Mustang performance question

Reply

  #1  
Old 12-05-02, 01:12 PM
Mustang95
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Mustang performance question

I have a 1995 Mustang GT(5.0) with 75,000 miles. I want to put on an underdrive pulley kit. It says that it only takes about a half an hour and it just bolts on but i am not sure what to do. Does anything stock have to come off or does it bolt right on and do i need some kind of belt for it? If anyone has done these before and could give me short instructions it would be helpful. Thanks
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 12-05-02, 01:43 PM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: corona Ca.
Posts: 471
ahhh, a mustang question, my favorite. Although i have not installed them myself, I am going to buy some soon, and I have discussed with many people about them. Usually they are simple to install. What kind did you buy? I have read many discussions about different kinds. Some are real good, and some are so bad that under normal driving your alternator doesn't charge.

Try this message board for mustang specific questions, search for underdrive pullies, or post a new question. This board is huge, so you will get many responses from people who have put them on first hand

http://www.corral.net/forums/index.php?
 
  #3  
Old 12-06-02, 03:33 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
You might try to stick with Motorsport accessories from your Ford dealer. They are accessories that are "authorized" by Ford and tend to work better with the vehicle over aftermarket parts.

I'm sure any dealer has a catalog of items they can show you for this car. Mustang performance parts are a' plenty.

Barring that, see your local GM dealer for an F body with a 350 whose tailights you will see quite often. LOL .
 
  #4  
Old 12-06-02, 09:51 AM
fuller911
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Joe_F

Barring that, see your local GM dealer for an F body with a 350 whose tailights you will see quite often. LOL .

Just make sure that you dodge all the parts that rattle and fall off of it as it passes you.
 
  #5  
Old 12-06-02, 10:01 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
That's right. Mostly the horse hair that you scalp with the Pontiac .

He he.
 
  #6  
Old 12-06-02, 10:13 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: corona Ca.
Posts: 471
I better stay away from this one.

On a side note, here is a pic of the first prototype next gen mustang...interesting.

http://www.autoweek.com/search/searc...9901&record=10
 
  #7  
Old 12-06-02, 10:15 AM
fuller911
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Thats quite all right, it will grow back because unlike the Camaro or Transam or Firebird. The Mustang is still being made.

Mustang = Not very fast but reliable, just look around for f-bodies, not very many but alot of mustangs

F-bodies = faster than a stock mustang. Reliable motor but everything else on the car is pure junk. Busy taking up space in the junk yards.

These are from my experiences with the two.

Not trying to start a Ford vs Chevy thing.
 
  #8  
Old 12-06-02, 10:26 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
He he. I know

The Camaro and Firebird may come back as I have heard rumor that it will. You already have the GTO to replace it with the LS1.

Owning three F body cars, (79 and two 1980s, all Pontiac), I can tell you that the Mustangs of that era were a complete embarrassment and nothing short of a joke.

My 307 vin Y Olds 88 has about as much HP as a 1979 302 . 1980 was even worse with the 255 used that year. From 1974 to 1978, the "Mustang" was a Mustang II, which was nothing short of a Pinto with graphics on it. LOL. During this same era, Pontiac made the Super Duty, and kept the 400. My 79 400 has a respectable for the time 220 HP and did zero to sixty in 7.5 seconds, top speed of 125 mph, rear end gearing limited. Not bad for a 3750 lb car .

While Ford made you drive a tin can from 74 to 78, Pontiac turned up the excitement .

About the only thing reliable on the Mustang is the 302, which is shared with other cars. The 4.6 is a collosal oil burning winner and the 5.0 is a better engine, but "crude" in comparison. But at least it ran without losing all the oil. LOL.

Mustangs make a good performance package, but everyone and their brother has one . I also don't care for Ford's quality---it's non existent in a lot of areas.
 
  #9  
Old 12-06-02, 11:12 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: corona Ca.
Posts: 471
Hah, you started the war already.

I agree with Joe that mustangs were junk, until 1985.

Mustangs have really come full circle, and debatably started the second horsepower war beginning in 1985 with their 210 horse stang.

The camaro's demise was due to bad styling (although I LOVE the trans ams look) and really bad build quality. I was really impressed with the performance of the chevy, and was hoping for a next gen camaro. The camaro's are probably the sole reason why mustang had to up their power--step up to par so to speak. It really worries me without a camaro around--mustang could turn into a fwd PROBE. Or-chase vettes as the cobra is doing.

Regardless--I think the mustang over has been a much better buy all around since '85, however, I wait for the day for the camaro's return...It's just not the same opening motor trend without another camaro vs mustang story.
 
  #10  
Old 12-06-02, 12:50 PM
fuller911
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree with Joe, the Mustangs pre 85' were junk and ugly as sin. I also think the '93 was the last good year for the Mustang.

I had an Oldsmabuick Cutlass 82' with a 302 and was a pretty sweet ride.

I just hope that the GTO is rear wheel drive and they don't choke down the hp.

Just to state, I actually prefer a GM over Ford when it comes to new vehicles.
 
  #11  
Old 12-06-02, 12:57 PM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
I think you meant a 305 or a 307 in that Cutlass (depending on option and location) .

Jeremy: No Cobra is in the same league as a Corvette . Different market class. The Vette is a class by itself unparralled by many. However, chasing it at as far as seeing its taillights, yes. LOL.


