Lost To A Mustang GT!?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

This is a discussion on Lost To A Mustang GT!? within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; So I'm out cruisin' after just getting done installing my Greddy catback, I catch up with a guy I met ...

  1. #1
    Registered User supercharged73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Buffalo NY
    Posts
    21

    Unhappy Lost To A Mustang GT!?

    So I'm out cruisin' after just getting done installing my Greddy catback,
    I catch up with a guy I met a few months back with his Dakota R/T. He's runnin' around the local ice cream shop with, what must be his buddy, a 2001 droptop GT. Sounds nice. I'm thinking just another punk with a set of flowmasters thinking he's fast. I catch up to him and he gives me "THE LOOK". I mash it,..........so did he....... HE KICKED THE BEJESUS OUT OF ME! SO we catch the next light. (I'm not one of these idiots that has too much pride to not speak after losing.) I said" Alright, I turned a few wrenches on mustangs before, what did you do to yours?" Can you say VORTEC? How about VENOM? 10 PSI and a 100 shot of laughing gas, "just to cool it down" as he said.

    Looks like I'll be looking at that stage4 Turbo XS kit a little sooner than I had planned.

    No, I haven't run the Dakota yet, I know he isn't stock either.
    Midnight Black sedan
    - STI short throw
    - Mille Miglia 17x7 with 225R45 Sumitomo's
    - H+R springs
    - APR single plain aluminum wing
    - STI front and rear lip
    - Greddy EVO catback
    - Greddy Airynx
    - HKS SSBOV
    - Jun eyelids

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Registered User Master Of Pain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    460
    Don't fear the Dakota R/T. They have huge engines (390CI or 5.9L) shoved in a little truck frame, but they breathe badly and require severe modding to improve output. 16.5's 1/4 mi stock. We had a guy named Ultimate Surfa (we called him the Ultimate Looza ) and another guy named Purple Haze whom visited the F-150 online Lightning fourms with frequency. Both of them poured close to $10K into their trucks just to get them into them into the mid-low 13's. Some claimed very high 12's.

    Superchargers only add 25-30 HP (told you those Dodge engines can't flow worth a crap) so unless the R/T guy has deep pockets and a 150 shot of N20 don't fear him.

    Mustangs are a diffrent story... Easy to shove a 5.4 kit in and look BONE STOCK (the 4.6 and 5.4 are MOD motors, both share alot of identical components) and they flow well... Some low compression pistons + Manley I-beam rods and you have an engine that you can blow up to 16 PSI safely... Don't judge a 'stang until you see it with the foot shoved in....

    Have fun!

  4. #3
    Registered User supercharged73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Buffalo NY
    Posts
    21
    Yes I'm familiar with stangs. Had an 83 GT, 86 GT, 90 ex state highway patrol.
    Midnight Black sedan
    - STI short throw
    - Mille Miglia 17x7 with 225R45 Sumitomo's
    - H+R springs
    - APR single plain aluminum wing
    - STI front and rear lip
    - Greddy EVO catback
    - Greddy Airynx
    - HKS SSBOV
    - Jun eyelids

  5. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    17

    Dakota R/T's are not that slow

    I had a Dakota R/T And with minor bolt-on (intake,tb,headers, and mopar computer) I was turning 14.6's with a club cab in South Florida in July. They can be quick, but the best 60' time I got was 2.2 with nitto drag radials. No match for the WRX.

  6. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    25
    I had a 99 Dakota R/T Club Cab and had nothing on it but a K&N and i ran consitent 14.8-15.2's. 0-60 was anywhere from a best of 6.4 to 7.5 seconds. Powerdyne makes a supercharger that adds about 90 hp to a stock 5.9L. Most guys with that were running around 14 second 1/4. The problem with the R/T is traction. With the supercharger, unless you have drag radials, you have to feather the gas on launch. I wouldn't be worried about any R/T I come across. If he could take a WRX, he's definitely spent the money to earn the win. Plus, the R/T is only available in an automatic. I hated that stupid thing.

  7. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    128
    Originally posted by supercharged73
    90 ex state highway patrol.
    Hey, anything done spiffy on the patrol car?

