View Full Version : mustang vs cutlass

07-02-2003, 07:46 PM
guys i was wondering if a 355 had a chance against a stock 5.0 mustang. ( 355 would be equiped with car, intake, hedders, exhaust, gears, yadda yadda)???thanx guys

07-02-2003, 08:00 PM
What year Mustang?

07-02-2003, 08:15 PM
93 and also a new generation 4.7 gt one

07-02-2003, 08:41 PM
i would think the cutlass would win since the 5.0 is only a 302 c.i. engine and its stock and the 355 has stuff done to it. There no replacement for displacement. I'm just assuming the cutlass would win since it's a bigger engine and it has some stuff done to it

07-02-2003, 08:56 PM
It might have a good chance against the 96-98 4.6 GTs, but it would have to be a strong running 355 to outrun a 93-down or 99-up stang, because you are talking 13.70s with a good driver.

The Mustang is only 302 cid, but you have to take into account a 3000 lb curb weight, 300 ft/lbs of torque and a 3.35 first gear ratio.

I'm all for a Cutlass outrunning a Stang believe it or not, but I own both and I can tell which one is quicker, lol.

07-02-2003, 09:08 PM
Stock 5.0's are slow. They only ran in the 14.8-15.0 range. At least around here they did. Problem is, how many stock 5.0's do you see? lol
The early 4.6's were weak also. I raced a '96 or '97 cobra at the track and he ran a 15.4.
My brother's '02 GT is more in the neighborhood of low 14's. His buddy has an '01 GT and managed a 13.9 once when it was stock.

Christopher In Tampa
07-02-2003, 09:40 PM
Yeah I tied even with a 4.6 liter GT back when I had my 307 under the hood, we even rematched with the same results, trust me I was as amazed as you are but my old 307 wasnt slow by all means just not anything like my new engine. From what I hear BBO is right the 5.0 is 15 seconds slow!

07-02-2003, 10:02 PM
dont forget about the driver also!. I raced a 2002 V8 mustang in a stock monte ss (165k miles) and I blew his doors off. we started from a light and when the light turned green,the stupid kid must have been daydreaming,cause I jumped out about 4 car lenghts ahead of him,and by the time he caught up to my bumper I was wide open and he couldnt pass me. :p The worse thing was I was coming back from the grocery store and had a car full of groceries :D

rocket man
07-02-2003, 10:07 PM
I've seen highly modded, supercharged 5.0's at pittsburgh dragway that could only muster low 13's. yet I've seen 5.0's that aren't far from stock turning mid 13's and never had the heads off or the cam out. I guess some are just turds and some are screamers. I've beat countless 4.sic mufftangs with my 86 but I tangled with a old friend that has a 98 convertible with a ported intake, CAI, cat-back and a computer upgrade and he beat me bad, and it's even a convertible!

07-02-2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by rocket man
I guess some are just turds and some are screamers.

For real.. I have seen my friends 84 run a high 16 in the 1/4, to a twin turbo do a 4.66 in the 1/8th..

07-03-2003, 01:55 AM
Those are some pretty good kill stories with stock Mustangs, but

we've actually lined a stock 89 GT 5-speed car up against an 86 Cutlass 350 SBO with good drivers in each, and by the time the Mustang got in second gear, it was gone.

There are going to always be people that have stangs that can't drive them, plus the 96-98 GT are complete turds.

My 90 Coupe with slicks, 373 and headers only ran 13.47@101 consistantly. Stock? Pretty close..Slow? ..not very.

Christopher In Tampa
07-03-2003, 07:04 AM
I guess you do need to sell that Olds 350 then, it has issues!

07-03-2003, 06:08 PM
It's long gone, actually..wasn't my car.

The Mustang in question was an '89, mass-air car, completely bone-stock with a 5 speed and 2.73 gears.

The Cutlass was an '86 with 350 SBO, early Q-jet, mild comp cam, dual 2.5 exhaust with flowmasters, 2.56 positraction, 2004R.

