This video was made last summer when I went to my first Midnight Mayhem at the Las Vegas Drag Strip A few disclaimers though: the summer temps don't make for great drag racing, and these runs are before a lot of my mods. Plus I didn't understand the effect of "hotlapping" in my final times/speed

But nonetheless, it still made for an awesome movie!! And it's the one that has me spanking a Cobra (by .001)

Enjoy: My first drag movie

Thanks for the hosting Force!!

Who was in that Red Z ? And what happend the second run he ran the yellow viper? How in the hell did you run 15.XX? I saw the NHRA dragsters in Dallas last year it was really cool

I have no idea

I was wondering the same? Must've missed a shift I guess cause his time was a full second off

Shit happens Plus, I probably lined up with the coolant at 220-230. Plus the track temp hoovering around 100* doesn't help much either. It really kills your top end when the air and block get hot :arrowheadsmiley: :arrowheadsmiley: Also, you didn't say anything about running 14.8-14.9, but once I hit 15.02, it's the worst thing ever...I still killed that honduh

I'm gonna hit the drag again next weekend. And now my coolant temps never see much above 180 We'll get those vids later...

Nice Vidy. I really enjoyed it.


Thanks

Very cool...

Cost of buying drag slicks- $400

Cost of track ticket to race $15

cost of gas before the races $20

Beating a civic by a bus length and only running a 15.02 in a corvette -priceless

:lmaosmiley:

JSA 007,

Nice runs and good kill on the honduh even if wasn't your best run.

Stingray,
The temps. of the track, and the air effect your car a ton. If you hot lap your car the engine doesn't have time to cool off. If you go to the track you will see people putting ice bags on the intakes and the engine.The only thing you want hot on your car are the tires and if avaliable a woman.

Keep the vids comin.

That just what I'm gonna do this friday. Gonna bring bags of ice and freezer packs Also, I'm gonna bring an air compressor so I can drop the rear tire pressure. I didn't have one with me last time and I had to leave the pressures up high so I could drive back home....



I plan too! But they're gonna have to run smaller than this one I'll just have to make many small ones

Oh, and Gearbanger, I don't have drag slicks I really wish I did though...that "mod" is gonna have to wait a while because I need new street tire rims first Secondly, it only cost $10 at the midnight drags And finally, I was racing a CRX in that vid, not a civic :aarambo:

a CRX is a Civic

No, not really. The CRX was based off a shortend civic but it was its own seperate model. It not called the Honda Civic CRX, it's just Honda CRX. CRX was lighter, and smaller than the civic and that's why a bunch a people made that model into their racers. It was as close to a honda race car you could get at the time

But they don't make that model anymore. They still sell the civic in a bunch of various forms, but there's no CRX...the racing honda is now the s2000 :arrowheadsmiley:

I thought those years of vettes were 13 second cars.

Again, you mustang guys are trying to compare the times in the vid with times from a magazine Also, I don't think the 85 was a 13 second car anyway I've seen magazines test 85s with 0-60 in the 6.0-6.2 range but didn't see what their quarter was. Probably 14.3-14.5??? On my G-tech, I ran 0-60 in 5.5 and the quarter in 14.2@98

Later C4s got tested by the magazines to run 0-60 5.3-5.5 and run 13.5 or so...

We'll see what I run at the track this weekend

Hmm thats pretty bad considering the 1987 5.0 mustang was rated at high 13's from the factory.

I said 85 Although 87 is close...

Anyway, that night at the track there was this cool guy with an 88 GT. Pretty cool and he had NOS I made him show me where he hooked it up to the intake. Plus he had CAI and MSD... But he said he could only run 15s I asked him to lined up against me, but he never worked it out...oh well

Only 15's? Are you guys racing on the beach or something? Plus I believe the 87 and 88 are different anyway, but still they arent that different. Either that guy can't drive and or the track prep sucks. I am just not gonna believe that the location of the track is gonna affect the cars that much.

Hey, I got an 85 GT will smoke that shit. The 86 and up were proven as fast as what you ran. But the almighty Vette can't be beat.

I did my own mustang research: http://www.mustanggt.org/magtest.htm

85 hatch- 14.9@91 (exactly what I was running in BAD air )
86 hatch- 14.7@92
87 hatch- 14.4@96 --Manufacturer's estimated data



The 85 vette was actually magazine tested at 14.2

It's not quite location. We're only at 2200ft elevation...I'm telling you (and other guys said too) is the HEAT. If you look at the date, we were running in the HOT HOT summer. You may not believe it affects you that much, but I was there!

The NOS'd 88 stang 5.0 GT ran 15s!!
The SUPERCHARGED cobra I ran, was running 14.6-14.9!!
The SUPERCHARGED viper was only running 12.5!!!!!

Believe it or not.....

K then what did the Z06 have done to it. Notice your 87 hatch was rated at 14.2 but I have seen 13.8. I guess that would vary with driver. If my car only ran a 15 and it was on the nitrous I wouldn't race anymore

Well, that is a very good question But I said before I didn't meet the Z driver, nor did I see under his hood. But, the yellow viper driver had his hood open and a large crowd around it. It had a center hood scoop for the intercooler and the air inake had triple K&N filters The whole engine bay just looked badass!! Now I really wish I had seen what the Z had

:arrowheadsmiley:

Were you reading out of the ford mag again?

