Ford Mustang: Explain this?

I'll rattle off a few thoughts.

The cams changed over the course of time for the 5.0's.
The weight of the accessories does make a difference. About 200lbs worth of
options will reduce 1/4 mile time ~.2 seconds, although this would be less
significant in 0-60 times.
Your 88 was a speed density car which, in stock form is better than a mass
air car (88 California and all 89 and up 5.0's). Mass air cars are more
forgiving for engine mods, but the meter is a restriction in the intake
tract.
Your 88 may have been one of those cars where the tolerences from the
factory in the engine all happened to be "right" to the point that it made
more power. Your 93 may have been the opposite and had specs on the high
and low ends.

3.27's are a waste of time if you're changing gears in an AOD car, IMO. I
wouldn't have went any higher than 3.73's otherwise it's a waste of time and
money.

How did you go about measuring your 0-60 times? Was it a stopwatch and the
speedo? If so, it is pretty easy to be off on when you hit start/stop.
Also, the accuracy of the factory speedometer comes into play also. Without
a third wheel or some other time of accurate measuring device, how accurate
are you?

The only true way to measure is to get on an 1/8th or 1/4 mile drag strip
and see what it does that way. Anything else would be questionably
reliable.

Steve
99 Ranger 4x4

<com> wrote in message
news:com... 

com wrote in message news:<com>...
 
 
 

Much of it. And the fact that the '87 and '88 speed-density cars were
faster.

Question: How/where did you measure the 0-60 times? Altitude, surface
traction and weather conditions can play a BIG factor in 0-60 times.

The best way to compare the two cars is with 1/4 mile trap speeds.

Patrick
'93 Cobra

"A Guy Named Steve" <earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<hhxZa.2046$news.pas.earthlink.net>...
 
 

They changed in '89.

So I read the Buick is gone..? Are you into a house now? How have
things been going?

Patrick
'93 Cobra
'83 LTD

"Patrick" <com> wrote in message
news:google.com... 
news:<hhxZa.2046$news.pas.earthlink.net>... 

Well, if you were on IM anymore I could keep you up to date.

The Buick has been gone for a few months now. It's somewhere in New Jersey,
owned by a guy who is doing a frame-off resto on a 71 Stage 1 car.

We should be into the house by the end of Sep or beginning of October.
We'll have plenty of space if you ever make it to this side of the country
and want a place to shack up.

It's been a busy time for the last couple of months, since we decided to
sell the condo and try to find a house. Everything out here is WAY
overpriced. So when we found this place, we had to make an offer on it
immediately although we hadn't had any offers on the condo yet. Luckily an
offer came in on the condo about a week later. That made things a bit less
scary since we got preapproved regardless of the condo selling (when we
really needed it to sell).

Are you back on AOL now? I never know where you are.

Steve
99 Ranger 4x4
(I changed my sig once the Buick sold, I'm surprised nobody mentioned it)

On 10 Aug 2003 16:53:08 -0700, com (Patrick) wrote:
 

I agree. But even people who rode in the car could tell it was
significantly slower. Also, it took ages (done on a track) to reach
220kph where it could go no further. The 88 hit 248kph.
Based on the way the car revved (they were radically different) my bet
for the major difference in speed came down to cam profile.
-Rich

<com> wrote in message
news:com... 
news:<com>... 

That actually isn't too strange. I remember hearing that the lower geared
5.0's (3.08 vs 2.73) could get up to a higher top speed, which goes against
conventional thinking. It had to do with the torque multiplication of the
2.73's not being enough to go faster - I hope I'm explaining that correctly.

Steve
99 Ranger 4x4

"A Guy Named Steve" <earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YEEZa.2186$news.pas.earthlink.net... 
against 
correctly.

Makes perfect sense. Corvettes had the same issue with a rear end option...
one set was better for both top end and off the line solely because it put
you closer to the peak of the power band as opposed to before it. The
engine couldn't overcome the gear ratio and lower RPM range to propel the
car any faster, but put in the higher gears, the engine's spinning faster,
closer to the peak HP range, and not having quite as much work due to gear
multiplication, so it could push the car a bit easier and farther.

JS

<com> wrote in message
news:com... 

I'm sure cam profile could play a part in top speed, but so could the gears
as posted a little farther down.

I still seriously belive it to be mostly a weight thing. Look at Buzz Haze
here in RAMFM. Stock engine + transmission in a 1987 Mustang LX 5-speed
notchback. Serious weight reduction, gears, exhuast, shifter, chassis
stiffening, and a few other very small things have put his car into the
12.90's. No supercharger, no turbo, no nitrous, no intakes, cams, throttle
bodies, heads, or stroker cranks. There are guys breaking 11.90's in stock
long block '96-'98 305hp Cobras with much the same plus a ported stock
intake. Without the ported intake they're in the 12.teens. It's all a
weight game. Buzz's car weighs less and goes faster than some
nitrous/supercharged Mustangs, at least in the straights. It's also not
full of the creature comforts. It's all in what you like.

JS