On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Andre Mauboussin wrote:
>
> Jon Steiger wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Gordon Adams wrote:
> >
> > > i have not had the chance to run my R/T against a 4.6 mustang gt. has
> > > anybody had any luck running against these guys. i know how it performs
> > > against an LS1, but have yet to stoplight it with a stang. i would
> > > imagine the R/T would come out on top (pre-1999). I am also curious
> > > about how the improvements to the mustang will help it out performance
> > > wise (we all know it desperately needed some improvement) I cant wait to
> > > race one.
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately, Mustangs react very well to mods, and (worse) they're
> > dirt cheap! You can make a mustang run 11's for a pittance.
>
> Not really. To run 11s , the stang needs mucho mods and they ain't cheap!(I've
> owned 2 5.0s and race against them regularly) For one, the chassis flexes like
> crazy and needs reinforcement. 2, the 5 speed won't take the added power and
> the automatic trans needs major mods. 3, so does the engine. Can they be made
> to run 11s, yes. For cheap, NO!(unless you're talking about thrown together
> nitrous cars with a very short life span)
My buddy shows me all the mustang magazines, and I see ads in there
for aluminum race heads and the like for next to nothing. Most of the
stuff in those ads aren't even available for our trucks (i.e. aluminum
heads) and the stuff that we do have access to costs over 2x as much!
When I flip through those things, I mostly just look at the ads and
drool, and think to myself that if a Mustang gets beaten by a Dak,
its no fault but their own!! :-)
I was reading a web page recently about a guy who has put together
2 Fords that ran 11's (One was a thunderbird, and the other was a
Capri, I think.) Anyway, all he did was to bolt in a 351 and slap a
couple of turbochargers out of a junkyard on 'em. Total cost of the
cars was less than $5000 each!
> > On a related note, something that I have always found interesting
> > (and which was also recently mentioned in Mopar Action) is: Despite
> > being impossibly outnumbered and despite having virtually non-existant
> > aftermarket support, Mopars seem to take more than their share of
> > trophies and spank more than their share of other "ready, willing, and
> > able" vehicles on the street. I'm not sure why, but I find this
> > fascinating. I wonder what it is that causes this? Are Mopars simply
> > better built?
>
> You got it! Two words. Superior engineering. Read some Mopar mags and you will
> learn about things like Rod ratios, crankshaft placement, block design,
> superior valvetrain and the list goes on and on. Mopars have always been
> better engineered than anything GM or Ford has built. As a general rule,
> Mopars will always make more power with less compression than a GM or Ford.
> This is why their engine designs (and copies) have been dominating drag racing
> for 35+ years. Mopars make more power and break less. As far as the latest
> generation engines are concerned(post magnum) vs. the new GM and Ford stuff, I
> don't know. Good luck and have a happy new year.
Arrh arrh arrh! :-)
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu ----------------------------------------.
| Jon Steiger * AOPA, DoD, EAA, MP Race Team, NMA, SPA, USUA * RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT CC (14.58@93.55), '96 Kolb FireFly 447 |
`--------------------------- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:32 EDT