The things that killed the Cutlass were:

converter, shift kit(lack of) and GEARS GEARS GEARS.I can't say how much gears help an automatic car.If this car had those items optimized, it would have been all over the Mustang.

07-04-2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by 84Cutlass

The Mustang in question was an '89, mass-air car, completely bone-stock with a 5 speed and 2.73 gears.
. dont forget the roller cam! the late 80s early 90 mustangs came from the factory w/them. My friend had a 90 LX and that thing was quick! To bad there a "dime a dozen" and every snot nose kid has one:rolleyes:

07-04-2003, 11:21 PM
You guys think 96-8 mustangs with the 4.6 are wimps? Geez, I had a 96 Ford Thunderbird with a 4.6, and it was a dead even run with a guy's 89 Chevy Iroc/305TPI, and those run about a 15 flat stock. The Thunderbird was even 3-400 lbs heavier. I bet even the lamest 4.6 powered GT would run about a 14.5.

5.0 mustangs are nothing at all to sneeze at performancewise. Sure, the earliest ones would only muster maybe a 15 flat on a good day, but the best ones from the late 80's and early 90's ran about a 14.3. The 4.6 in stock form is superior to the 302, but the 302 can be modified a lot more easily.

It's going to take a pretty well set up 350 in a cutlass body to keep up with a GT, whether its a 4.6 or even a 302. You're talking at least GOOD cylinder heads, a cam, a performer intake, and a decent exhaust. A stock one won't cut it, and gearing will have to be at least in the 3.08 range to even have a prayer. It takes some effort to get a 350 in a G body into the 14's range, and that's what it would take to even keep up with just about any post 86 5.0 mustang(playing it safe).

As far as the 4.6 goes, I'd place a wager that a STOCK 350 olds in any G body, even a 442, would lose in a quarter by maybe 2-3 tenths of a sec to a crown vic w/a 4.6. Those 4.6's are a fantastic piece of technology. There's a cam in each head, they have the best fuel injection setup there is, every part in their valve train is a roller, everything is electronically controlled, the list goes on. I've never heard of anyone complaining about their performance. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but technology has done 4.6's justice. I will add, however, that if olds were producing V8's in the mid 90's, they would've added technology that would keep up with Ford. Oh, well. The Olds Aurora's aren't too bad.;)

07-04-2003, 11:51 PM
I don't agree with you on the 4.6's. The latest ones are pretty good, but it's been a long time coming.

When the GT first got the 4.6 SOHC in '96, it made 215 hp, same as the previous year's 5.0, but less torque at a higher rpm. For being an overhead cam engine, it didn't like to rev.For one thing, it was the same engine pulled straight from the Crown Vic/T-bird line, and i don't need to tell you what those cars ran.The new Mustang GTs were Mid-15 second cars with a 5-speed, and everybody was extremely disappointed, especially when the F-bodies were running mid-13's right off the showroom floor. A friends '97 GT with gears and exhaust ran 15.01 2 weeks ago.

Finally in 99 the 4.6 went to 260 hp through the use of better heads and intake. Finally they will run decent... 13.70-14.0 depending on driver.

The aftermarket has been slow to support the 4.6 SOHC, seeing as how the engine has been in the chassis 7 years. Power adders are a must to go fast with the 96-98 cars, but there's a problem: The bottom end doesn't have all the forged stuff the 302 did, so spraying it or running much boost is basically lighting the fuse.Plus the intake is plastic, so the first good nitrous backfire destroys it.The 96-98 heads won't respond to porting, it slowed it down actually.

The 4.6 DOHC, on the other hand, is quite and engine, and so it should be. Each engine is hand-built on it's own line.

I don't know about a T-bird. I had a 93 with the 5.0HO and 3.27s and all it could pull was a 16.05 at 88mph.

The friend with the 97 GT just installed a supercharger pushing 12 lbs and it went 13.58@106. Strong, but only as long as the engine stays together.

