Are the 1995 5.0's as slow as people say? - Page 2 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 1979-1995 Mustang GT



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 04-12-2016, 09:38 AM   #36
Registered Member
Regular
 
95v686gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post
Eh... if you blow the T-5 to pieces at bolt on power level then you need to learn to stop missing 3rd gear. I beat the living **** out of that T5 in my Cobra and never ever had an issue.
Once again correct... driver mod needed....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
__________________
1995 V6 Mustang= Divorced Duals, Flowmaster 2 chambers, NO CATS, Raxiom Halo Projector headlights, Smoked Tails, 17 inch Bullitt Wheels
1997 Mustang GT: 4.6L DOHC http://www.mustangevolution.com/forum/f280/t305270/
1986 Mustang GT= Built 302 SOLD
95v686gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-14-2016, 02:02 PM   #37
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
So if you have driven an actual fast car, yea these things are pitifully slow stock. Even boltons, still just really slow. until you add FI or a very stout HCI combo and tune, these things arent really all that great.
That being said above 300whp, then they start getting somewhat fun. But then you need to invest in suspension, chassis, tires, ect, ect, . . . It adds up very very quickly.
__________________
94 Blown Canary Yellow GT Vert
372WHP/374TQ
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2016, 02:29 PM   #38
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Cam only Cobra with bolt ons and a tune or A9L swap is fun. But that's because the Cobra heads and intake actually flow worth 2 ****s.

Cobras are great to supercharge too but the gaskets are notorious for having issues in all the 5.0s when blown. Actually most 5.0s leak somewhere...

Sent from my LG-D801 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-14-2016, 02:32 PM   #39
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post
Cam only Cobra with bolt ons and a tune or A9L swap is fun. But that's because the Cobra heads and intake actually flow worth 2 ****s.

Sent from my LG-D801 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
I beg to differ, but I have had many actual fast cars. 250-270whp cars are not fun to me.
Also I dont see the need in an ECU swap. For all the hassle in that, just get the stock ECU tuned. I think that swap was very popular years ago when people didnt know how to tune these, but tuners laugh whenever I asked the hype of swapping the ECU and said thats old school

The supercharging thing, I dont think the heads flow enough. Thats where I am stuck now. These GT40's were deff not worth their weight
__________________
94 Blown Canary Yellow GT Vert
372WHP/374TQ
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2016, 04:26 PM   #40
Registered Member
Regular
 
smurf stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Miami
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMPerformance View Post
I beg to differ, but I have had many actual fast cars. 250-270whp cars are not fun to me.
Also I dont see the need in an ECU swap. For all the hassle in that, just get the stock ECU tuned. I think that swap was very popular years ago when people didnt know how to tune these, but tuners laugh whenever I asked the hype of swapping the ECU and said thats old school

The supercharging thing, I dont think the heads flow enough. Thats where I am stuck now. These GT40's were deff not worth their weight
When I had a simple H/C/I (TW/TFS1/Eddy) on the fox it was actually very fun and surprised many a people due to the fact that it was light and quick. The main factor is putting the power to the pavement and not spinning. You can do a lot with a little.
__________________
2016 VW GTI 2.0 Turbo

1989 Sonic Blue LX Coupe, 349 ci, TW heads, TFS Track Heat Intake, 75mm Accufab TB, 80mm ProM, 30 lb. inj, TKO, 3.73, 31 spline w/ TruTrac, MAC 1-5/8" LT headers w/ H pipe, Flowmaster, electric fan Moates QH
391 rwhp & 424 rwtq...Mustang Dyno 11.5@122mph
smurf stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2016, 06:16 PM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
We are not talking foxes though. Totally different car. Your gonna have quite a bit of money in an sn to even make 300whp and reliably and getting it to hook. Ask me how I know
__________________
94 Blown Canary Yellow GT Vert
372WHP/374TQ
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2016, 12:33 PM   #42
Registered Member
Regular
 
Man_tlac00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Delaware
Region: Delaware
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMPerformance View Post
We are not talking foxes though. Totally different car. Your gonna have quite a bit of money in an sn to even make 300whp and reliably and getting it to hook. Ask me how I know
How do you know?

Sent from my SM-N900P using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Man_tlac00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2016, 12:42 PM   #43
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
Figures someone is a smartass lol. Because I have way too much money in mine already
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2016, 02:49 PM   #44
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
I had very little money into my build. Made 301/325 to the wheels and hooked just fine on street tires.

