Late '80's/Early '90's 5.0

[UNGN]

there were stock 80's mustangs runnin high 13's? thats faster than the late 80's vettes... is that right?? wow. wonder what happened, cuz theyre slow as dogsh*t nowadays....

All mustangs weren't equal. There were a lot of slower combinations.

The fastest stock mustangs were 3.08 rear geared 5 speeds. The majority of mustangs were 2.73 geared OR automatics which were high 14 - low 15 second cars with an average driver.

In the late 80's/early 90's low 14's was much faster than it is now. 12.9's would rule the streets. 10 second street cars were like 8 second street cars, today.

Fast stock mustang guys got modified to be REALLY fast mustangs, while the slow ones got passed down from one loser to the next (and the previous owner bought an LT1 F-body/TR or Cobra).

By the mid 90's you could buy a legitimate stock mid 13 second car from the factory and the mustang became the car for the "racer with no money". If money = speed, this is why current stockish 5.0's that show up at the track are slow.

 

[Grumpy]

there were stock 80's mustangs runnin high 13's? thats faster than the late 80's vettes... is that right?? wow. wonder what happened, cuz theyre slow as dogsh*t nowadays....

you should see the 11/12 sec Buicks that show up at our track with $10k in mods and run 13's all in the driver's and the tune

 

[turbofish38]

you should see the 11/12 sec Buicks that show up at our track with $10k in mods and run 13's all in the driver's and the tune

Drop the Kenne-Bell catalog and slowly walk away from the car.

Funny how many 10 sec TR's that were built with just that catalog.

 

[Turbo6Smackdown]

wow. so some 'speed density' mustangs, with good tires were kinda quick eh?
those are the notchbacks im assuming? or what. I wouldnt mind havin one of those for a quick beater.

 

[SloGN]

Drop the Kenne-Bell catalog and slowly walk away from the car.

Funny how many 10 sec TR's that were built with just that catalog.

thanks for the laugh eric i needed that :biggrin:

 

[jhanson1750]

Well as the previous owner of five(5) 5.0 cars I can attest ot the validity of what these guys are saying. I had an
84 5.0 5spd t-top Gt hatch, 88 5.0 5spd notch, 90 5.0 5spd notch, 90 5.0 5spd hatch and 93 5.0 auto convertable. I have been as quick as 11.20s in the 88 (ex-DPS car) fly-weight with lots of mods. The conversion from speed density to mass air made a HUGE change in the way the cars ran. The problem was a SD car's processor could only deal with 10-12% change from the stock maps and it would run like crap. One last thing. The reason I HAD to have my GN when I saw it was I dreaded pulling next to one of those "damn black buicks" back in the day. Ihad my a$$ handed to me too many times by these hair-dryer cars. AND NOW I HAVE ONE!!! Great memories though Thanks Jon Hanson

 

[krom]

I had a 88 and a 93 5.0, my 88 was faster.

A friend ran 12.96 @ 104 in his coupe. He removed air dam,added cold air, shifter, 4:10,s, Et Streets, bigger MAF,TB, longtubes no cats. He powershifted. The only weight reduction was no spare and it was a non A/C car.

I miss my 5.0

 

[Johnboy]

I also had an 88 back in the day and I always said it was one of those cars that was made special as there were very few other stock mustangs that could beat it, never did have the chance to race a buick though. I have an 89 auto now but nowhere near as quick as the 88 was. I was only able to pull a 14.5 @ 98 with the 88, but that was with a non-working posi and a horrible 60' time.

 

[ITSAV6]

My T ran 8.81 bone stock. My 86 5.0 coupe w/E7 heads,3.08's,5spd,K&N,and flows ran hi 9.20's. Adding slicks and 3.73's it went 8.89 w/5k launch...still thru stk headers/cats/tail pipes.
Adding a cone K&N,gutting the cat,and upping the boost to 19#(still stk chip)and M&H's the T went 8.40.
There is a auto 90 GT here running 9.2...on spray. My 91 GT w/2.73,auto and 9.5 3k stall and 87 oct and stk timing runs 9.30 on street tires.
About 2% of cars haul,96% normal,2% really go slow! And a lot of drivers suck!

 

[Joe Spool]

Back in 1987 I had a buddy whose 87 GN ran fairly consistent 14.0's at 98 mph bone stock (and I know it was bone stock as he bought it brand new and could barely afford the car payments, nevermind afford any performance parts for it ). Also had a buddy back then with an 88 LX hatchback 5 speed car that ran fairly consistent 14.1's also at 98 mph bone stock, so I think the guys story and times are possible (although I have never personally seen any bone stock 5.0's crack 100 mph trap speeds either then or now). BTW, these two GN and 5.0 guys I mentioned went at it all the time, and it was pretty much 50/50 on who would win, depending on how hot the GN was at the time, and/or how the good the LX launched. Fun times back then.

 

[87BuickMan]

I had a 95 V6 Camaro that would spank 5.0 mustangs all day long. The only thing I had on the V6 was a cold air intake. 5.0 mustangs sound good with flows and are fun to drive, but I can spank a stock 1 with my 02 4x4 ext cab Silverado for fun.

 

[Pablo]

If you are smoking 5.0 mustangs with a v6 4th gen those mustangs must have been AOD convertables

Apparently many of you are unfamiliar to how unbelievably easy it is to make a fox body mustang a real animal, and how quick they are stock.

UNGN speaks the truth

Back when I was getting into cars as a kid I used to be a big fan of the fox bodies. I specifically remember MM&FF magazine doing a test of a 5 speed LX that was bone stock with a "track side tune up" and running 13.9s, and all the other mag articles on free and simple mods that would make these cars move.