07-06-2003, 05:48 PM
i absolutly hosed every 5.0 and occasional newer 4.6 with my "kinda" stock pm, sho shop y pipe, cia) s SHO we're talking V6 here...yamaha v6...i would think for sure you could kill it

07-06-2003, 06:06 PM
My best friend has a '92 5.0 five speed with cold air and exhaust.Of course,we run our cars on a regular basis.I always get the holeshot but he pulls hard after that and can usually get me by a little, and top end is about the same.He has an E303 cam soon to be installed(im helping) so all my hope for now is diminished.

07-06-2003, 10:12 PM
As long as it's stock or almost stock, there might be a race, but 87-95 5.0L Mustangs LOVE mods, and it really doesn't take much to make one run 12's.

Just be careful when you pull up beside the next "stock" 5.0L. If he's done a few things like kept the quiet mufflers, 4.10 gear, drag radials on the factory Pony wheels and a 150hp shot of gas, well.. not looking so good.

I'm not trying to take the Mustang side over Olds, but I've had 8 of them in the past 9 years, so I've seen and heard every "It spanked a 5.0" story that's ever been told.

A short story:

Back when I had my first 5.0, a '93 GT with exhaust and K&N as it's only mods, there was a guy who worked with me that was a die-hard ch*vy guy. He had an 88 IROC 305 5-speed car, pretty much stock.

He started getting pretty ****y and kept saying that whenever i wanted to bring my car to work, "he'd show me how bad that IROC would stripe it". This went on about a week, and then I finally had enough. I drove my car to work and informed him the race was on at 5 pm. The result? He got outrun by 7 car lengths.

About a month goes by, and he wants to race again. Apparently he had done some headwork and cam and headers and that sort of stuff. OK, we hit em again. This time it was 3 cars.

Another length of time goes by. during this lull the dude actually built an entire new 350 and installed it with all the go-fast stuff out of the other engine. Also put more gear in it.

Result? I got him by a car and a half every time we raced. Within a couple months the IROC was gone and he was in a Mustang:D

Don't sell an Olds to get a Mustang. But, don't underestimate them either;)

07-06-2003, 11:13 PM
Wow. If you can't get a Ch*vy 350 to perform better than a 5.0 with just a K&N and exhaust then you might as well give up on modifying engines. Considering there has been billions of books on how to build the small block Ch*vy. That guy must have been a complete idiot. LOL
Then again he sounds like the typical people we have around here who think a junkyard engine from a Ch*vy will out perform any other make of engine.

Originally posted by 84Cutlass

Result? I got him by a car and a half every time we raced. Within a couple months the IROC was gone and he was in a Mustang:D

Don't sell an Olds to get a Mustang. But, don't underestimate them either;)

Christopher In Tampa
07-07-2003, 04:48 AM
5.0s are by far not the fastest or even closest to fastest things on the road. I just dont see giving them any kinda respect as I would the latest camaros or maybe a GN. Sure there are a few good running 5.0s out there but there are a whole lot more of poor running ones, for that matter I've seen full size hopped up trucks that could take on a so called Fast 5.0.

Heck I have a friend that owned a 71 delta with a 455, he out ran a 5.0 and he had two toyota engines in the trunk and 2 bodys in the car but I guess you could just add that to your "It spanked a 5.0" story's"

What I'm saying is dont get your panties in a wade about a mustang, it dont matter what your driving its what you done to it that counts.

I by all means am not against any make or model, to me its all good. Give me a mustang today and I will drive a mustang who cares as long as I can make it fast. I mean look what I'm driving now, a big FWD Buick, very proud I am but I dont expect anyone else to like my car.:cool:

07-07-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by 84Cutlass
I've seen and heard every "It spanked a 5.0" story that's ever been told.

Couldn't agree more. I've heard of guys with 305's, 307's, 350's, and even 231 V6's in Cutlass's, Deltas, and so on claim that they "dusted" or "kept right up with" a 5.0 mustang. Funny thing. I've had many cars with those engines in just about every GM body you could think of, and none of them could even come close. Must be an Ohio thing. It doesn't end there. There's even a couple of stories in the olds stories forum of people who had totally stock big block cutlass's that blew away Vipers and Camaro SS's. It isn't just here, though. I've heard too many to list.

