Added nitrous to my car.

[phantom240 5,000+ posts]

you bought a GTO.....and its not even 5 speed?

theres a point in which you dont need a manual for the car to be fun. A point where shifting your own gears actually TAKES AWAY the car's fun, as it has so much power and great suspension and such from the factory that the slushbox is more fun to drive. I think the GTO would be in that category.

 

[Ford302Redneck 10+ year member]

Umm you have a 94 that im my opinion is one of the worst years made along with the 95s because they have the 5.0 in them.

And what is soooo wrong with the 5.0?? Hmm??

btw the 302 has been in more than 2 years of mustangs.... actually was in mustang for almost 20 years

but 94-95 mustang was the worst years made

 

[saywhat? 5,000+ posts]

theres a point in which you dont need a manual for the car to be fun. A point where shifting your own gears actually TAKES AWAY the car's fun, as it has so much power and great suspension and such from the factory that the slushbox is more fun to drive. I think the GTO would be in that category.

lol i wouldnt //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif automatics are crap unless you have a high power application. period. its been proven that on the track manual GTO's are quicker than automatics. Fun to drive and automatic dont go together.....ever lol.

 

[saywhat? 5,000+ posts]

And what is soooo wrong with the 5.0?? Hmm??
btw the 302 has been in more than 2 years of mustangs.... actually was in mustang for almost 20 years

but 94-95 mustang was the worst years made

LOL 5.0's have been used since 67 and probably earlier than that, not sure. Those motors have EVERYTHING for them, and are **** good. Just the fox body ones were very weak stock.

 

[phantom240 5,000+ posts]

5.0 DOHC motors FTW. if i could fit a 5.0 into my 91 240sx, you better **** well believe i would. Losa power in a 3000 lb car with a manual ****** = a blast to drive

 

[yacob.naif 10+ year member]

Your not pissing me off. I think it's funny I keep proving your stupid *** wrong lol.
I agree honda engines are overpriced.

irony? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eyebrow.gif.fe2c18d8720fe8c7eaed347b21ea05a5.gif

 

[bbka 10+ year member]

i do think and know you're wrong about a 700 whp car getting 30mpg. if it can, then why dosen't every car get 30mpg? i mean surely auto makers will do anything to get that kind of mileage right now.
and while i dont believe that you pulled a 13 with your car, i'll give you the beneifit of the doubt and say its true, but i'll also say thats on slicks and it means nothing on the street.

i dont know why you wont let this go and favor a serious conversation instead of getting punted around the forum. but whatever. im trying to throw you a bone.

Okay listen up, your not getting what I am saying! I'm NOT saying it will get 30mpg all the time no matter how you drive it, that's just rediculous to think that lol. I am saying if you are light on the gas (no boosting) or just cruising the freeway, you can easily get 30mpg or even more with a well tuned setup. The second you start boosting and doing a bunch of 3rd, 4th, and 5th gear rippers? Your mileage goes out the window and you won't get close to 30mpg. Do you get it now?

Example you live 300 miles from the drag strip. You can fill up with pump gas and cruise on the freeway the whole way there on one tank of gas (10 gallon), then once your there, you can fill it up with race gas and run crazy times and put down insane horsepower. Obviously in this case you will need an ECU that will allow you to switch from a pump gas tune to a race gas tune. That's what I mean when I say you can get 30mpg and still be able to make a shit ton of horsepower.

As far as my car goes, here's my best drag radial time (13.4 @ 105mph) on 9psi (about 210whp). Like I said I only made 5 passes and didn't have that great of a 60ft, so with more seat time and boost (12-14psi), a 12.9 pass is easily possible on street tires... http://users.adelphia.net/~pshickey/images/TimeSlip2.JPG Like I said find me a place to host my videos and I will show you my car running a consistant 13.2 @ 101mph on 9psi with not so great traction. It's kinda funny your questioning my times at all, there are faster cars with this kind of horsepower you know (a lite vehicle and traction is everything).

