dereklicon

Well, I finally got prompted to race in my near stock RS after having my 6th third gen for almost a year now. I was never planning on racing the RS until I snuck a different drivetrain in it but screw it right?

Anyway, yesterday after finishing up with a side job, a red 94-98 Mustang GT came up on my rear tailgating on a one way street, going side to side like a little kid. Here I thought, whats this V6 Mustang doing riding my rear for? Obviously, its sometimes hard to distinguish trim levels just by the front end at night.

So I took a right on a main road hoping to shake him off, and here he comes lining up next to me. I was mindng my own business going 40 MPH, after all.. At this point I hear the signature 4.6 L motor gurgle, and I knew it was time. I made eye contact with the kid and I heard him wind up next to me so I slammed it in second and ran up until 4th gear, and the whole time his bumper was at the middle of my door. Neither of us were pulling each other, but I was half a car length ahead.

At the next stoplight we exchanged friendly words and he went on to say hes going to turbo his car, that he just bought the car and that he was surprised I gave him a jump etc. Etc.

Needless to say I am happy and excited to pay off my credit card debt and start dumping some money into this old thing!

Goes to show one of two things, that either the TBI really aint that bad, or the early 4.6 are just that crappy! :P

Mods/Specs: 1992 RS, 3500$ paid for car, Ultimate TBI mods, No vacuum leaks, advanced base timing 6*, 87 octane pump gas, increased fuel pressure, open element air cleaner, 245/50/16 Firehawk Wide Ovals, shorty headers+2.5" collector all the way back with no cat to a borla catback, smog pump delete, stock clutch, stock 5spd, stock open diff , stock 3.08 gears

Fast355

iTrader: (2)

I would say its 3 things.....The Ford was overrated, the TBI is not as bad as one would think, and your mods are working well.

Jeffs82TA

iTrader: (1)

LO-3's can put on quite the show when they are on glare ice or oil slickened road. They are pure HP monsters make sure you have good running shoes on when you race one. Granted one might take you if you try to race it in your dress shoes

Fast355

iTrader: (2)

Stock non PI 4.6/Auto Stang is a mid 16 second car itself.

Jeffs82TA

iTrader: (1)

So I took a right on a main road hoping to shake him off, and here he comes lining up next to me. I was mindng my own business going 40 MPH, after all.. At this point I hear the signature 4.6 L motor gurgle, and I knew it was time. I made eye contact with the kid and I heard him wind up next to me so I slammed it in second and ran up until 4th gear, and the whole time his bumper was at the middle of my door. Neither of us were pulling each other, but I was half a car length ahead.

Guess that makes his a mighty 16 second car too ... Mind boggling performance, unseen since iron duke f-bodies

dereklicon

16 second car lol. Nice try though. If you dont have anything nice to say, dont say it at all

midias

Yea that TBI is at least running low 16s, get it straight.

Fast355

iTrader: (2)

The truth hurts sometimes.....Years ago I ran stock muscle class in my lightly moded quad cab 4.7 Ram. Ran 16.3....Right next to a 96 4.6 Auto GT. Time trialed once against her, then ran her in stock class bracket race. Identical dial and ET, almost identical runs, beat her just barely in R/T. Closest race I have had in my life, side by side the whole 1/4 mile run from start to finish. Literally got her by a fender off the line and stayed there the entire run.

dereklicon

Im going to go on a whim and say its a low 15 second car, maybe pull a 14.9 with the eaton 3.73 combo and 255/50/16s i plan on installing soon. My Formula felt similar and its best time bone stock, worn out 184k TPI on 245/50/16s was a 14.5.

Ill just have to go ahead and do a couple of passes on the track to prove my case. I did notice a huge difference from when I first got the car and after I did complete exhaust and increased timing. Those stock manifolds and smog pump really choked the engine. If I had done the same to my old Formula it would have pulled a lower 14

Jeffs82TA

iTrader: (1)

stock lt1 hard pressed to do that, so I'm raising the flag

Fast355

iTrader: (2)

BS.....I have seen STOCK LT1/Auto cars well into the 13s.....Saw a stock LB9 run a 13.9 too. They mostly dyno 250-270 RWHP with an auto and higher with a manual transmission. My ~296 RWHP 5,300 lbs truck went 13.9s @ 98 mph and ran mid 14s STOCK with a 317 flywheel HP rating.

Fast355

iTrader: (2)

I am sure the exhaust choked it, but not nearly as much as the peanut roller camshaft that sits in the engine advanced 3*. If you use an adjustable timing set and offset kit to retard the camshaft 7* (4* retarded from straight up)and put 1.6:1 roller rockers on it, it can make decent HP in a 305 with good flowing heads, intake, exhaust on it.

transamws6

only girls ride poneys

plum92_camaro

Good run Derek! Derek has more engine mods than me but my LO3/t5 car runs 15.1's with 3.42 posi gears. Don't underestimate the LO3.