I'm not taking up for ford or anything, but while a 5.0 mustang isn't quite the fastest thing out there, it's still quite a performer. A weak one will still run 15's flat. While that's not a world class Quarter time, it's still going to take at least some effort to get anything that's all stock with no mods into that range. If you're not running somewhere in the 14's range(playing it safe), forget trying to win a race against one. Oh, and if the world is full of cars that run 15's flat or better, than I guess 5.0's are by far not the fastest things out there or even close.;)

07-07-2003, 03:34 PM
Nope, they aren't the fastest thing by far. The speed level depends on your wallet. I have someone I know that has a '90 GT. He just built a new engine: 331(302-based stroker), AFR 185s, 4 spd auto trans w/loose convertor, 4.10, 125hp dry system, plus all the detail stuff needed with this combo. He's got a lot of money in it. But he also just ran a 10.97@120mph letting off. The gear is pulling the engine up against the rev limiter at the top of third, and an AOD won't shift to OD under full throttle. He gets that sorted out, it might go 10.50s. This is a full-interior, street driven car, btw.

Andrew: I can tell you exactly what was wrong with the IROC: It was a TPI car, and the intake wouldn't flow enough air to feed the cam and heads the 350 had, so it didn't run that much better than the 305.

Interesting kill stories, but there's too many variables on the street to really claim a win or loss. You would really need to take both cars to the track and run a heads-up race, because the timing clock doesn't lie;)

Christopher: A few good running ones, but a lot more poor running ones? I take it you've not been to a Fun Ford Weekend event and watched the True Street class run. True Street class rules mandate a fully legal street drivable car. They go on a 30 mile road trip first. Once back at the track, the only things they can do is change tires and spray the intercooler down if there's one on the car.

They can't open the hood or trunk under any circumstances; if they do they get DQ'ed. They then run 3 back-to-back quarter mile passes, and the 3 timeslips are averaged to determine placement. If anything happens to the car that stops it from making three passes, it gets DQ'ed. At the one at Atlanta back in April, over 100 cars were entered in the class. I think 5 failed to make all 3 passes, and the fastest overall qualifier was deep in the 9's. You show me a car with fuel-injection that can run 10.50s all day without breaking down, then drive home with the AC blasting, and I'll give it all the respect in the world.

The latest F-bodies? Sorry, they don't make those anymore. Go to your local Chevy dealer and check out the performance offerings. Then go next door to the Ford dealer and take a look. There's the Mustang GT, Mustang Mach 1, 390 hp Cobra, 385hp Lightning, SVT Focus. Just to keep things interesting, there's going to be a special mid-year "Mystichrome" Cobra with the color-changing paint and even color-changing leather seats:eek:

Buick GN? Love 'em, but those were about even with an 87 Mustang stock for stock.

Christopher In Tampa
07-07-2003, 04:31 PM
Hum heh,

Ok since Nissan is making a maxima 3.5 liter that runs 14.8 bone stock Link to maxima (http://www.car-stats.com/stats/showstats/showstatsgivenid.aspx) I would say that there are more cars on the road doing better then the 5.0 did now then ever, come on this is a maxima!

"""Buick GN? Love 'em, but those were about even with an 87 Mustang stock for stock."""

ok then why did the 86 GN run high 13s bone stock, I didnt see any 5.0s running that fast bone stocklink to GN (http://www.car-stats.com/stats/showstats/showstatsgivenid.aspx)

"""The latest F-bodies? Sorry, they don't make those anymore"""

oh yeah thats why I said LATEST and not current. I work at Autoway Chevy I should know that they are not making them anymore but the latest ones are still the badest, current ones there is none!

"""Christopher: A few good running ones, but a lot more poor running ones? I take it you've not been to a Fun Ford Weekend event and watched the True Street class run."""

