KTM 525 Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 95 GT headers full exhuast,pulley = twice from a dig= 10 cars on him by 4th gear:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Yet another older Mustang sent off to the glue factory. Nicely done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gire Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Anyone remember the performance specs of the 87 - 93 5.0 'Stang? My buddies all had them back in the mid 90's (while I had an Integra) and they thought they were the fastest things ever made... that is until a guy in a FD RX-7 destroyed my buddy at a green light race (1st, 2nd gear only) like we weren't even moving, LOL. What did those 5.0's do 0-60? Mid 6's??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gire Posted April 4, 2005 Share Posted April 4, 2005 Anyone remember the performance specs of the 87 - 93 5.0 'Stang? My buddies all had them back in the mid 90's (while I had an Integra) and they thought they were the fastest things ever made... that is until a guy in a FD RX-7 destroyed my buddy at a green light race (1st, 2nd gear only) like we weren't even moving, LOL. What did those 5.0's do 0-60? Mid 6's??? I've searched Google several times whenever I recall that moment in my mind from 10 years ago, but have come up with nothing on older Stang performance figures... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scubie02 Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 quick search says 87 mustang GT 6.7 0-60, 15.3 1/4 mile 88 mustang GT supposedly from Motortrend, January, 1988 0-60: 7.2 Transmission: Manual 1/4 Mile: 15.8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magoon Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 quick search says 87 mustang GT 6.7 0-60, 15.3 1/4 mile 88 mustang GT supposedly from Motortrend, January, 1988 0-60: 7.2 Transmission: Manual 1/4 Mile: 15.8 Weren't the old 5 liters putting out only around 210-215 horsepower? Not much to worry about there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTM 525 Posted April 5, 2005 Author Share Posted April 5, 2005 It was a 95,the last year of the 5.0 liter and probably rated at around 235hp. He had some goodies on there and the car sounded deadly (they all do with flowmasters). This was my daughters friend and he was blindsided by my Legacy. He said he never thought I would wax him like I did. It was a pure spankfest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gire Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 quick search says 87 mustang GT 6.7 0-60, 15.3 1/4 mile 88 mustang GT supposedly from Motortrend, January, 1988 0-60: 7.2 Transmission: Manual 1/4 Mile: 15.8 Hey Thanks. Those numbers are not super hot by today's standards... but back in the day, my buddies would swear that they ran the 1/4 mile in 10 seconds flat! Mind you, we were a bunch of meat-headed kids back then. Flowmasters were installed on ALL my friend's cars, and the almighty "H-Pipe". Man, that's all I would hear out of them! That and the 220 HP that they made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prod Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Saw a modded 5.0 (at least exhaust... no idea what else or transmission) run a 16.11 at the track. One of my friends in MD has a modded 5.0 with the automatic. He's the only one in my group of car enthusiast friends that had a faster car than my 01 Outback. Unfortunately in my group of non-car enthusiast friends, my Outback was the slowest. Amazing how that works. When I got the Legacy I was waiting for break-in so I never raced him, but now I'm past that so hopefully we'll be able to arrange a day to visit the track. I'm fairly certain I'll be able to pull on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitestar Pilot Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 With a little bit of work (flowmasters, intake, pulley) most '87 - '93 Stangs were running 14.6 -14.9 on street tires in my area. In the early 90's I had an automatic, black '86 300z Turbo modded with a manual HKS boost controller, K&N, and gutted cat-back exhaust (Back then you could order HKS parts straight from an HKS catalog). The Z ran a 14.2 1/4 mile, and I beat Mustangs left and right with that car. Those were good times, because 5.0 drivers did indeed think they were gods at the time. My tag provoked more than a few street races. It read GTSLAYR. Congrads on the kill, KTM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agctr Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Hey good ppl, just moving this out to the "Other cars & Other cars vs. the Legacy" Forum.Thanks.Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTM 525 Posted April 5, 2005 Author Share Posted April 5, 2005 Uhhhh... Adam, thats the forum I posted this thread in:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerMan Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 I really love Mustangs but it is nice to suprise someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legandrex Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 I had a auto 87 5.0 Mustang with 3.73 gears and 2 chamber flowmasters. It was dead even with my dad's 89 vette with a six speed. Probably low sixes to 60. Felt really fast. Fun car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Anyone remember the performance specs of the 87 - 93 5.0 'Stang? My buddies all had them back in the mid 90's (while I had an Integra) and they thought they were the fastest things ever made... that is until a guy in a FD RX-7 destroyed my buddy at a green light race (1st, 2nd gear only) like we weren't even moving, LOL. What did those 5.0's do 0-60? Mid 6's??? Well, most of those "guesstimates" by non Mustang owners are wrong. I owned three 5.0 Mustangs in that time period (87 LX 5.0, 88 LX 5.0, and 89 GT) all manuals. They ran 0-60 in the 6.0-6.2 second range. 1/4 miles were 14.6-14.8 @ 96-97 mph. Which is still VERY quick by today's standards, let alone 15+ years ago! I saw 135 mph in mine once and the car was still pulling. The LX 5.0 which was more aerodynamic (and like 100 pounds less in weight) would see high 140's the GT was low 140's. I was in my teens and early 20's then, so I raced ALL the TIME. Beat just about everything back then including IROC-Z's both 5.0 and 5.7's Supra Turbos, etc. By the early 90's though other cars had caught up, and some became a bit faster (like the Twin Turbo RX-7 someone pointed out...but it also cost twice as much!!!). My 1989 Mustang GT MSRP'ed for $14,800 In any case here's a quote from Road and Track back in 1988: "The only homegrown V8 iron that'll top the Mustang in a heads-up acceleration run is the Corvette, and measured on the all important scale of fun per buck, it stands alone." I raced several Corvettes (late 80's cars) back then too. Usually I'd be back a car length or so by 90ish mph and the vettes pulling away a bit. I ran one guy with an automatic 1988 vette and hung right with him. He wasn't pulling on me and I couldn't get in front of him. Again, considering the the Mustangs were 1/2 the price they were the car to have. And modifications were CHEAP with them. Like owning a turbo car now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 The other reason people think, and feel the MGT's times back then were so all over the speed map was because of the ability to launch the car. Back then having around 300 ft-lbs of torque by 3000 rpm's and probably 250+ just above idle meant the skinny 225/60/15 tires would light it up easily and made for tough get aways. I remember I could grab rubber going into 2nd gear at over 40 mph, and sometimes, if the surface proved capable, get a chirp hitting 3rd at 75 mph! It had a weight dist. of 57% front 43% rear. Made for entertaining throttle on power slides...ANYTIME you wanted! And to give all you younger guys a better understanding how quick a 0-60 in the low 6's and a 1/4 mile time of high 14's at 96-97 mph was. Road and Track also tested the Lambo Countach...our Ferrari Enzo of our generation it's times were: 0-60 in 5.2 1/4 in 13.7 @ 108 mph Cost = $125K And the Porsche 911 Turbo back in 1987-88 0-60 in 5.0 seconds (there's that RWD/Rear mounted engine launch advantage) 1/4 in 13.4's @ 103 Cost = $59K The "pocket rockets" which is what we called the "ricers" of today ran like this: 88 Civic CRX Si 0-60 in low to mid 8's 1/4 in 16.3-16.4 @ 85 ish 88 VW GTI 1.8 16V Same as Civic CRX Si 1988 Acura Integra (the first body style ones) 0-60 in 9.0 seconds 1/4 in high 16's @ 81-82 mph All these cars back in 1988 cost between $10K to $14K for the VW or Acura Again, the Mustang GT started at $12,900 and fully loaded was mid 14K Now you tell me, which do you think was the car to own as a youngster? Yeah, Mustang GT's were as common as Civics and such are today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTM 525 Posted April 5, 2005 Author Share Posted April 5, 2005 Typically stock 5.0 mustangs ran low 15's at the track. Back in the day they were fast yes. Routinely beating up Iroc Z's. This all came to an abrupt end in 1993 whe the LT1 was introduced into the F-Body. Only now in 2005 does a stock GT prove to be a stock performer again. I see you have a soft spot for the Mustangs there Driver nothing wrong with that. I like the early 90's notchback LX's personally. The 5.0 motors were rated at 225hp as I remember so at the wheels like maybe 195ish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evolutionmovement Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 We used to take 5.0s all day long in Formula 350s, old Camaros, and of course, my friend's big block Chevelle. They weren't bad for their day, just the same. I just never liked how flexible they were or the fact that the kids who drove them around here were all the kids who's parents bought them their cars and they did none of their own work. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gire Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Driver72, I agree, they were inexpensive, fun and fast! The torque was very strong and they could let the tires loose whenever they wanted. All my buddies owned the LX sedans (never the GT) as they were lighter and arguably better looking. Mean, and purposeful. I emailed some of the old friends after this thread came up and we took a stroll down memory lane and had some laughs. My best memory was taking out my old man's M5 and going at it with them one afternoon. They were happy to beat the M5 in short standing bursts. We were responsible enough back then only to take runs up to about 85KM/h and then shut it down fast. Hearing others' street race stories about getting up to 85+MPH (!) in the city just scares the hell out of me. Yup, good times from 10 years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deimos Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Yeah D72 +1, I think what made the 5.0 extra special was the torque which I think was in the 280 range(?) pretty serious stuff as we all know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scubie02 Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 I had an 87 lx so I was talking as an owner, but had to look up numbers since I never took it to a track. The numbers seemed reasonable to me. I was thinking it was 225 hp and I think I paid like $13,9K for mine (didn't get air or anything--something you wouldn't even think of now haha). As driver72 said bang for the buck was unbeatable back then, and honestly there weren't alot of faster cars out there--had a vette toast me once but that was several years after mine was new, and I'm semi suspicious it wasn't stock because it was just reaaally fast by comparison. tires made a huge difference. Get the wrong ones and you literally had a hard time not chirping at all taking off as carefully as you could (I had one set like this anyway--never bought tires from Monkey Wards again--hey, I was a starving college student! Cheap all seasons as it turned out weren't a good idea). Anyway, it was a great car to have back then, I have lots of fond memories, and as an aside--there are lots of those old boys around that have been modded crazy fast and would eat a lgt for breakfast, so don't ever be too cocky or bet the farm on a race. There are certain makes I am always suspicious of if they want to race because they are so frequently modded and you just never know--mustangs are one of them because they are so cheap to mod. (Also some of the old dsm's) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanoswrx Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 I just had a little run in with the generation before the current one (05's). It was a blue GT. We turned a corner and took off, his exhaust really stunk, black smoke made me cough, but not for long I passed him, so it was sweet By the way I have a Stage 1 LGT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gire Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 If the gas mileage wasn't so bad in the 5.0, I would have gladly gone crazy on one instead of getting into Hondas. Exhaust, gears, and some other small tweaks (in some cases- a B-Trim Vortech) netted way more results than those same mods in a Civic!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver72 Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 We used to take 5.0s all day long in Formula 350s, old Camaros, Steve Not with stock late 80's Formula 350's or Camaros. The MGT would beat them each and every time. I had 4 guys in my high school with either IROC-Z's Trans Am GTA's or one with Formula 350's (the 5.7 liter then only came in a 4 speed auto) and I raced each of them SEVERAL times in my stock LX 5.0's. Never lost ONCE...either from a dead stop or from a roll. One of my closest friends mom's had a TA GTA with the 5.7 liter. I remember him wanting to beat me so bad, he tried like 3 times. I just kept saying, "your going to lose AGAIN" On the third time, we were going up a bridge in Tempe, AZ and he was like...nail it, so we did, from about 35 mph...by 70-75 I was a car length ahead, and then backed off, he flew by me and 1/4 mile later he went by a cop. Was given a ticket for speeding....I had slowed to under 50 mph by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.