Re: R/T versus 5.0 Stang

From: George Hernandez (georgeh@tocquigny.com)
Date: Fri Feb 04 2000 - 09:28:15 EST


'96 was the first year of the 4.6L motor. I personally think most years of
Stangs w/ that engine are slugs. They're heavy and rated at about 225HP with
much less torque than the Dakota. On the dyno, most I have seen only pulled
about 150-170HP Granted there is a weight difference I think superior torque
will pull you ahead from the line. Hot Rod got a Dakota R/T regular cab to pull
a 14.68 by manually shifting back in 98 I think. On the other hand the Hot Rod
test Mustang only pulled a "blazin" 14.4 (corrected) after headers, cam, heads
and a variety of bolt on's. It was an auto, but even in my personal experience,
the best I have seen a 4.6 stang pull is a low 15 when bone stock.

I would say go for it! You'll never know until you try...

Bob Tom wrote:

> At 12:38 AM 2/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >I'm sure this has been discussed a million times before but I'm curious
> >since my friend has a '96 5.0 Mustang GT. I guess I'm wondering how things
> >would turn out with a Stock CC R/T against a Stock 5 Litre before I make a
> >fool out of myself and get my doors blown off??
>
> The best that I've seen a stock (absolutely nothing added) CC R/T up here was
> 15.0x. I do believe that the last 5 words in your message is a real
> possibility and most likely end result.
>
> Bob. Southern Ontario, Canada.
> '97 Dakota CC Sport, FR, 5.2L, 3.55 SG, auto.

--
George Hernandez
Tocquigny Advertising + Design
512.329.8065  ext.135
Fax: 512.328.5645



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:47:53 EDT