-Stock bottom
-$700 for used Eddy heads
-$200 to port my Cobra lower
-$150 for used XE270HR-112 cam
-Stock Cobra fuel system
-Pretty much stock everything else with some control arms and lowering springs

Tuned by Radical Racing and was a ton of fun. Was going to add a 150 shot to it but never got around to it because my daughter had just been born and I sold it.

I have seen 300whp cars run into the 11s with a good driver and well prepped track. Not fast by any means but is a great starting point and just toss a shot of the sauce onto it and there you go.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2016, 04:45 PM   #45
Registered Member
Regular
 
smurf stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Miami
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,341
Not too much difference between foxes and 94-95.


It's all about the combo. My lil stroker combo is fun as hell and it was never designed for that. Runs hard for a little ole fox body.


Gotta remember what you started with.
__________________
2016 VW GTI 2.0 Turbo

1989 Sonic Blue LX Coupe, 349 ci, TW heads, TFS Track Heat Intake, 75mm Accufab TB, 80mm ProM, 30 lb. inj, TKO, 3.73, 31 spline w/ TruTrac, MAC 1-5/8" LT headers w/ H pipe, Flowmaster, electric fan Moates QH
391 rwhp & 424 rwtq...Mustang Dyno 11.5@122mph
smurf stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 07:16 AM   #46
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
There is enough difference between the fox and the SN. What makes a fox dip into the 12's pretty easily, people do high 13's with in an SN. lol.
They take a bit more prep and work to get them to fox territory.

Also, a stroker isnt all that cheap. I said I would take money to make these fast. Stroker, with good heads and boltons and tune adds up really fast. Some guys find steals on heads for $700 and strokers cheap, but any normal person is gonna spend upwards of $5k to do a cheaper stroker setup with heads and boltons and tune. Then factor in suspension, chassis, tire, ect. ect. ect. $8-10K goes pretty fast.
__________________
94 Blown Canary Yellow GT Vert
372WHP/374TQ
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 07:43 AM   #47
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
TBTH if I ever got another 94/95 car it would be a low mileage Cobra and it would remain stock and sit in my garage for me to get all nostalgic over. If I got a Fox I'd also get a wrecked 96-98 donor GT and ModFox it with a PI swap/HP292 cams and a 125 shot. Dirt cheap near 300hp NA and 400+ on the sauce while sounding great and getting good mileage and stock drivability/reliable. And all the benefits of the modular platform with all the weight advantages of the Fox as well as many foxes being emissions exempt now at 25+ years old.


Or LS swap it...


Edit:


Also one reason the Foxes feel so much easier to make quicker is the terribad factory 94/95 tune. Simply going from the stock 94/95 tune to a Fox computer with ZERO other changes makes it feel like a completely different car.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 07:48 AM   #48
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
I hate to disagree with you on the tune, but I do. I have a 94-95 car and is tuned. NA with boltons, cammed and GT40's was still slow as hell! Unless you are spending money on good alum heads and bigger cam and maybe some more cubes. . . . or boost, these things are boring.
My car is still borderline boring with the blower

What do you think is soo bad with the tune? Obviously the tip in ****** is a known issue, but honestly what else makes it sooo bad other than people not knowing how to work with the ecu years ago? I have had adaptive learning turned off and on as well as 02 feedback both off and on, and honestly I think the car runs better with the stuff turned on.
__________________
94 Blown Canary Yellow GT Vert
372WHP/374TQ
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 08:05 AM   #49
Registered Member
Regular
 
Man_tlac00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Delaware
Region: Delaware
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMPerformance View Post
Figures someone is a smartass lol. Because I have way too much money in mine already
Sorry couldn't help myself

Sent from my SM-N900P using Mustang Evolution mobile app
Man_tlac00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 08:09 AM   #50
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Again, not talking about a power difference just drivability. Yes a bolt on 5.0 is not going to be fast as far as 1/4 mile times but that's a fox too. There is not THAT much of a difference in the cars besides weight. Both are 5.0 pushrods with the same heads/intake/cam, same trans and same rear. For all intents and purposes.


The tune is bad because its got VERY conservative fuel tables, the tip in ****** and its just overall sluggish.


