quote:

---

Originally posted by st5150:
Nice! What brand/model 225 tires are you running? Several people have ran 12's on a stocker 5.O... you just have to get your 60 foots well into the 1.6X range and lighten up your car some. What was your 1/8th mile ET and MPH?

---

The tires are called Goodyear Eagle GPS. The 1/8th mile was 8.73 at 79.38 mph. I'm thinking I might remove the spare tire and stuff like that to help a little bit in the weight department. It weighed in at 3300 on the scale at the track yesterday.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: 5.0Brian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shade-tree:
sounds to me like slicks will get you a 12, go for it! try to minimize the mods, you know, just gears, pullies, exhaust if you can.

I had to get my 60' into the 1.7x range to run 12's in my stock motored 5.0 (except for an explorer intake). 1/8 mile stats for me were 8.2x at 82-83 that got me some 12's.

---

I disagree with shadtree about going 12's with a 102 trap. Only way thats possible is with a full gutted car, slicks, low 1.6 60ft, 50 degree weather, and to shift perfectly. Not saying it can't be done, just next to impossible. I'm runing 13.3@102 with a 1.7 60ft.

hitting 13.3 @ 102 is indicative that either the chassis isn't as effecient as a fox chassis, (perhaps it has lowering springs, slicks without a big sidewall, excessive weight over the front wheels, perhaps it doesn't have enough gear, etc. etc.) or there is improvement left available in the driver.

12.9 @ 108.x shows me that there is easily 0.5 in ET left in that driver!

Jared Rude of the corral is a good example of a completely stock (edit: MOTORED) mustang squeaking a 12.99 @ 102.x with a mid 1.7x 60'.

One of his tricks was racing with a decent clutch and a re-built stock tranny so that he could powershift like a biznatch.

my car hit a 13.11 @ 102 so I know it's feasible. That was in summer, around high 70 temps, didn't even have headers. Just an ordinary high 1.7x 60' and clean powershifts.

I brought it up once (on the corral) that perhaps the SN-95 chassis is less efficient in terms of MPH/vs. ET.

I was summarily rebuttled by the mod motor guys running the same types of ET/vs. MPH (plenty of 12.9x @ 102.x in the mod motor classes too)
So this tells me that the SN-95 is just as capable of 'ideal' launches as a fox.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: shade-tree ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TRY2PAZ:

Look at IMBROKEN- he is trapping 108, and just ran a 12.96 with ET streets.

---

Maybe Brian can get a 12.99 w/ long tubes slicks and gears. He seems to have his driving down. I never broke a 2.0 60ft on street tires. My best is a 2.02

quote:

---

Originally posted by shade-tree:
81mph in the 1/8 and 102 in the 1/4 are about all you need to get a 12 in a mostly stock stang.

my mph was a little high relative to my ET I think because of my clutch/tranny. 1-2 and 2-3 I wasn't able to totally powershift. that costs some ET.

---

I'm not even powershifting though, just shifting quickly. How much ET do you think is in
powershifting? I plan to do shorty headers and an off-road H pipe still, also my gears need to be installed and the traction-lock needs to be rebuilt because the car will only do a one-legger burnout (I only spin the right rear right now it's so worn out). It'll also be nice to not light up that one tire making right corners or when driving in the rain too.

Powershifting... is worth easily 0.2 by itself. The critical one is 1-2. 2-3 is less important, and the run is virtually over by 3-4 (powershift it anyways of course)

I went 1.67s with 4.10s on a 28X10.5X15 on stock motor with cam and long tubes/pullies/exhaust.