Oh and back to a more serious convo, check this video out, turbo GSR hatch racing at watkins glen (Jeff Evans's car), looks like he is passing just about everybody (RWD and AWD cars) and I even think I saw him passing a nissan! Before you say it, I know he is probably just a better driver and I'm not saying FWD hatches are better for road racing than a real sports cars by any means, but with the right setup it is possible to have a fun quick Honda that handles decently well on a road race track. Oh and the instructor wouldn't let him shift past 6500rpms, since he was scared, so he was never able to show the cars full potential. He did reach speeds up to 130mph by the end of the day though. Obviously you can tell it wasn't setup with race suspension or brakes from the last part of the video lol. Still pretty cool video... http://www.evans-tuning.com/videos/Jeffs_Hatch.wmv

 

[bbka 10+ year member]

700WHP cars getting 30MPG? Maybe he is living on a different planet Eugenics? Seeing as how that does not happen here //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

Please read my previous post explaining what I mean by that statement. I'm not saying you will get 30mpg all the time, it's only when your lite on the throttle and not boosting (freeway cruising for exmaple). Gas mileage goes out the window when you start ripping on the car and boosting.

 

[Ford302Redneck 10+ year member]

LOL 5.0's have been used since 67 and probably earlier than that, not sure. Those motors have EVERYTHING for them, and are **** good. Just the fox body ones were very weak stock.

actually 5.0s wasnt around then, if your recalling the Boss 302? Thats not the same block at all. Back then they had a 289 which is basicly the same as the now known 302. but IIRC 302s began there way into mustangs around ~1978 when the first fox body was introducted

As far the foxbody, same motor I got basicly. weak, yeah wasnt the strongest thang around, I agree. Most reliable, **** right, cant get to much better. Stock 302s will go 200,000+miles EASY.

 

[B_Campbell 10+ year member]

Hold up, this saturn kid is hating on 5.0's now

I take back what I said about him being a ricer, he is DEFINATLY a dumb *** ricer.

Your saturn doesnt run 15's even on the bottle, go jump off a cliff and land on your face.

Even I dislike mustangs and I have MAJOR respect for 5.0's

 

[B_Campbell 10+ year member]

i also had a 10 second iroc with 350 shot of nos and a bunch of other little things with a fully built 700r4 and a 3500 stall convertor and (that little cylinder i forgot whats its called but goes after the master cylinder and only locks your front wheels before the laucnh ) and it was completly daily drivable
i would drive it to work every day and back and to the track.

just one time when i went two stage and decided to shoot 400 shot i decided to trailer the car to the track had a bad fealing something will go wrong and something did. well just say me and a bunch of freinds had to push it on the trailer and that was no fun AT ALL

You had a built 700r4 handle that. ****, you get much respect, for the money and hastle I would have much rather swapped in a TH350 or 400 //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eyebrow.gif.fe2c18d8720fe8c7eaed347b21ea05a5.gif

 

[j3bus2k3 5,000+ posts]

Hold up, this saturn kid is hating on 5.0's now
I take back what I said about him being a ricer, he is DEFINATLY a dumb *** ricer.

Your saturn doesnt run 15's even on the bottle, go jump off a cliff and land on your face.

Even I dislike mustangs and I have MAJOR respect for 5.0's

LOL...this thread gets better and better...//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[bibby 5,000+ posts]

lol, this thread. this is my 2nd post, besides i had the very 1st post after the original. Anyways. lolz0rz at the tension. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[CBFryman2 5,000+ posts]

If you FULLY built up your auto then i gurantee it would cease to be a daily driver.
So unless you own an all out race car.. manual
The only advantage conventional automatics have over conventional manual transmissions is shift times when it comes to performance.

Automatics get confused when they arent going in straight lines and loose much more power.

Now there are forms of automatics which are essentially 'manual" transmissions that do all of the work for you, less power loss and similar shift times...thoes trannies can still get confused. But thoes trannies also have the option to become manual transmissions.

Then there are manual transmissions like are used by ferrari, all the clutching and shifting is done by the transmission, you just have to use the paddles to shift. In which case Ferrari F1 paddle shifting Manual transmissions > all.

Back the conventional manual vs automatic. The conventional manual is only better for drag racing (ghey) when you are a sucky driver OR you looking for the most optimal shift points, fastest shifts, and ability to load the driveline more efficently. Beyond that I will keep my stick and third pedal.

 

[Tiger Bass 5,000+ posts]

mmm...Im not a big fan of the 5.0's for their body style. Quite possibly the most horrible couple years for mustang ever. But other than that, I would love to drop a 5.0 into my engine bay too. The biggest I can fit is a 2 liter. Though it is commonly ranked one of the best top 10 engines for compacts, the SR20de(t).