Those mid to late 80's vettes were about 230-240hp and 33-340 tq. Im not the ford expert, but wasn't it around 89(92 maybe?) when the 5.0 finally got to 225hp? 235 for the cobra in 93 i do remember.

Your right your not the ford expert 87 was the first year the 5.0 had good EFI I believe which is why that year was good.

What are you trippin' on?? If you look at the mustang magazine data, they tested a LOT of 87 5.0 GTs and the best run was 14.4 (not 14.2...) and that was ford's ESTIMATE. The actual magazine testers, who always have awesome drivers and good conditions, couldn't get that

1987 Hatchback
Road & Track, Oct. '86
6.7
15.3 @ 93.0 mph
168 ft.
0.80 g

1987 Hatchback "$-Manufacturer's estimated data shown in the article - no testing done."
Automobile, April '87
6.1
14.4 @ 96.0 mph
N/A
N/A

1987 Hatchback
Hot Rod, May '87
6.3
14.6 @ 96.0 mph
N/A
0.83 g

1987 Hatchback
Motor Trend Road Tests, 1987
6.2
14.99 @ 93.9 mph
144 ft.
0.84 g

1987 Hatchback
Road & Track Perf. Cars, 1988
6.2
14.8 @ 94.3 mph

And I have a 1985 Corvette, not 86 or 87 when they got much better aluminium heads and more compression ...I've got the IRON heads and only 230hp...

So let's see what the 85 'stang did for a better comparison

1985 Hatchback
Motor Trend, Oct. '84
7.08
15.51 @ 89.7 mph
164 ft.
0.84 g

1985 Hatchback
Road & Track, Dec. '84
7.2
15.9 @ 91.0 mph
151 ft.
0.792 g

1985 Hatchback
Car & Driver, Jan. '85
6.4
14.9 @ 91 mph

That's quite the spread in times On a bad day, it was almost running 16s...but on a good day it could do what I do on a bad day except, I'd still kill it off the line...0-60 in well over 6s (and sometimes 7s) :lmaosmiley:

:lmaosmiley:

Well... damn JSA.. i think that arguments over.

Haha. You are right. I just reread my magazine and it said with a set of gears EX. 3.73's and some good tires (drag radials) high 13's were common place. I wasn't tripping just stating that the mustangs performance was better for that year price wise. I also find it hard to believe they ran 15's. Kinda kills me that the performance of these cars fell off that much from the 60's and early 70's versions of these cars. Mid 70's to early 90's really sucked for our american muscle cars

Oh, but it still can't beat a comparable Vette With 3.73s and drag radials an 87 vette would be in the mid 13s and still beat the shit out of the mustang off the line


Well start believing it! And these are when the cars were getting better too. They were running 16s pretty constatly. Vettes too!



Well switch from 100+ octane leaded gas to 91 octane unleaded and you bet you'll see a drop in performance Also add in all the smog crap that became mandatory around then, and you've got one hell of a choked motor All the smog equipment back in those days was controlled in the grossest sense and kills a lot more power than smog stuff today that's controlled very carefully by computers...

I wonder what it was like to live back in the 60's and see all those muscle cars rumbling around and racing and those badass duce coupes

Wow gearbanger, you don't know your Fords either. 1986 was the first year of fuel injection on the Mustang. And ratede at 200 hp/ 285 tq. The 87 was rated at 225 hp/ 300 tq. But in 93 the numbers dropped to 205 hp/ 275tq.

OMG I knew 1986 was the first year. Notice I said "good" they made improve ments for 1987 You always misunderstand my threads

Yeah, that would be the shit! We'd probably be amazed just looking at supermarket parking lot A lot of those cars may not have been much back then, but to us, they all kick ass!

Yeah, but the increase was due to the heads, not really the fuel injection.

damn saleen...that... sig pic... :bigeyedsmiley:

The fuel injection was still improved though . Heads on all the ford small blocks except the 351 cleveland sucked.

do the TB Bypass add a 160 t-stat and ice down your plenum between runs. from 160+ i run 2 tenths slower staging than when i stage at 140 or cooler. prime temp for me is 125-130 when staged :cigar:

Since this vid I added a 160 stat and cooled the coolant down a TON I've contemplated the TB bypass and the descreening the MAF, but my old man talk me out of it. First off, the coolant doesn't pass directly through the TB, but much further below it. It also is used to heat up this sensor to help emmisions at idle...Also, there have been many stories about people messing with the MAF and having their cars run bad Plus, if I just used some cutters to clip out the screen (which is real small for any cutters I have), then I'd have a jagged metal MAF .

So I just did the 160 stat (plus fans) and cut-lid for now

All you need is a screw driver and you can pluck out the screen in one solid piece without trying to cut it out. Then get a hack saw and cut the heat sinks out.