Sign in to follow this  
Bliggida

'00 RSX-S & '87 Mustang GT

83 posts in this topic Register to Ask a Question

Recommended Posts

Bliggida    0

I think Ambrose and I mentioned the Mustang GT in the debate over the RSX-S racing a Camaro V6.

 

I just remembered I had some timeslips on a mustang GT I raced a year ago with my Olds' 98. So I'll post them for reference.

 

I think I'm pretty close to Sea Level, even with all the Texas Hills an all, So I haven't bothered to correct anything - anyway...

 

I ran 1.293 reaction (I know, I know) first time out though.

2.498 60 ft.

11.472 1/8 @ 60.32 MPH

17.970 1/4 @ 74.48 MPH

 

Second round was with the '87 Mustang GT, stock w/ 5-speed.

.911 - reaction - .853

2.661 - 60 Foot - ???

11.829 - 1/8 - 9.379

@ 57.99........@ 77.72

18.399 - 1/4 - 14.408

@ 73.30........@ 97.59

 

Third round I ran a (former) buddy with a '94 Stock Z28 automatic with some badly balded tires.

1.176 - reaction - .947

2.682 - 60 foot - ???

11.753 - 1/8 ET - 10.304

@ 58.90...........@ 72.46

18.202 - 1/4 ET - 15.735

@ 75.25...........@ 90.35

 

Just figured I'd throw this in...

 

MikAnchovy ran a best time of 16.13 with a 2.4XX 60' time. Not Altitude-corrected. What was the rest of the time slip lookin' like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikAnchovy    0

First of all... maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see a stock '87 Mustang GT ever running that time. Motor Trend put my uncle's '92 5.0 Notch at 14.8s in the quarter... and that's the quickest mainstream magazine ET I've seen for a 5.0. Was the guy at the track running slicks? Did he have an exhaust, an intake, a gutted catalyst?

 

 

Here's my best slip...

 

Left Right

R/T 1.125 1.363

60' 2.537 2.458

330 7.400 6.804

1/8 11.969 10.397

mph 50.20 68.21

1000 16.548 .000

1/4 20.697 16.135

mph 53.17 85.05

 

and here's my 2nd best slip... against Persid BTW :)

 

 

Left Right

R/T 1.002 1.293

60' 2.570 2.461

330 7.441 6.853

1/8 11.641 10.462

mph 58.52 68.34

1000 15.280 .000

1/4 18.412 16.194

mph 71.57 85.74

 

 

I recall the track surface becoming slicker as the night went on... not that I have a super-powerful car, but shifts at redline got a lot of tire chirping, and even a Stealth R/T Turbo only mustered a 2.2XX 60' time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ambrose    0

Straight line, I think the GT will win out provided both drivers have the same experience. Or better yet... the same driver!

While I think the RSX can tango with the Camaro's 225 lb-ft of torque, I think the Mustang GT's 300 lb-ft is a little too much to handle.

That's not to say it wouldn't be close, since the RSX is a newer car, better technology, more efficient, etc, etc, etc. It should be getting more of it's power to the ground. It would probably be a 1/2 second difference in favour of the Mustang. Both cars are hard to get a clean launch. The older Mustangs get a lot of wheel spin or hop off the line. The RSX has to be launched from an insanely high rpm which can lead to wheel spin if it's launched too high.

 

From a handling point of view, having driven an '92 Mustang (assuming an 87 is about the same), I have to go with the RSX. Front wheel drive gives you more sure footing even if you lose the RWD oversteer to help slingshot through turns. The RSX just rides tighter. The Mustang gets too loose, too easily, IMO.

 

And for a daily driver: RSX. No questions. It makes a very civilized commuter car. But this comparison seems to focus on the 1/4.

Sorry Blig, still haven't got a new timeslip for the RSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bliggida    0

I looked the mustang over myself, and I couldn't see any bolt-ons. So if he had done anything it was all internal, which I doubt considering the guy's appearance. Anyway he put a flowmaster muffler on it, but muffler change alone will usually never affect the E.T. by more than a tenth or two.

 

4/10ths of a second from a magazine test isn't uncommon. A full second difference is usually skeptical. Like I said, I looked the engine over and didn't see any bolt-ons, aftermarket heads, intake, headers, coil etc. So, it could have been all internal? Dunno.

 

Guess the stock Mustang GT is a goal if you are running a RSX-S, or a Camaro V6.

 

Got some good and bad news on the V6 Camaro (ours) that I'll post later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikAnchovy    0

Did the guy go for bigger exhaust piping on the 'stang when he did the exhaust? If so, I recall someone telling me that an exhaust on a 5.0 is worth almost 25hp... sounds suspect, but a Mustang fan did tell me that...