Sorry I got better things to do!!!

Guys dont be mad at me just cause Im not a mustang fan ok, I like them but I dont love them and I dont like to race them unless they are 2 lanes over cause they are squarly off the line. Seen to many almost shoot out of thier lane!

07-07-2003, 05:33 PM
I got dusted by a 5 speed 4.6 at the track if that counts for anything..:)

07-07-2003, 09:17 PM
It's all about the entire setup.

I had a well warmed 350 in my '81 Cutlass but hobbled with freeway gears, and a tight converter. A "stock" Saleen Mustang was in third gear and five car lengths away before I could climb up onto my powerband. Dynos don't race, and neither do benches.

07-08-2003, 02:53 PM
Well, I like Oldsmobiles just as well as a Mustang, but I do know it takes more work to get the Oldsmobile on the same page as the Mustang, stock for stock. Does it make the Mustang a better car? Not necessarily.

Christopher, you are caught up in all these cars that are running as fast or faster than a stock 87-93, so let me throw something at you:

How much money do you think it's going to take to get each of those cars to run a 12.00 sec quarter. The Camaro should do it with a supercharger or a heavy shot of nitrous, IF the rearend doesn't come apart or the hyperuetectic pistons don't puke themselves. Since you work for Chevy, I'm sure you can back me up on how hard an F-body is to work on under the hood

Mustang has forged pistons from the factory, no need to worry there. Also has 8.8 rearend from the factory, no need to worry there either.

Can't run duals on an F-body. Mustang? No problem.

F-body has that nice OBD-II. Mustang? Has the good, old-fashioned EEC-IV that can be tuned by about anyone.

If the F-bodies were that good, they would still be producing them. One car magazine described the Camaro as, "a world-class engine in a terrible car"

The Maxima? For that matter there is a Subaru WRX(13.80) that will smoke that Maxima. My current Mustang is an Automatic, and it's only mods are mufflers, 3.73 gear and pullies and it runs 14.10s, so it will smoke that Maxima also. How much is that Maxima, BTW? I know it's more than the $3300 I paid for my stang.

LOL, this is fun...;)

07-08-2003, 03:53 PM
I don't really like the Mustangs cause I don't think they look very good, but I will admit the 5.0L's are good cars cause they have a good drivetrain. I have to agree with most of what 84Cutlass said.

Christopher In Tampa
07-08-2003, 04:34 PM
I really dont know why they stoped making the F bodys but I can tell you that toward the end they just wasnt moving off the lot like they used too. Everyone seems to either want a truck or SUV or a small gas saver but the Camaros just seemed to hang around the lot alittle more before being sold. I do know that GM has alot of new stuff coming out soon that is very trick though so maybe they were making room for these new styles. But just like mustang fans partyed when they stop producing the F body they also hate to know that the Camaro will be back though everyone knows that!

07-08-2003, 05:40 PM
it died because of dumb *****es wanting somthing "cool" so they buy a v6 mustang instead of a camaro, cuz it says mustang on it, even though its ****tier then the v6 camaro in every aspect. so it outsold the camaro all the time, not cuz of it being better...... all i have to say is 02 SS z28 camaro, name one mustang that wasnt saleen BEFORE 02 that could even touch it?

07-08-2003, 07:01 PM
I don't think I'd compare my '79 Cutlass to a mustang. For one thing the sleek, effective under the bumper stinger missiles tend to wipe out most of the hi tech competition. :D

But seriously, the rocket V-8s aren't the same design as the 5.0 liter mustangs, the body weight is probably different. They're probably fuel injected, right?

I'm not going to knock mustangs. Some people love 'em. I just happen to love Olds.

But an A/G body Cutlass is not even in the same class as a 5.0 Mustang. I rode in a techological wonder of a Grand Prix ( GTP? ) a few weeks back. I was completely overawed by its supercharger and its blinding speed. But it didn't have that nice old V8 feeling to it.

