You con maybe get him 0 - 60 but aerodynamics on trucks are bad so dont race on the
highway too fast.
George Hernandez wrote:
> '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 - 11:47:55 EDT