    I always heard different springs, shocks, better tires, what about the engine?
    03 WR Blue WRX
    Factory Short Shifter
    Stock

  8. #7
    Registered User PlatinumWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    6,581
    Sounds like a good loss to me! That thing must've had MAD HP!!!!

    -Jim

  9. #8
    Registered User Master Of Pain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    460
    Dakota R/T's are SLOW to have such a large engine... Almost 6 liters... and like only 245 HP. Damn. The torque is sweet at 345, that tells me that there is alot of engine weight in the crank - and the flow is ported for a flat, however high torque curve.

  10. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    314
    who figured that trucks are suppose to high torque to tow stuff around? lol. They are not suppose to have high hp.
    A GT with vortec and 100 shot nitrous? That is a beast.

  11. #10
    Registered User Master Of Pain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    460
    Originally posted by jk147
    who figured that trucks are suppose to high torque to tow stuff around? lol. They are not suppose to have high hp.
    A GT with vortec and 100 shot nitrous? That is a beast.
    Heh, Idealy i would have a 500cc engine that put out 1,000HP and had 2,000 TQ at 1,000 rpm, but that would break a few scientific laws...

  12. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by Master Of Pain
    Dakota R/T's are SLOW to have such a large engine... Almost 6 liters... and like only 245 HP. Damn. The torque is sweet at 345, that tells me that there is alot of engine weight in the crank - and the flow is ported for a flat, however high torque curve.
    You shouldn't look at HP. Torque is what is important and that is why the Dakota crushes a lot of its competition. Well, not the WRX of course! And its okay because if the Dakota ever does beat the WRX (by some weird fluke of nature), then you could always beat it off road!
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  13. #12
    Registered User supercharged73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Buffalo NY
    Posts
    21
    Hey, anything done spiffy on the patrol car?
    The patrol cars up this way came with a 3:08 ring and pinion instead of the stock 2:73. The speedo went to 160 instead of 140. The tranny came with a 3.25 1st gear instead of the stock 2.95. Thats pretty much it. Those suttle differences though made that car launch hard. I added power pulleys, CAI, larger MAF, you know the typical bolt ons. Twas a good car, 'til a drunk smashed her up

    A GT with vortec and 100 shot nitrous? That is a beast.
    Yes it was. I'm not ashamed to admit I lost to that. The funny thing is, he was asking for my advice because he heard my SSQBOV and he said it feals like his car lags when shifting. He said he was adding an Apexi BOV to his intake pipe post supercharger. Since this is the first I've played with a turbo car I couldn't offer much help other than explaining what the BOV does.
    Midnight Black sedan
    - STI short throw
    - Mille Miglia 17x7 with 225R45 Sumitomo's
    - H+R springs
    - APR single plain aluminum wing
    - STI front and rear lip
    - Greddy EVO catback
    - Greddy Airynx
    - HKS SSBOV
    - Jun eyelids

  14. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    That's probably why you lost. The BOV is known to actually reduce the 1/4 ET of a WRX to about 13.1. Take that out and you will crush that Mustang, trust me!
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  15. #14
    Registered User EIonJess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    269
    Originally posted by RSXSucks
    That's probably why you lost. The BOV is known to actually reduce the 1/4 ET of a WRX to about 13.1. Take that out and you will crush that Mustang, trust me!
    I have read this in a few posts. Why would a BOV reduce 1/4 mile time? I have also heard that a BOV reduces gas mileage. What gives I thought that keeping the turbo spooled was the key.

  16. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by EIonJess


    I have read this in a few posts. Why would a BOV reduce 1/4 mile time? I have also heard that a BOV reduces gas mileage. What gives I thought that keeping the turbo spooled was the key.
    The WRX already has a great BOV but it is silent because it doesn't vent into the atmosphere. It does much better than that by venting into the Turbo intake, thus helping to keep the turbo spooled through the shift. Atmospheric BOV are nice for rice boys who want everyone to hear the PSSSHT as they are kicking Honda Civics around, but the real men prefer to crush Z28s and Corvettes and for that, atmospheric BOVs just won't do.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •