Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 102 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Fear of "too big" and sacrificing RPM for "torque".

So many people read the internet, freak out about giving up 12ft/lbs at 2100 rpm and end up buying small heads (eddy performers/gt40s), a wimpy cam (TFS stage 1), lame intake (cobra) and narrow exhaust (1 5/8th shortys). They make peak power at 4,900 rpm and get smoked by stock firebirds despite all their precious "low end torque". They run 12.60's at 104mph and are no more drivable than a proper HCI combo.

The opportunity cost of that extra 13 ft/lbs at 2100 rpm might be 71rwhp at 6,400 rpm.

That antiquated "torque beats horsepower on the street" needs to die. Its responsible for A LOT of slow mustangs.

Here is the correct recipe:

TFS 11r OR AFR renegade heads, an aggressive custom cam, ported intake (RPM II/system max/or better), and 6,400 rpm shifts. It will cruise just as well as an E cam, GT40 set up, and go 14mph faster.

*tons of generalizations made in this post.

**only meant to inspire conversation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
("Most fox mustangs are slow and here is why:")

and dont forget a UGLY! box with wheels :rofl:

the fox box fairmont/relabeled mustang :rofl:

the ford Probe would of been a better mustang
But they are ugly in all the right ways. Like your first girlfriend I suppose. >:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
But they are ugly in all the right ways. Like your first girlfriend I suppose. >:)
:rofl: thats exactly the type of metro sexual guy that was into the ugly brick fox box,
the type of metro sexual guys that get turned on by there GRANDMA's 4dr Fairymont car :rofl:






:eeek:...https://www.google.ca/search?q=fairmont+mustang&biw=1600&bih=775&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvh_fHxrDMAhWos4MKHcDRCGoQsAQIGg#imgrc=_

heard the only thing that can make the Fairystang real fast is LS power!...

:rofl: http://i41.tinypic.com/2nsnvo5.jpg ...:leghump:





 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
798 Posts
The LS community realized this early.

.
Much to the contrary, the LS community, FIGURED THIS OUT, after getting their asses handed to them for years by "bolt on" mustangs. Hell, just a couple years back I had a guy in a newer SS try and run up on me in my 89 coupe(306, GT40 irons, E cam, Eddy Performer 1st gen., etc.) He couldn't catch up till I slowed to turn. I hadn't even touched the bottle yet! I got a 175 shot ready to go!

No argument that the LS is a force to be reckoned with. That being said, it's a Windsor with better heads that sounds worse. I totally agree with what you've said, there are FAR BETTER combos out there than the standard, but lets face it, the "out of the box" bolt on cars kicked some serious ass throughout the 80-90's, and into the 2000's. We're not even touching on driver ability. I'm with you as far as a smart combo goes these days. The days of alphabet cams and cheap heads is over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,555 Posts
In our (people with the parts listed) defense not everyone has the money for $1400 heads then all the other money for parts. With that being said I'm also not trying to be the fastest out there just have a fun cruiser.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
No, no, no.

Most fox mustangs are slow because of money; better yet a lack thereof. Any fast one has money in it. Other people with money put it in better cars.

Most of the foxes in the Houston area are rag-tag sh*t boxes that need to be crushed.


Why am i using stock guts in a turbo 351 build? NO. MONEY.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
I have a fox and a 2000 Camaro SS. The LS1 is a great motor, gotta throw a lot of money at a fox to to be able to hang with it and then more money at suspension also. My fox has the cheap way HCI, E cam and junkyard GT40p stuff from Explorer. Fox runs high 13's and Camaro did a 12.9 stock. Not alot spent on fox suspension, lowered springs, shocks,weld in stiffeners,panhard bar and other misc, still Camaro a couple seconds faster on road course. If you really want to go faster in a Mustang, spend a lot of cash on a fox or buy a newer Mustang. With all that being said I still really like my fox and enjoy driving it more than the Camaro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,198 Posts
I'm a fan of BIG heads, BIG Intake, and find a good cam guy to make it work.

My car does ok with all it's "Way too big" parts.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,063 Posts
the average aftermarket HCI 302 makes 310rwhp, my bone stock 98 ss made 317rwhp stock and ran 12.9 bone stock

for reference a stock foxbody only makes 200rwhp

it takes heads cam and intake to get up over 300rwhp in a 302

now if you swap the garbage stock cam in an LS1 you can very easily make 380rwhp no problem

to even out the field it would take a high compression 351 with some seriously nice heads cam and intake to make that kinda power

throw heads cam and intake at an LS engine and its common to hit the 425-440rwhp mark, its very difficult to get that from a sbf

not taking sides just giving a valid response

btw, most everything you've touched on is documented in the pre tune info on efidynotuning.com, i highly recommend you give it a read over

Pre Tune Information / EFIDynoTuning
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,573 Posts
Let's not forget that we're talking about at least a 346 cubic inch LS versus a 302 cubic inch Ford. Not exactly apples to apples. We're starting with several disadvantages. 1st, the basic 302 architecture is around 55 years old. The LS, maybe 20. 2nd, the best factory 302 heads are poo compared to the common LS head. 3rd, Fords best factory intake is poo compared to the LS intake. 4th, the LS cam has decades newer and better design data than the 302 does. 5th, iron heads not aluminum. Higher compression anyone? 6th, 302 inches v. 346+ inches. No replacement for displacement. The list could go on, but that's the start of the disadvantages. Yet we drive the 302 rather than buy a LS powered car. Hmmm......
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,351 Posts
Most Fox Mustangs are not V-8 cars if you look at production numbers, so that explains the "most" part of the OP's thread title. Next, entry level car equal entry level buyer with entry level money. Kind of hard to make it fast with those handicaps right off the bat.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,351 Posts
the average aftermarket HCI 302 makes 310rwhp, my bone stock 98 ss made 317rwhp stock and ran 12.9 bone stock

for reference a stock foxbody only makes 200rwhp

it takes heads cam and intake to get up over 300rwhp in a 302

now if you swap the garbage stock cam in an LS1 you can very easily make 380rwhp no problem

to even out the field it would take a high compression 351 with some seriously nice heads cam and intake to make that kinda power

throw heads cam and intake at an LS engine and its common to hit the 425-440rwhp mark, its very difficult to get that from a sbf

not taking sides just giving a valid response

btw, most everything you've touched on is documented in the pre tune info on efidynotuning.com, i highly recommend you give it a read over

Pre Tune Information / EFIDynoTuning
Yet it is still cheaper to make more power with a SBC than with a LS, go figure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
My fox has the cheap way HCI, E cam and junkyard GT40p stuff from Explorer. Fox runs high 13's and Camaro did a 12.9 stock.
With all that being said I still really like my fox and enjoy driving it more than the Camaro.
My 87 Fox ran 13.95 (in great Spring air) @97 mph when it was completely original and stock, right down to the 7* timing and the factory air baffle in the air cleaner. It had 3.08 gears and a T5.
Just wanted to stick up some for the pure stock Foxes. :smile2:
 
1 - 20 of 102 Posts
Top