And a supercharged 5.0 is not slow... if it is then something is wrong with it. I guess it all depends what your definition of fast is but if you can't have fun with a 400whp pushrod then I dunno.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 08:16 AM   #51
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
Well mainly because 400whp is not fast. **** my daily sedan isnt all that far off of that power wise stock. lol
Again fuel tables will only do soo much on an NA car. I have never seen an imense change on fuel table changes on a stockish NA car. Its not FI where you are going to pick up gobs of HP from no where. Just doesnt work that way in a small cube, low compression, ineffiecient 20+ yr old motor. I dont care what ECU you run
__________________
94 Blown Canary Yellow GT Vert
372WHP/374TQ
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 08:30 AM   #52
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMPerformance View Post
Well mainly because 400whp is not fast. **** my daily sedan isnt all that far off of that power wise stock. lol
Again fuel tables will only do soo much on an NA car. I have never seen an imense change on fuel table changes on a stockish NA car. Its not FI where you are going to pick up gobs of HP from no where. Just doesnt work that way in a small cube, low compression, ineffiecient 20+ yr old motor. I dont care what ECU you run

Didn't know a hp # is what makes something fast. Shows a lot about what is known from what you say


LSX 408 FTW
Dragging your a$$
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 08:35 AM   #53
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
Didn't know a hp # is what makes something fast. Shows a lot about what is known from what you say


LSX 408 FTW
Dragging your a$$
You are missing my point. If we get back on topic he asked if the 94-95 5.0 cars are really that slow. I said yes, they are and they take quite a bit of work and money to make them fast.
Plenty of guys with boltons on these cars barely able to break into the 14's. Plenty of HCI guys barely able to break into the mid 13's. Plenty of boosted guys barely able to get past high 12's.

There are alot more slower ones than faster ones. They take a tire and suspension and a tranny that wont decinegrate when shifted hard.
Sure there are some fast ones out there, but I have yet to see any on a shoestring budget unless they found stupid deals on heads and such and ran nitrous. Otherwise it takes some time and money. . . just like any car. These are not a "great" platform to start with.

Also by telling me that you are picking up tons of power from slight fuel system changes on a stockish NA car is crazy to me. But I guess I could be wrong. but no one has shown any data yet. Im a data guy. If you say its a night and day difference, prove it
__________________
94 Blown Canary Yellow GT Vert
372WHP/374TQ
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:05 AM   #54
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMPerformance View Post
You are missing my point. If we get back on topic he asked if the 94-95 5.0 cars are really that slow. I said yes, they are and they take quite a bit of work and money to make them fast.
Plenty of guys with boltons on these cars barely able to break into the 14's. Plenty of HCI guys barely able to break into the mid 13's. Plenty of boosted guys barely able to get past high 12's.

There are alot more slower ones than faster ones. They take a tire and suspension and a tranny that wont decinegrate when shifted hard.
Sure there are some fast ones out there, but I have yet to see any on a shoestring budget unless they found stupid deals on heads and such and ran nitrous. Otherwise it takes some time and money. . . just like any car. These are not a "great" platform to start with.

Also by telling me that you are picking up tons of power from slight fuel system changes on a stockish NA car is crazy to me. But I guess I could be wrong. but no one has shown any data yet. Im a data guy. If you say its a night and day difference, prove it
Bull****. If you can't get a HCI 5.0 into the 12s at least then you suck at these cars and should get a Prius.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:08 AM   #55
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
IM just saying what I see on the daily. People are quick to throw a crappy tire on the car just to say they have a 315. People are quick to slam the cars, or cut coils on stock springs and not do dampers. Quick to bolt on junk parts and then complain the car doesnt run right, but doesnt want to take the time to tune it.
But on top of it all, to blow thousands of dollars to barely break 300whp, its kind of a shame. but I agree with a good suspension, and tire, 300whp is enough to break 12's.
__________________
94 Blown Canary Yellow GT Vert
372WHP/374TQ
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:14 AM   #56
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
That is not the car's fault, that is dumbass owners and its not just limited to 94/95 cars.


$thousands to break 300hp? Well yeah, again that's any 04-down car. Want big power out of the box then pony up and get a car with big power out of the box. If you are on a budget and you want that right away then get a F body.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:17 AM   #57
Registered Member
Regular
 
95v686gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post
That is not the car's fault, that is dumbass owners and its not just limited to 94/95 cars.


$thousands to break 300hp? Well yeah, again that's any 04-down car. Want big power out of the box then pony up and get a car with big power out of the box. If you are on a budget and you want that right away then get a F body.
Then watch it **** the transmission..

95 GT BBK CAI TB MSD 6AL O/R H SLP LM1
Coming soon GT40 Heads Intake and e303 cam with Long tubes
__________________
1995 V6 Mustang= Divorced Duals, Flowmaster 2 chambers, NO CATS, Raxiom Halo Projector headlights, Smoked Tails, 17 inch Bullitt Wheels
1997 Mustang GT: 4.6L DOHC http://www.mustangevolution.com/forum/f280/t305270/
1986 Mustang GT= Built 302 SOLD
95v686gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:17 AM   #58
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
You even said the ECU limits the car. So that kind of is the cars fault right? I agree people do some dumb stuff to these cars, but its just not an overly great platform to start with if you want to go fast. If you can deal with creaks and rattles, the Fox is a much better platform for straight line racing to start with IMHO.
Again it all adds up fast. . .. .It takes some money to go fast. Stock they are weak as hell.
Then when you do make power and actually can get it to hook, bye bye trans. lol
__________________
94 Blown Canary Yellow GT Vert
372WHP/374TQ
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:21 AM   #59
Registered Member
Regular
 
95v686gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 813
Every f body I've had even with built transmissions has chewed them up. My 96 Trans am didn't even last a year on the race prep trans.

