00 v6 vs 94-98 gt

G.T. Rags · September 4th, 2008, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Blainestang

Torque definitely matters, but it isn't ALL that matters, like the other guy said.

There are many variables, but HP over the rpm range in which you race tells you significantly more about a car than a torque number does.

Torque means nothing without rpm... which is why the Civic Si is 5 seconds faster than the 2.3L Foxbody despite similar weight and torque.

r u kidding

the civic si has anywhere from 75-100 more whp, depending on body style, then the 2.3 fox. bad comparrison

HMUSN · September 4th, 2008, 03:55 PM

^ some 2.3l's had 120 ish HP.

G.T. Rags · September 4th, 2008, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by HMUSN

^ some 2.3l's had 120 ish HP.

still, it's over 55hp, DOHC vs pushrod... just a bad comparison is all

Blainestang · September 4th, 2008, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by HMUSN

one means nothing without it's partner basically.

Right, knowing just Torque or just RPM means nothing... you have to know both. Hence, HP.

Originally Posted by 96GTRagTop

r u kidding

the civic si has anywhere from 75-100 more whp, depending on body style, then the 2.3 fox. bad comparrison

Um, no... that's EXACTLY my point.

A peak torque number on it's own tells you NOTHING... You have to know the rpms at which they are MAKING that torque, aka HORSEPOWER.

HMUSN · September 4th, 2008, 05:47 PM

the GT is still gonna win

Blainestang · September 4th, 2008, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by HMUSN

the GT is still gonna win

Yeah, if you've got a 220whp 99-04 GT vs. a 220whp 99-04 V6, it should be a driver's race, all else being equal, because of the V6's weight advantage and the GT's powerband advantage. I would put my money on the GT simply because there just aren't that many low-14-second N/A V6's out there to prove that's what such a setup averages, and I've seen (and personally run) low 14's in virtually stock 99-04 GT's.

HMUSN · September 4th, 2008, 06:51 PM

14's... lol I remember those days.

HBK_2007 · September 4th, 2008, 07:33 PM

ya 19s must seem like it forever compared to 14s, lol

WLJohnson05 · September 4th, 2008, 08:22 PM

ok u post whores thas enough

September 4th, 2008, 03:55 PM	#62
HMUSN Doc 1986 SVO 48.47@ 12.58 Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 37,050 iTrader: 11 reviews	^ some 2.3l's had 120 ish HP. __________________

September 4th, 2008, 05:47 PM	#65
HMUSN Doc 1986 SVO 48.47@ 12.58 Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 37,050 iTrader: 11 reviews	the GT is still gonna win __________________

September 4th, 2008, 06:51 PM	#67
HMUSN Doc 1986 SVO 48.47@ 12.58 Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 37,050 iTrader: 11 reviews	14's... lol I remember those days. __________________

September 4th, 2008, 07:33 PM	#68
HBK_2007 Genibus Nitito Canus 2009 Ford Mustang GT Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 2,832 iTrader: 0 reviews	ya 19s must seem like it forever compared to 14s, lol __________________ Red 1996 GT: JLT RAI, Steeda Underdrive pullies, Stewart Waterpump; nothing to brag about Black 2009 45th aniverary edition GT 5 speed: K&N CAI, BBK Twin 62mm Throttle Body, BBK Underdrive Pullies, SLP Loudmouth

September 4th, 2008, 08:22 PM	#69
WLJohnson05 MM's Database Error 2004 Mustang V6 322.8 rwhp Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: VA Posts: 13,285 iTrader: 9 reviews	ok u post whores thas enough __________________ I'm trying to get rid of this stuff, feel free to make me an offer!: SCT Mass Air Flow Sensor $200 Tial Wastegate Springs $40 (10psi and 3.6psi)

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
Ford Mustang Forum Advertisement

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:27 PM.
Contact Us - Modded Mustangs : Ford Mustang Forums - Privacy Statement - Top
Modded Mustangs is ©2005-2008, All Rights Reserved, And is Not Affiliated with Ford Motor Company. Forum is powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Ent. Ltd. & SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.