s2k vs 05GT mustangs?
07-12-2005, 10:37 AM
#51
Originally Posted by no_really,Jul 12 2005, 12:07 PM
ever done it since? I mean, that is three years ago, in what sound like the worst conditions that area experiences for drag times, yet you managed to run a time that very few S2000 owners ever see. You'd think, given the poor conditions of that day three years ago, you'd have run faster in the time since, if it were remotely possible.
07-12-2005, 12:17 PM
#52
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: City
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jasonw,Jul 12 2005, 10:21 AM
What would be the point?
07-12-2005, 12:23 PM
#53
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: City
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jasonw,Jul 12 2005, 12:36 PM
I guess stang owners don't feel right if they don't keep running it till something breaks...
The issue about running 13.7 more than once is that anomalies happen. For a world record, they demand that the record-setter make multiple runs, not just one lucky run and call it a day. I don't think that is an unreasonable standard. I'm even willing to let the same day requirement slide. Ten people running 13.7 once each is not nearly the same as one person running 13.7 on several different nights. If the best you can do is 13.7, and your second best ever is 14 flat, which you've done countless times, your car really only reliably runs 14 flat, but you once got lucky and burned off a 13.7. Would you bet money on any given day you could do it again?
07-12-2005, 12:47 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: █ SF, CA █
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by no_really,Jul 12 2005, 01:17 PM
the point would be less bs talking out the ass and more fact-based discussion. Saying "I can do X because I did Y once on a really crappy day" is just speculation.
07-12-2005, 12:51 PM
#55
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: █ SF, CA █
Posts: 16,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by no_really,Jul 10 2005, 07:29 PM
you are talking driver beating driver, not car vs. car.
Originally Posted by no_really @ Jul 12 2005, 01:23 PM
Ten people running 13.7 once each is not nearly the same as one person running 13.7 on several different nights.
07-12-2005, 01:11 PM
#56
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SilverBullet5.0,Jul 10 2005, 07:25 PM
S2K will lose all day in a drag race. They are mid-high 13 second cars. I dont care what that jackass edmunds.com says. Best ive seen from a stock one at the track was a 13.7@101. Thats about half a second faster than a stock S2K, and half a second is a lifetime.
07-12-2005, 01:14 PM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Hot Rod magazine article was basically making a drag car out of the '05 GT. No rear seats, 4.4 gears vs 3.27 stock, and street slicks that you would never drive around town with because they would last about 3 months.
I used to own an 88 LX 5.0 Mustang and changed to a 3.73 gear and it was too much for stock tires. I would say most of the reduction in 1/4 mile was from slicks and rear end gears. With about .3-.5 seconds from weight reduction and .2 for the 25 hp. Still low 12's is very good and our S2000s would need a supercharger, slicks, upgraded rear end, and gears to do that.
4.11 gears were the highest people ran on basic modded cars when I had one and those were basically track cars. Real world daily driving and that car would probably top out at 120 mph at best, be unable to hook up on regular street tires, and look really stupid without a back seat.
If you want a two seater buy a car that only has two seats, don't just take out the ones you have when you just spent 30k on a car. I would like to see the slalom and lat g numbers from that article after the swaps.
I used to own an 88 LX 5.0 Mustang and changed to a 3.73 gear and it was too much for stock tires. I would say most of the reduction in 1/4 mile was from slicks and rear end gears. With about .3-.5 seconds from weight reduction and .2 for the 25 hp. Still low 12's is very good and our S2000s would need a supercharger, slicks, upgraded rear end, and gears to do that.
4.11 gears were the highest people ran on basic modded cars when I had one and those were basically track cars. Real world daily driving and that car would probably top out at 120 mph at best, be unable to hook up on regular street tires, and look really stupid without a back seat.
If you want a two seater buy a car that only has two seats, don't just take out the ones you have when you just spent 30k on a car. I would like to see the slalom and lat g numbers from that article after the swaps.
07-12-2005, 01:24 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, I've never drag raced an 99-04 GT. But, from 50+ on the highway they are a joke.
The change from 3.27 to 4.4 gears is 35%. That would be like puting 5.54 igears in the S2000 to get the same 35% gear advantage. Who would do that on a street car? I'd imagine that would be crazy fast up to the top speed of around 105-110. Not too much fun getting to and from work though.
The change from 3.27 to 4.4 gears is 35%. That would be like puting 5.54 igears in the S2000 to get the same 35% gear advantage. Who would do that on a street car? I'd imagine that would be crazy fast up to the top speed of around 105-110. Not too much fun getting to and from work though.
07-12-2005, 03:36 PM
#60
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: City
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NNY S2k,Jul 12 2005, 12:37 PM
Havn't been back to the track since, I was just curious what it would do at the time.