I can't believe the early 4.6 only runs in the 16's. The Fox 5.0 ran around 15.0. My buddy bought an 01 GT this winter. we haven't had it to the track yet but its said to run 14.6. Those little 4.6's just don't have a lot of torque.

zraffz

A 94 is still a 5.0. I don't think ford switched to the 4.6 until 97?

DynoDave43

iTrader: (11)

With the new (post-fox) SN95 body style that started in '94, it was still a 5.0 (pushrod 302). Same again in 1995. 215hp. The 4.6L SOHC was introduced in the GT in 1996.

You can tell the 94-95 cars from the later ones (and thus the 5.0 cars from the 4.6L cars) by the tail lamps. The "slots" in the lamp are horizontal on the 94/95 cars, and vertical there after.

The GTs were a complete package...5.0, 4 wheel discs, good rear axle ratios, limited slip, bigger sway bars, stiffer springs, better shocks...all std.

And, as you surmised, the 4.6L was sort of crappy when first introduced. Magazine reviews at that time were not very favorable. The 4.6L gave up a lot of the torque the 5.0L had if I recall correctly, which had made the Fox cars lots of fun at a stop light for a lot of years. Later, there were improvements, a PI (Performance Improved) engine in '99 with better heads/intake/breathing. And of course, there was the 300+ horsepower DOHC 4 valve version.

So yes, if you ran a 215hp 5.0 with an L03, and held your own, you did well indeed. Even if it was a 4.6L, you still did well.

Jeffs82TA

iTrader: (1)

Race some school buses and really wow us

dmccain

iTrader: (2)

I dont doubt it would easily run low 15's being you have headers on it. Headers work miracles on any 3rd gen.And the 373 gears will really wake it up.

92g92

Low 15's? No. Mid 15's? Maybe. Based off of his account of the race with the Mustang, mid to high 15's seem far more likely. Lot of hate on here for this guy's story. I think L03's are an embarrassment to the thirdgen community as much as the next guy, but it's not like he said he was dusting LS1's or bragging.

dmccain

iTrader: (2)

Embarassment? Come on guy. Even an L98 is no rocket unless you go to adding upgrades. If you wana dog someone go to a FORD site and dog them. Hate to break it to ya but even a stock L98 running 14's is really not fast. Unless u got an 89TTA then you really aint got nothing fast in stock trim.

92g92

The difference being, back in the 80's the L98 made the Camaro a pretty darned good performer. Not much could beat it, in its class. The LO3, on the other hand, is what gave our cars such a bad rep and one of the reasons everyone hypes up the Fox bodies instead of our cars. Our cars look fast and performance oriented, for their era, and the LO3 didn't even come close to fulfilling that expectation. Granny engine in a sports/muscle car=not cool

DynoDave43

iTrader: (11)

I take a completely different view of the L03, and the only slightly more powerful LB9...of all of the 3rd gen. powertrains in fact.

One of the GREAT things about our 3rd gens, IMO, is the VARIETY of powertrains GM made available to suit buyers tastes and needs. If you wanted a 4 (early production), an economical but more powerful V6, and LG4 / L03, an L69 or LB9, or an L98, or Turbo 3.8, you had a lot of options. Choice / options is the name of the game, enabling GM to offer essentially the same F-body to a wider variety of buyers. And the V6 and LG4 / L03 cars sold in great numbers, proving that their marketing thinking was right. I'm on my third L03 powered GM vehicle, and that's by choice. No one put a gun to my head. I bought the first one new (L03 / 5 speed). The current car was an ordered vehicle, and the L03 / 700R4 was the original owners powertrain of choice.

With the Ford, you 1 4cyl., 1 6cyl., and 1 8 cyl. By later production, you didn't even have a 6 cyl. option. And, it should be noted, the early 302s with 4 bbl. carb (1982-1984 at 157hp - 175hp), or with with their own throttle body injection (1985 at 180hp), weren't really offering any more horsepower than the LG4 / L03. These cars were all playing within about 10% of each other, making none superior to the other, and certainly not an embarrassment in their day.

To my way of thinking, it's interesting to compare performance of things from one year / era to another, to see how things evolved and changed. But it's not a fair comparison to compare things over time and say that all things from a certain era sucked. That's taking things out of their time, which is not fair in any direct historical comparison. When compared to their peers of that era, each of the GM powertrains more than holds it's own.

dmccain

iTrader: (2)

Im with you on that Dave. I have no problems out of my LO3 and dont feel its an "embarassment". When i was younger i would jerk a 305 out of a car immediately and build 350's upwards of 400hp. I dnt dragrace no more and now i just enjoy a good running V8 w/A.C. It dont "embarass" me

92g92

Putting weak engines in what are supposed to be fast (I use this term relative to era)cars, is crap. Period. I don't think you guys or your cars suck. I think the L03 is just as bad as the smogger 350's they put in late second gen F bodies, engines that gave those cars a bad performance rep. Same as ours.

DynoDave43

iTrader: (11)

I appreciate that. No one is taking any of this personally...I hope. Just a discussion. That's what forums are for.