Just my two cents


07-08-2003, 11:30 PM
Name one non-Saleen Mustang before '02 that could touch an '02 SS Camaro? Well, a friend of mine happens to have an '02 Camaro SS, and I know from watching him run it every weekend that it's a 13.00 car with drag radials, exhaust and gears.

So, I can name you two Mustangs before '02 that could touch it:

1995 Cobra R- 351W, 12.80s on street tires.

2000 Cobra R- easy 12.40's on street tires.

Now since the cut-off was '02, I can't mention the '03 Cobra, which has been proven to be a 10 SECOND car with slicks, filter gears, smaller blower pulley and that's it. I hope the Camaro fans didn't think Ford was just going to let themselves be kicked around forever. Bye-bye SS.


The reason the F-body didn't sell, even at a bargain price, is that people got tired of a car that was hard to get into and out of, hard to see over that 2 ft dash, rattled, creaked, on and on.The car manufacturers don't dictate to customers which car they buy. Obviously the customers like the Mustang better.

This has grown into a Camaro vs Mustang debate..whoops.

07-08-2003, 11:46 PM
Have you tried getting in and out of an '02 Mustang? I've been driving my brothers some since he is out on the road and that car was not made for someone that is more than 6 feet tall. With the seat all the way back I still have to try and squeez in and out of that thing.
My brothers car creeks and rattles. I don't find that to be a compeling arguement since EVERY car will do that.
Can't forget that my brothers drivers side power window went out the day he bought the car! It only had 10 miles on the odometer. Is that quality or what?

Of course both the interiors of the Mustang and F-bodys are cheap looking. Nothing but a sea of plastic. The Mustang's guages are harder to see than the F-body and the dang shifter is too far forward and too close to the radio.

One thing brother's Mustang does have is a KILLER sound system. That Mach 1000 system can really belt out the tunes.

If I had to choose between any of them based on performance and looks I would choose a Trans-Am WS6 first, Mustang GT second, and Camaro Z28/SS third.
Camaro would whoop a GT's butt in a heart beat but I just don't like the plain-jane look of the Camaro. The Trans-Am's ('98-'02) are just plain sexy!!!

Originally posted by 84Cutlass
The reason the F-body didn't sell, even at a bargain price, is that people got tired of a car that was hard to get into and out of, hard to see over that 2 ft dash, rattled, creaked, on and on.The car manufacturers don't dictate to customers which car they buy. Obviously the customers like the Mustang better.

This has grown into a Camaro vs Mustang debate..whoops.

Christopher In Tampa
07-09-2003, 04:07 AM
1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R with manual transmission:

0-60 5.2 sec

1/4 mile 13.8 sec @ 102.0 mph

(These numbers from April 1995 issue of MOTOR TREND)

Thats alittle far from the 12s.

2000 Ford Mustang Cobra R with manual transmission:

0-60 4.4 sec

1/4 mile 12.9 sec @ 110.8 mph

(These numbers from MOTOR TREND)

Thats better and pretty impressive but still not 12.40.
Oh yeah and the ss can dip into the 12s with just exhuast work, if your friend could not get out of the 13s with exhaust, gearing and drag radials then he is a bad example becuase he ant doing something right!

I agree with BigBlockOlds, both these cars are basicly junk, and the power window thing made me laugh cause my dad always owned GM, (mostly older ones that he restored) but something itched him into buying a mark 8, he owned the car for 3 weeks and the power window went out. The after a few more miles the engine started tapping on startup and the power seat got stuck so basicly he traded the car in real quick and gave it the piece of crap award! He said it was a terrible investment and out of all the years of owning a GM he said he never had a power window go out. I just laughed!

07-09-2003, 05:57 AM
My windows are still going strong in the 87 Cutty and my friends 86 Caprice. Only ever had one fail in my moms Sable she used to have. Probably would have happened in the Windstar too if the motor and tranny hadn't gone at under 100k. Ford makes a lot of junk. Only the Mustang and the Marauder are decent cars right now.

Christopher In Tampa
07-09-2003, 10:37 AM
Mustang and the Marauder are decent cars right now

Are you sure about that? My friend is was a mechanic full time his whole life (now hes a bill collecter) he says he made a living off of fords. The part that makes me beleave him is that he was driving a ford when he told me this so I know it wasnt just a pride thing.

07-09-2003, 11:22 AM
Well i sort of meant they were the only cars that I wouldn't be completely embarassed to be seen in. I don't really know whether they hold up or not, Ford doesn't have a good track record for that in most of their cars. I don't think the 5.0's were bad though.

Christopher In Tampa
07-09-2003, 11:35 AM
Ha ha I know man Im just picking on ford!

My mom just bought a used 98 towncar, man this thing is trouble, I have already had to replce like 3 water hoses and in the worse locations might I add, and brakes. I notice it looks like the heads have been removed before (35,ooo mile car) and it also looks like it has had a history of water leaks, bI told her I can see this car is gonna be trouble, great looking car other then that!

07-09-2003, 07:29 PM
Well Christopher, I took my figures from Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords, and their times are more representative of what a skilled driver could obtain. All you need to do is watch a couple episodes of Motor Trend television and watch how far they smoke the tires during their "testing". I have to correct myself on the '95 R, it ran 12.70s on slicks, not street tires. However, the SS ran it's 13.0 on drag radials. Like I said, the 2000 Cobra R is a mid-12 second car. With 385 hp out of a 330 cid engine, what else could it be?

This debate could go on and on, but what it boils down to is, the Camaro/Firebird is gone, the Mustang is here in full force, and by the time GM "might' bring back the Camaro, the all-new '05 Stang will be out and GM will once again be playing catch-up,just as they did from 1982-93.

People can hate on the Mustang all they want, but you can buy any flavor Mustang you want right off the showroom floor, and if they don't have what you want, just pay a visit to Steeda, Saleen or Rousch and they'll hook you up. If you already happen to have a stang, quick check in the back of MM&FF reveals 203 advertisers specializing in Mustang parts and accessories.

07-09-2003, 08:53 PM
And just as soon as you install that new body kit that you think no one has, or those killer wheels, up pops a 1,000 more Mustangs that look just like it. :(

My brother was looking into putting the Roush body kit on his '02 GT with the side exit exhaust.
He was out cruising one night and saw someone had the kit already. He was kind of upset and I told him that trying to be unique in a Mustang is pointless. It just isn't gong to happen.

They are sharp cars but unfortunatly everyone and their brother (like me lol) has one.

Originally posted by 84Cutlass
People can hate on the Mustang all they want, but you can buy any flavor Mustang you want right off the showroom floor, and if they don't have what you want, just pay a visit to Steeda, Saleen or Rousch and they'll hook you up. If you already happen to have a stang, quick check in the back of MM&FF reveals 203 advertisers specializing in Mustang parts and accessories.

07-10-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by 84Cutlass
Andrew: I can tell you exactly what was wrong with the IROC: It was a TPI car, and the intake wouldn't flow enough air to feed the cam and heads the 350 had, so it didn't run that much better than the 305.


Would have been a different story if the Camaro had had a carburetor. Running on the ECM with a bad off the line bog my 84 Camaro with a 350 turned a 13.9@101.

Stock TPI is crap for performance. It runs out of breath on a 305 much less a 350, all for a 10% "bump" in torque around 2200rpm. Sure, you can put a miniram, superram, LT1 intake etc on it... but then it isn't "TPI" any more, it's just MPFI.

TPI would have been a great induction system for a truck. For a performance car it's an abject failure. For every car you can show me running 14s or better with TPI, I can almost guarantee I could get the same motor running faster with a carb.