 

Also, the 14.8s ET is the fastest I've seen from a mainstream magazine... and it was from a 5.0LX notchback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bliggida    0

I didn't get under his car, but all he said was that he was running a flowmaster muffler, no exhaust. At the track people don't normally lie about thier equipment unless it's a money race. In fact they usually never stop gabbing about every little thing they've done to the car.

 

You are correct however, a complete exhaust on the Mustang would produce about 25 more rear wheel horsepower! They are notorious for being choked up in stock form.

 

But that is about average gain, for most V8's when a high performance exhaust is installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikAnchovy    0

Hey... depending on the condition of the car... if I had a basket-case, for instance, that ran 13s, I would be tight-lipped :(

 

The time seems a little fast, but ya never know... if the car really is that fast, then I guess I should be really pleased that I was in front of a 5.0LX Notch (likely an auto, but I was in front... I couldn't tell :)) until 70 mph that time we raced :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bliggida    0

On even matched cars automatic verses standard can make the difference over a few horses or a few points in the Power to Weight Ratio. Since automatics inherently steal more horses than a standard you have take into account that the drivetrain does make a difference. Two equal cars, the standard will always win, but the automatic will be more consistant.

 

While my experiance is limited on Mustangs, I have always had the idea that the Fox body Mustang was a 15 second car, so 14.5 isn't that much of a stretch for me to believe (in stock form). Like I said, the Mustang GT, seems to be a good level of performance for a FWD car to exceed. If you are running a 15 to 14 second quarter mile, that's a car that will get up and move. But in my little definition book, it's still only 'quick', not 'fast'. However I can't deny how commendable an accomplishment that is.

14 to 15 seconds in general has been what most muscle cars performance was at in stock form. So for a 4 or 6 cyl. car to be laying down those types of numbers, in my summation that realy would be a little "pocket rocket". It's enough to get most peoples attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikAnchovy    0

You also have to understand that an LX 5.0 notchback weighs about 80 lbs. less than a 5.0 LX hatchback, and a considerable amount of weight less than the GT...

 

I'm pleased to own a "quick" FWD sport compact then. :) Not that I really have ever "aimed" at anyone or anything in performance... the car came with the intake, and my exhaust cost $125, but it's nice to put in a good showing now and again... make no mistake, when the Mustang passed me, it put a car length on me by 85 mph, but I think I surprised him with how well I took off...

 

I dunno... I just really can't complain about owning a great-handling, fairly neutral, 15-second, 130-topping car that I snapped up, rust-free with under 80k miles on it, for $3600. I'm really not out to prove myself to anyone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bliggida    0

Not to shabby at all in my opinion either. I hope it comes time to get rid of my daily driver soon.

Blistering 17.9 ET, 120 MPH top-speed (police verified), handling of a land yacht. But I've got the stereo, and (3) 15" chrome looking wheel covers, so I guess that evens out the bad stuff. :)

 

On the Mustang the GT only weighed about 200 more pounds the other versions. And possibly the convertible GT weighing slightly more. Still though, it's only going to run 2/10ths to 3/10ths of a second slower with that weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbo_ZX3    0

oops, i guess i saw this thread kinda late. anyway. i have to say the rsx type s would take an onld 87 5.0. especially the hatch. car and driver got the rsx at 14.8 but i have seen one on some drag race we downloaded at my friends house pull a 14.6 and it was stock. remember it has a 6 spd and long power band. those cars get up and go pretty quick. i kinda like the way they look too. but for close to 30K id keep my money for something else. say a cobra or a ss which would both smoke the rsx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
playboy    0

I'd say the RSX. IMO

 

Hey Turbo

 

are those all the cars u own as of right now???

 

Hows the VR6? me and my fiancee' are thinkin about ordering one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbo_ZX3    0

yeah those are all my cars, the mustang and the jetta i share with my brother. the jetta is financed in my name and we split the payment. the focus is all mine. and the mustang is our shop car, we have a bunch of stickers on it for advertisement. so i drive that every once in a while, we try to keep the miles off of it, we split the payment on that too.

 

anyway, the jetta is sweet, its a really good engine and has a huge mod potential. even if you dont want to mod it out a lot you can just put on air and exhaust and you get a really solid, good sound out of it. its really responsive and the torque is awesome to have. a lot of room in it too. we just put some 18" wheels on it. they look pretty sweet. we are putting 19"s on it after the winter and are going to put the 18"s on my focus. the turbo is a good choice to look at too. a chip for that thing can boost your power up pretty high. personally id take the 6 over the turbo, its a little faster stock for stock. but turbo would mod cheaper. but either way i think youd be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to Top ↑

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this