Well, if you rule out all of the engines of the era, up to and including the L98, you don't have much left! At least it finally gave our cars a 20 horse advantage on the Mustangs 302.

Now, if they were offering 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder Corvettes, I'd pick up a picket sign and join you in protest. This is a car that has always (OK, maybe not in '53 and '54) been the pinnacle of what Chevrolet / GM had to offer, from a performance standpoint. But Camaros started life offering a variety of powertrains, to attract all kinds of buyers, needed to reach the volumes to justify the program, and keep costs / prices low. The 140hp straight six was no barn burner, nor the 307 / powerglide cars. Those you can nap in with your foot to the floor. At least with the low 1st gear, and O/D with lockup, we can have some pretty good drivetrain ratios in the newer stuff.

I know the cars of the 80s were not the fastest ever. No one can argue with that. But every manufacturer was in the same boat. And the very definition of performance had changed radically since 1967. For anything other than straight line acceleration, the performance of our cars is superior. Biased plies Vs. radials, brick Vs. .33cd, loose, slow ratio over boosted steering Vs. firm, fast ratio steering, drums Vs. discs, 2 or 3 speed automatics Vs. 4 speeds with overdrive and lockup, 3 or 4 speed manuals Vs. 5 speeds with overdrive, carbs Vs. efi (at least for the L03, LB9, L98). I wouldn't trade all the advantages of our cars over what came before...not for more horsepower.

But, that's why our hobby is as diverse as it is. Everyone has their own ideas on what is a perfect car, we have the freedom to modify them (mostly) as we see fit, and a robust aftermarket to support our hot rodding desires!

92g92

That's certainly fair enough

Billgluckman

Hmmm..my first thirdgen was a 91 tbi 305 car. I own a 96 gt now and there's no way my camaro would take my stang. I'm not saying my npi 4.6 car is fast, just that my 305 powered camaro was a turd lol

Are you auto or manual? How bout that mustang? Just curious.

Hawk92z-TDZ

If you read it, he said his car is a 5-speed, that means it is a manual He even said his car has a stock Clutch, lol

Billgluckman

Yeah I'm not sure where my head was on that.

dereklicon

lol

Not trying to brag. Some of you guys take yourselves WAAY too seriously.

Working at firestone for 8 years I had plenty of chances to drive fast cars and slow 4.6 stangs too.... even did an alignment on my buddies 430+ HP to the ground all motor, junkyard build 4th gen TA.

So i have an Idea on where the L03 stands. (why do I need to justify myself? lol)

Anyway Im getting a 5.3 when finances allow but ive had this car for 3 years and had NO mech. issues since I bought it. For 3500$ kiss my @^#!

heres a short vid I made of the exhaust. hope you like it.

Ron U.S.M.C.

Sounds great.
The 5.0 lo3 might not be fast but the car can be made quick with the right upgrades. And I'm not talking about engine mods.
Just a few bolt on's and a Corvette servo and 3.42 ratio with Eaton Posi makes my car a blast to drive. I love street tires. They spin a little then hook, bark on the 1st to second shift and chirp them on the 2ed to 3rd and that's an Auto......
They can be fun and that's what its all about for me. You just have to know how to drive it.
Take a 500 hp car and put it in the city. Its just another car with bragging rights that "sucks" major gas.
In that situation whos really driving the car that sucks.....
Here's my little 5.0 =

dereklicon

Wow, thats a nice car... It seems all youre missing is an engine swap and a stall converter! Heh

I was going to ask you.... Which Eaton differential did you get? Me and my buddy put a carbed 5.7 vortec in his 86 iroc and i believe his runs 26 spline axles... His diff is worn and doesnt operate the way it should and i believe he is running the stock gears. So i was wondering which one are you using? Have a part #? Were thinking about 3.73s.

Ron U.S.M.C.

A engine swap to a 350 will happen when the 5.0 quits on me.
Its called "The" Eaton Posi. = http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsS...posi/index.htm


I went from a 2.73 ,26 spline ,open differential to a 28 spline, 3 series Eaton Posi,3.42 ratio and 28 spline axles with L.P.W. Ultimate support cover.
If you want some of the best prices from one of the best shops out there and a man that can walk you through picking the "right" parts then call "Tom's Differentials" and also look at his online site. = http://www.tomsdifferentials.com/
I had bought my parts from the installation shop in order to get the warrantee on all the parts and the labor to replace them if need be.


But the True track seems to be popular with its all gear design. Talk to Tom about it. = http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsS...trac/index.htm


Here's a look at my 10 Bolt Build =


https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/transmissions-drivetrain/526958-10-bolt-upgrade-photos.html

Ron U.S.M.C.

My little rant above concerning my 5.0 and comment about "who's car sucks now" was overboard because I love true-muscle cars.
Could I afford to drive one stop light to stop light and on the freeway if I had one. That would be the question. If money was no option then I would.

dmccain

iTrader: (2)

I have 3.73s and they are ok but if I had my choice in these cars 3.42s are the best choice in my opinion.