95 GT BBK CAI TB MSD 6AL O/R H SLP LM1
Coming soon GT40 Heads Intake and e303 cam with Long tubes
__________________
1995 V6 Mustang= Divorced Duals, Flowmaster 2 chambers, NO CATS, Raxiom Halo Projector headlights, Smoked Tails, 17 inch Bullitt Wheels
1997 Mustang GT: 4.6L DOHC http://www.mustangevolution.com/forum/f280/t305270/
1986 Mustang GT= Built 302 SOLD
95v686gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:39 AM   #60
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95v686gt View Post
Every f body I've had even with built transmissions has chewed them up. My 96 Trans am didn't even last a year on the race prep trans.

95 GT BBK CAI TB MSD 6AL O/R H SLP LM1
Coming soon GT40 Heads Intake and e303 cam with Long tubes

"Race prep" trans

Hmmm either you or whoever builds your stuff needs to sit back and rethink.

A stock 4l60 and 80 can handle a lot


LSX 408 FTW
Dragging your a$$
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:41 AM   #61
Registered Member
Regular
 
95v686gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
"Race prep" trans

Hmmm either you or whoever builds your stuff needs to sit back and rethink.

A stock 4l60 and 80 can handle a lot


LSX 408 FTW
Dragging your a$$
Thinking it was bad mold on the pump... and it was built by a transmission shop here in town. Never had a issue with a transmission unless it was in a F body.

95 GT BBK CAI TB MSD 6AL O/R H SLP LM1
Coming soon GT40 Heads Intake and e303 cam with Long tubes
__________________
1995 V6 Mustang= Divorced Duals, Flowmaster 2 chambers, NO CATS, Raxiom Halo Projector headlights, Smoked Tails, 17 inch Bullitt Wheels
1997 Mustang GT: 4.6L DOHC http://www.mustangevolution.com/forum/f280/t305270/
1986 Mustang GT= Built 302 SOLD
95v686gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:43 AM   #62
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95v686gt View Post
Thinking it was bad mold on the pump... and it was built by a transmission shop here in town. Never had a issue with a transmission unless it was in a F body.

95 GT BBK CAI TB MSD 6AL O/R H SLP LM1
Coming soon GT40 Heads Intake and e303 cam with Long tubes

That's odd


LSX 408 FTW
Dragging your a$$
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:44 AM   #63
Registered Member
Regular
 
95v686gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapinator126 View Post
That's odd


LSX 408 FTW
Dragging your a$$
I've come to the conclusion they just are not right for me...

95 GT BBK CAI TB MSD 6AL O/R H SLP LM1
Coming soon GT40 Heads Intake and e303 cam with Long tubes
__________________
1995 V6 Mustang= Divorced Duals, Flowmaster 2 chambers, NO CATS, Raxiom Halo Projector headlights, Smoked Tails, 17 inch Bullitt Wheels
1997 Mustang GT: 4.6L DOHC http://www.mustangevolution.com/forum/f280/t305270/
1986 Mustang GT= Built 302 SOLD
95v686gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:45 AM   #64
Registered Member
Regular
 
Rapinator126's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Region: Texas
Posts: 9,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by 95v686gt View Post
I've come to the conclusion they just are not right for me...

95 GT BBK CAI TB MSD 6AL O/R H SLP LM1
Coming soon GT40 Heads Intake and e303 cam with Long tubes

That's a possibility. Or it's just the shop who builds them for you
What trans was it?


LSX 408 FTW
Dragging your a$$
Rapinator126 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 09:47 AM   #65
Registered Member
Regular
 
95v686gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 813
4L60E with all the updated parts and fixes for the weak spots. Plus all Kevlar clutches and the better apply sprag (?). All I know is I paid a lot for all the parts to go in it.

