In the 1/4? As remember, my car was running 13.30's @ 108 mph at the time.
This is more important than work!
Mark Kuzia
flyboy01@mediaone.net
http://people.mw.mediaone.net/flyboy01/home.html
1995 Dakota 13.79 @ 102.45 mph
360ci, 5-spd, 4.11 LS(8 3/4 coming soon), Cowl-induction
(A new E-body 8 3/4 [3.90 SG] has been built by Reider Racing)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam South" <sawcut64@mediaone.net>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 10:03 AM
Subject: DML: Re: Re: Re: Shelby outrunning a Dak
> Yeah in the winter and in the curves and probably in the quarter!! Hey
> aren't you supposed to be at work?!
> Sam South
> 95 Dak, V-8,3.90 LSD,5-speed
> 14.10@98.05
> http://people.mw.mediaone.net/sawcut64/home.html
> sawcut64@mediaone.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Kuzia" <flyboy01@mediaone.net>
> To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 9:45 AM
> Subject: DML: Re: Re: Shelby outrunning a Dak
>
>
> > Yeah,.......................I remberer..................... seeing those
> > Daytonas in my rear view mirrors, except during winter time.
> >
> > Mark Kuzia
> > flyboy01@mediaone.net
> > http://people.mw.mediaone.net/flyboy01/home.html
> > 1995 Dakota 13.79 @ 102.45 mph
> > 360ci, 5-spd, 4.11 LS(8 3/4 coming soon), Cowl-induction
> > (A new E-body 8 3/4 [3.90 SG] has been built by Reider Racing)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sam South" <sawcut64@mediaone.net>
> > To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 9:34 AM
> > Subject: DML: Re: Shelby outrunning a Dak
> >
> >
> > > Hey I had an 89 Daytona Shelby too but mine was quite a bit faster
then
> > 16.1
> > > all I did was a straight pipe from cat out (no muffler)which gave more
> > > boost, a home made ram air, a drop in K@N and split fire plugs. It was
> > > running high 14's, the trick with a front driver is rev the engine up
to
> > > 3500-3800 and slip the clutch just enough to get the tires spinning
> > slightly
> > > then power shift the other gears. I used to love doing burnouts and
> > watching
> > > the smoke pour over the hood. FUN!!!
> > > Sam South
> > > 95 Dak, V-8,3.90 LSD,5-speed
> > > 14.10@98.05
> > > http://people.mw.mediaone.net/sawcut64/home.html
> > > sawcut64@mediaone.net
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Patrick and Kelly Engram" <patrickandkelly@erols.com>
> > > To: "DML" <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 8:29 AM
> > > Subject: DML: Shelby outrunning a Dak
> > >
> > >
> > > > I've had a little experience with FWD Shelby's. The first Shelby I
> had
> > > > was an '89 Daytona, with the Turbo II motor and 5 spd. This had a
> > > > little over 175 hp and only came with a stick. The Turbo I motor
> could
> > > > be had with the automatic in the ES Turbo model, and barely cracked
> 150
> > > > hp. The fastest that I ran with my '89 was 16.1 seconds in the
> quarter,
> > > > and that was with spooling the turbo up to speed, and dumping the
> clutch
> > > > at 4500 rpms. It just wouldnt go faster...It felt fast though, and
> the
> > > > problem was waiting for the boost to kick in. That wait added
> precious
> > > > time to the ET, but when the boost came on, it came on hard.
> > > > In 1990, they revised the turbo system to become the VNT Turbo,
> > > > (variable nozzle) this was done to try to reduce the boost lag, and
> > > > supposedly the cars picked up ET down to 15.7's. Then, the IROC R/T
> was
> > > > released with a 4 valve per cylinder Lotus cylinder head and
> > > > turbocharged, which dropped it into the 14's. Then, the V6 3.0L
> became
> > > > the engine for the last year of IROC R/T, I believe.
> > > > Now, the Shelby Charger was a different model altogether, and
> started
> > > > in '83 with a H.O. 2.2L engine, no turbo. Fairly quick car. The
> turbo
> > > > was put in either late '84 or in '85. The fastest one was the '87,
> with
> > > > changes in cams, computer stuff, and turbo equipment. There was a
> > > > limited release of an additional Shelby Charger that was made in
black
> > > > only, had the new Turbo II engine, and ran 14's stock. There were
> about
> > > > 1000 made, and it was a GLHS model, or something of the like. All
of
> > > > these models were 5 speeds. The last year for the Charger was '87
or
> > > > '88
> > > > The Daytona in it's last body style never had skunk stripes on it,
> but
> > > > did have flip up headlights. The charger models never had flip ups,
> but
> > > > did have 1 stripe on it, went from deck lid, onto roof, and then
onto
> > > > hood.
> > > > I owned a few Shelby Chargers, and with the Turbo II, it felt fast
> and
> > > > went fast. There was turbo lag, but less than the Daytona (I'd
expect
> > > > that it felt different because of the weight difference) and when it
> > > > took off, it was everything you could do to hold the wheel straight
> > > > because of the torque steer and power it put down. I never raced
any
> of
> > > > them, but they felt easily in the 14's. My biggest problem was with
> the
> > > > handling. I put the mopar perfomance suspension under my '87, and
> could
> > > > get the car to hug the road so well with V-rated tires that the left
> > > > front tire would rub the side of the transaxle case, and I'd have to
> > > > back off and slow down. Real pisser, cause that car felt like it
was
> on
> > > > rails.
> > > > These cars are easily modified for additional power and speed,
and
> if
> > > > it was a Charger that got someone on the list that started this
> thread,
> > > > I wouldnt feel so bad. Now, if it was a Daytona, it really had to
> > > > depend on what motor was in the thing, or what the guy had done to
it.
> > > > Patrick
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:58:07 EDT