07-11-2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by 84Cutlass
quick check in the back of MM&FF reveals 203 advertisers specializing in Mustang parts and accessories.

man, they better have alot of ford mustang advertisers in muscle mustang & fast ford magazine ;)

but yeah this is my first time reading past page 1 of this thread....looks like it gets alotta hits though :cool:
i like camaros on this one because everyone around here has a stang... and they arent fast, i used to smoke them all the time in my 88 cutlass classic :(...even my friends that own them realize this, they admit that they bought them because it attracts chics - theyre right its the hot one nowadays... but ask folks that know their cars....unlike my friends :D... they know pond for pound, camaros are the better deal :D

07-11-2003, 11:59 PM
Well, there's the problem right there. If you run into a guy who bought a Mustang because it attracts chicks, then 99% of the time the guy is a poser and can't drive his car. Either that, you guys were being seriously messed with. Remember, we are talking V8 Mustangs here, not V6 or 4-banger stangs.

Nero, come on...

I've got both of the representative cars in my driveway, and I can create video proof that there ain't no way that 307 Cutlass is gonna smoke the stang:rolleyes:

For instance:

After we imbibed a few beverages one night, we wanted to see if there was any way we could make the race between the Cutlass I had(84 307 Y) and the Mustang any closer than the 10-12 cars it was through the roughly 1/4 we ran. So, here's what we did:

We were on deserted road, so we stopped the stang on one side. We then went about 1/4 mile in the opposite direction with the Cutlass, turned around and got speed up to about 40 mph. When the Cutlass got even with the stang, the Cutlass was crammed to the floor and the Mustang took off from a standing start. We tried it all the way up to 70 mph and the Mustang caught up with, passed and left the Cutlass without a whole lot of effort, every time. This was a nearly stock stang also.

I'm not gonna call BS, but some of what's been claimed ain't gonna happen on the track. I would love to have you guys that claim all the Mustangs around there are slow, to come down this way. We'll show you a good time, but most importantly we'll show you some Mustangs that aren't slow by any means. The quickest one is running 10.90's, one's in the low 11's, a couple are in the mid 12's, on up. And, these are not trailor cars. They are driven on the street daily.

Careful with the kill story claims.. some of it's getting hard to believe.

Christopher In Tampa
07-12-2003, 06:00 AM
You act like no ones got a Olds running in the 10s,

07-12-2003, 06:40 AM
im not saying stangs are slow
im a fan of the mustangs, well the Cobra :D, but what im saying is that i guess the dude i raced didnt know what he was doing

and beisdes all that chris is right... cutlasses are fast.... 307vinY does not mean youre a turtle on the road ;)

Christopher In Tampa
07-12-2003, 06:46 AM
Well it takes alot to get a 307 in the tens, but I do know there are alot of guys with 350s to 455s dipping into the tens. The 307 is worth 14s in these heavy cars with the right work. I'l say it again My last engine was a 307 and I had a bumper on a 4.6 GT liter on two races both going up to about 100mph. This 4.6 liter GT was a 14.7 second car so I can honistly say my old 307 was worth mid 14s. Now my new 403 he he he would have left that GT buy about 8 car lenths if not more!

07-12-2003, 06:49 AM
aside from cubic inches
whats the diff between a 403 and 350 sbo ?
more torque?

Christopher In Tampa
07-12-2003, 07:19 AM
Stock for stock and yeah the 403 will just have more torque.

Modified then the 403 will make more overall HP cause of the cubic inch advantage, not saying the 350 cant have as much HP just saying it would take little more work as any smaller displacement engine would.

An engine is a pump, the more it can pump in and out the more power it will make. A 350 (or any smaller engine) would have to spin higher RPMs to pump as much air as a 403 (or any larger engine).

This is why a 13 second 455 might only need 4500 RPMs to be that fast as compaired to a 350 that would need about 6000 RPMs to run 13's

The 350 is good for you because you have 3.73 gearing but for me the best gearing I could get for my car is 3.36 so the 403 is a better choice for me so that I can take advantage or the broad powerband and torque of the 403.

With the 3.73 gearing and 2500 stall your torq is not so much an issue, what you need to run fast is top end pull.

With 3.36 gearing and a 2400 stall what I would need is mid range grunt with enough top end pull to set up the next gear. I shift my 403 at 5200RPMs so this is enough for my setup.