95 GT BBK CAI TB MSD 6AL O/R H SLP LM1
Coming soon GT40 Heads Intake and e303 cam with Long tubes
__________________
1995 V6 Mustang= Divorced Duals, Flowmaster 2 chambers, NO CATS, Raxiom Halo Projector headlights, Smoked Tails, 17 inch Bullitt Wheels
1997 Mustang GT: 4.6L DOHC http://www.mustangevolution.com/forum/f280/t305270/
1986 Mustang GT= Built 302 SOLD
95v686gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 10:04 AM   #66
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMPerformance View Post
You even said the ECU limits the car. So that kind of is the cars fault right? I agree people do some dumb stuff to these cars, but its just not an overly great platform to start with if you want to go fast. If you can deal with creaks and rattles, the Fox is a much better platform for straight line racing to start with IMHO.
Again it all adds up fast. . .. .It takes some money to go fast. Stock they are weak as hell.
Then when you do make power and actually can get it to hook, bye bye trans. lol
The stock ECU limits the car in every application including the new Coyotes. That's not just the 94/95. Hell, look at the performance gains ppl get with a simple handheld these days.

As far as platform... they are the same platform, same 78 Fairmont chassis down to a big majority of the parts being swappable between 94/95 and fox and even to the later 96-04 cars. The benefit TO the 94/95 cars if you like the pushrod is you get a better built car WITHOUT the creaks and rattles and a lot of stuff that fox guys upgrade to like SN95 spindles, brakes/5 lug, electric fan etc...

Again, not the car's fault that dumbass owners can't figure out how to make them fast or ****ty tuners are too stupid to work the 94/95 computer.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 10:49 AM   #67
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
I agree all cars can use some tweaking from the factory tune. But to say large improvements with just a tune and nothing else on an old tech car, is a bit exxagerated. When you go FI, big difference as they usually knock timing back quite a bit and tune pretty rich.
but NA, there is only soo much you are going to make with just timing and fuel tables on a motor like ours
Again I have no problems with mine that is tune related. My issue is just that my heads dont flow enough air
__________________
94 Blown Canary Yellow GT Vert
372WHP/374TQ
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 11:14 AM   #68
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMPerformance View Post
I agree all cars can use some tweaking from the factory tune. But to say large improvements with just a tune and nothing else on an old tech car, is a bit exxagerated. When you go FI, big difference as they usually knock timing back quite a bit and tune pretty rich.
but NA, there is only soo much you are going to make with just timing and fuel tables on a motor like ours
Again I have no problems with mine that is tune related. My issue is just that my heads dont flow enough air
I thought so too until I did it. That is why when threads like this come up here (and the corral ) I always ask who has actually done just a computer change on a stock 94/95 car and nothing else and who is just guessing at it.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 11:45 AM   #69
Registered Member
Regular
 
PMPerformance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Blandon
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 30
I am just going by my experience with dicking with all motor cars from other cars. I try not to run anything NA anymore. Just not all that rewarding per $$ for me.
__________________
94 Blown Canary Yellow GT Vert
372WHP/374TQ
PMPerformance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2016, 03:36 PM   #70
Registered Member
Regular
 
smurf stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Miami
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMPerformance View Post
Well mainly because 400whp is not fast. **** my daily sedan isnt all that far off of that power wise stock. lol
Again fuel tables will only do soo much on an NA car. I have never seen an imense change on fuel table changes on a stockish NA car. Its not FI where you are going to pick up gobs of HP from no where. Just doesnt work that way in a small cube, low compression, ineffiecient 20+ yr old motor. I dont care what ECU you run
What daily sedan do you have that is laying down 400 to the tires?

Not that dyno numbers mean much but my junk didn't break 400 and I do not think trapping 122 is slow.
__________________
2016 VW GTI 2.0 Turbo

1989 Sonic Blue LX Coupe, 349 ci, TW heads, TFS Track Heat Intake, 75mm Accufab TB, 80mm ProM, 30 lb. inj, TKO, 3.73, 31 spline w/ TruTrac, MAC 1-5/8" LT headers w/ H pipe, Flowmaster, electric fan Moates QH
391 rwhp & 424 rwtq...Mustang Dyno 11.5@122mph
smurf stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 1979-1995 Mustang GT

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
hate when people harass me for going 'slow' Vaiit The Bar 22 04-19-2014 10:58 PM
To those people who say "I never heard of roll racing at a track" TomFromMySpace General Car Discussion 4 04-08-2014 02:52 AM
People say to remove air silencer Anthony8994 Pre-2005 V6 Mustang 25 10-07-2012 11:52 AM
Simple things that non-horse people say about horses that are just hilarious? bourke The Bar 28 03-27-2010 06:04 AM
Dont you hate it when people say they will pay for something and stiff you...(inside) SpectorV The Bar 28 10-05-2004 01:07 AM

» Like Us On Facebook



09:10 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.