITH THE 96-97'S HAVING 3.27'S AND THE 94-95 HAVING 3.08'S, WHICH HELPS A LOT YOU STUPID SON OF BITCH, ALL WAS WELL UNTIL YOU DECIDED TO BECOME TOUGH! ALSO SINCE YOUR MR KNOW IT ALL THEY BOTH HAD 285 LB/FT OF TORQUE, YOUR A MORON SHUT YOUR MOUTH. IF THE 94-95 PEAK AT 4200 RPMS AND THE 96-97 HAD IT AT 5K, THE 96 ARE STILL GAINING POWER WHEN THE 95 HITS ITS PEAK.

 

i'm a moron? you didn't even know what axel-back was. mr smart guy over here. why dont you read some more magazines, i'm surprised you haven't spit out some stupid ass numbers. Ever see me myself and irene? "little state little minds"

 

I STATED VERY CLEARLY THAT MY KNOWLEDGE WAS BASED UPON MUSTANGS, NOT ACURA'S. SO AS FOR ME NOT KNOWING ABOUT YOUR CAT-BACK (AXLE-BACK) I BELIEVE THATS JUSTIFIED.

YOU ADMIT YOUR WRONG ABOUT MUSTANGS, BECAUSE I TRULY ADMIT THAT I DON'T KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT YOUR CAR AS YOU DO!!!

WHEN THE 96'S AND 97'S FIRST CAME OUT THEY WERE "KNOWN" AS THE SLOWEST MUSTANGS OFF THE SHOWROOM FLOOR IN A LONG TIME AND EVERYONE RECOGNIZES THEM AS JUST THAT. PLAIN AND SIMPLE, THATS THE TRUTH!!! I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT THE GEARS, BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ONE CAR VS THE OTHER YOU HAVE TO HAVE ALL THINGS EQUAL THAT CAN BE EQUAL, GEARING BEING ONE OF THEM, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE 3.27 GEAR RATIO FOR 96-97 WAS A OPTION, NOT STANDARD. IF YOU TESTED BOTH OF THEM WITH THE 3.08 OR THE 3.27 GEAR THE 94-95 WOULD WIN. DEAL WITH IT!!!

I AM NOT TRYING TO BE A TOUGH GUY, JUST TRYING TO STATE THE FACTS!!! THE 96-97 GT'S RAN THE SLOWEST QUARTER MILE TIMES OUT OF THE BOX OF ANY PRODUCTION MUSTANG FROM 86-97.

YOU REMIND ME OF THE RICER THAT TOLD ME THAT I DIDN'T HAVE NITROUS WHEN I PURGED IT IN FRONT OF HIM, HE TOLD ME THAT I WAS JUST HIDING A AIR TANK SOMEWHERE!!! STICK TO WHAT YOU KNOW, WHICH I KNOW ISN'T MUCH, BUT THEN AGAIN YOUR FROM NY SO YOU GUYS KNOW EVERYTHING, SORRY I FORGOT!!!

 

BTW, YOU SAID AND I QUOTE "the 94-95's had much less power than the 96-98's", IS THAT OR IS THAT NOT TOTALLY FALSE BASED ON THE FACTS I HAVE PRESENTED!!!

I FORGOT THIS PART AND I QUOTE "THEY BOTH HAD 285 LB/FT OF TORQUE" ONCE AGAIN YOUR WRONG......
1995 GT 215HP @ 4200, 288TQ @ 3300
1996 GT 215HP @ 4500, 290TQ @ 3250

ONCE AGAIN PROVEN, YOU MY FRIEND ARE A JACKASS!!!