Back then 13s were movin', I dont think there was even one american performance car produced in large numbers that officially ran 13s from the factory.

I remember going to the street races in south florida circa 1993 and just seeing wall to wall 5.0s, if you rolled up in anything else chances are you got smoked

 

[strikeeagle]

What planet are you guys living on? 5.0s were a good match for TRs. The trunk cars in particular weigh squat.

strike

 

[alittlev6]

What planet are you guys living on? 5.0s were a good match for TRs. The trunk cars in particular weigh squat.

strike

smoking the green from planet earth!!!!!!!!1,lol

im the ORIGINAL owner of my 1993 mustang 5.0 notchback before it turned race car beast. I can assure you i been in many races when stock. I remember racing this 87 t-type in the summer of 93,i got pulled so hard i just gaved up half way now a days its differemt,lol

 

[strikeeagle]

smoking the green from planet earth!!!!!!!!1,lol

im the ORIGINAL owner of my 1993 mustang 5.0 notchback before it turned race car beast. I can assure you i been in many races when stock. I remember racing this 87 t-type in the summer of 93,i got pulled so hard i just gaved up half way now a days its differemt,lol

I'm the original owner of an 87 GN, the original owner of an 89 LX 5.0, have owned 4 TRs and 3 Mustangs and I can assure you that 5.7L Camaros, Corvettes, Firebirds and 5.0L Mustangs were all good matches for TRs in the day, stock for stock...

strike

 

[Joe Spool]

I'm the original owner of an 87 GN, the original owner of an 89 LX 5.0, have owned 4 TRs and 3 Mustangs and I can assure you that 5.7L Camaros, Corvettes, Firebirds and 5.0L Mustangs were all good matches for TRs in the day, stock for stock...

strike

Exactly.

I too lived through those times (I had an 86 T-Type back in ’86), and with the average driver, stock for stock, what I saw at the track were pretty much 14.30’s to 14.90’s in and around the mid 90’s for mph for all those various cars on the average. The Mustang guys who could launch without blowing off the tires and really “drove it like they stole it” ran better than average, and the Turbo Buick guys who ran their cars cold, and could launch them right all ran better than average too. There was an 87 350 Formula Firebird and an 87 Corvette (both automatics) around my way back then that were pretty quick also, stock as far as I knew, but both drivers were pretty good and knew how to race.

Once the mods started, that’s when things got interesting. I did the old “chip, test pipe, exhaust, K&N filter” tune up on my T-Type, and while it definitely made more power, my car didn’t come with a posi (grrrrr….), so getting aggressive with the gas pedal just made the tire go up in smoke. It took me from a stoplight racer to ‘roll racer’ for a while until I re-learned how to drive the thing (and even then it was tough). We did the “lose the air silencer, add a K&N filter, off road H pipe, and bump the timing” tune up to my buddies 87 LX, all of which made a difference, but he also had to re-learn how to drive it after, otherwise it would just burn the tires too.

I saw a lot of guys like us that made mods and figured out how to drive after that went fast back then (fast being a relative term), and I also saw a lot of guys with mods done to their cars that ran the same as, or worse than the average stocker. I don’t get out to the track so much anymore, but I’d guess it's probably the same deal nowadays too.

 

[alittlev6]

I'm the original owner of an 87 GN, the original owner of an 89 LX 5.0, have owned 4 TRs and 3 Mustangs and I can assure you that 5.7L Camaros, Corvettes, Firebirds and 5.0L Mustangs were all good matches for TRs in the day, stock for stock...

strike

5.7 camaro? you go to be kidding right? corvette ,yes, because i bought my first 87 GN back in 88,and i would EAT iroc camaros all day,and i can assure you it would eat my back then stock mustang in 93. i ran 14.90 in 94 on my 5.0 in baytown texas, and my stock 87 ran 13.27@113 you do the math? . My 5.0L were a god match for a iroc camaro 5.7 but defetnetly not a match race for a vette back then,better yet a GN. A 5 speed 5.0lL would have more top end in roll race,but defetnetly not on a dead stop agaisnt a turbo regal (stock for stock). strike 2

 

[turbojimmy]

5.7 camaro? you go to be kidding right? corvette ,yes, because i bought my first 87 GN back in 88,and i would EAT iroc camaros all day,and i can assure you it would eat my back then stock mustang in 93. i ran 14.90 in 94 on my 5.0 in baytown texas, and my stock 87 ran 13.27@113 you do the math? . My 5.0L were a god match for a iroc camaro 5.7 but defetnetly not a match race for a vette back then,better yet a GN. A 5 speed 5.0lL would have more top end in roll race,but defetnetly not on a dead stop agaisnt a turbo regal (stock for stock). strike 2

What the? 113 MPH? In a stock 1987 what? Delorean with a flux capacitor? Put the crack pipe down son. No 1987 anything ran 113 MPH stock. I'm sorry but it just isn't possible. Strike is correct - the F-bodies, Fox bodies and GNs were all pretty close in performance in stock form. The Vettes weren't much faster either.

Jim

 

[UNGN]

The '88-90 Iroc's weren't as quick as the '91-92 Z-28's.

We all thought the Irocs were an easy kill, until guys started showing up at the track with '91's and a few were cracking 13's stock.

They had such a reputation for being a slug and everyone by then was buying 5.0's, but the '91-92 Z's were surprisingly quick.

If I had the choice of a '91 Z or a '93 GT, racing for pinks, stock, my money would be on the Z.

 

[UNGN]

What the? 113 MPH? In a stock 1987 what? Delorean with a flux capacitor? Put the crack pipe down son. No 1987 anything ran 113 MPH stock.

Sure. The Callaway twin turbo corvette.

other than that, nothing.