 
  #12  
Old 12-06-02, 01:21 PM
fuller911
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry it was a 307 in the Oldsmabuick.

The 2003 Cobra's will beat a Vette depending on drivers, a Z06 is a different story.

I'd still rather have the Vette over anything Ford makes.
 
  #13  
Old 12-07-02, 06:32 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, as Redneck of this forum proved, his stock 77 Formula 400 toasted a stock 4.6 GT .

Pretty pathetic that 25 year old (actually older) "smogger" Pontiac can beat all that technology .

The 2003 Cobra won't touch a stock Vette and surely nothing Ford makes in stock form is on the same plane as a Z06 .
 
  #14  
Old 12-09-02, 11:59 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: corona Ca.
Posts: 471
JOE Actually fuller911 is correct. The stock cobra mustang IS faster than a stock vette by one or two tenths. There has been many many write ups on this recently, especially in the mustang boards. There is a lot of proof on this, I even used to have some videos of it.

The z06 is faster, but only by a hair. The mustang cobra is within about 4 tenths or so or less to the z06.

This is page 2 of an old road and track mag article on the car--b4 it was tested.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/...eID=254&page=2

half way down it starts talking about power vs vette. The power output is just shy of the z06 vette. below that it talks about going toe to toe.

If you get a chance, check out the terminator forum on the message board at www.superstallions.com, that is a die hard group of 03 cobra owners.

Seems that good drivers are all/most getting high 12 second quarters with a stock 03 cobra, and have no prob taking a stock vette. With pullie mods,exhaust, etc, many are hitting low 12's (just minor bolt ons)

I love the vette-don't get me wrong, and I do agree that it is in a whole different class than the cobra stang. I would not hesitate to own a vette in a second. However, with the cobra being $10-25k cheaper and achieving the same performance of a vette, it is quickly becoming a popular car. Additionally, 12000 are being made a year, which is a fairly decent run.
 
  #15  
Old 12-10-02, 03:37 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Ya simply don't see the Mustang compared with the Vette in the "supercar" type performance class.

The Vette embarrasses cars costing almost twice as much and becomes a collectable too.

I'm sorry, I don't buy those numbers . Lol.

Mods are a whole different magilla. Let Ligenfelter at the Vette and no Cobra will be within a block of it. LOL.
 
  #16  
Old 12-10-02, 11:18 AM
mako's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wake Forest
Posts: 455
A buddy of mine owns one of the F150 Lightening (supercharged 5.4) and he routinely embarrasses both stangs and GM Fbodies, not to mention the plethora of standard-issue pickups with gaudy flowmasters with some half bald guy wearing a torn greasy flannel shirt smoking a marlboro and a four-wheeler in the back. He will be quick to admit a bit of a 9eni$ envy when it comes to standing with a Vette.
 
  #17  
Old 12-10-02, 03:27 PM
fuller911
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Joe_F, the first step is admitting you have a problem. GM vehicles can be beat.

There has been several magazines and what not comparing Cobras to Vette's with the same outcome.

Lingenfelter has modified the newer Vette's. One uses the regular 5.7 with some mods and gets about 450 HP. The other is bored to like 400 cu inches or something with a twin turbo that puts out almost 800 HP. It runs the quarter in like 9.2 seconds or something insane. I plan to get one once I start my own cartel and am on MTV Cribs.
 
  #18  
Old 12-10-02, 03:54 PM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: corona Ca.
Posts: 471
I didn't want to go there,

but I do agree, as far as the times and capabilities. If you get a chance, do some reading on it, ford has gotton serious about performance, and the mustang is right up in the same category----as far as performance. The time for ford has come to get serious with performance--and it is hard to accept for many. However, when you look at the cars so far: a 390 horse 6 speed mass produced mustang-=with more power promised for the next gen, a 13.1-13.5 second stock pickup truck (lightening), and a super car called the gt40 with an estimated 450-550 horse coming soon, they finally, after 100 years have gotten the clue.

I give them credit for that new thunderbird. While it is not in the corvette class, and not in the mustang class, it has formed its own class, and I have heard nothing negative about quality on that car yet--I read how they really focused on quality for that car, going so far as stopping the production line when issues came up. Just wait, when SVT gets their hands on the tbird, you will see something incredible.

Don't take this as a challenge or defeat, as I know you havn't, but see it as keeping chevy on track. With 12 second mustangs around and a ford and dodge supercar around, you are certain to get chevy answer with something incredible
 
  #19  
Old 12-11-02, 05:33 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, how would you explain Redneck wiping out a GT with his 200 carbed, smogger stock, '77 Formula?

Don't believe everything you read in magazines. I have found plenty of mistakes in there.

Also, I believe the Cobra is an "upgraded" Mustang from a regular GT model, so for all the extra cost, it should be a screamer. In the same way a Z06 will wipe out anything in its class or even beyond it's "class"----it should with an extra premium price.

For each his/her own. No Mustang is in the class of a Vette in any regard . The Mustang lost its chief competitor with the loss of the F body.

A better comparison might be the GTO and the Mustang.
 
  #20  
Old 12-11-02, 07:33 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: corona Ca.
Posts: 471
the stock gt is nothing special. The stock gt is only putting out 260 horses, yet weighs about 3400 lbs. The stock gt is a single overhead cam model.

The cobra is a 100% different beast, the only thing it shares are looks. The tranny in the gt is a 5 speed, the cobra is a 6 speed. The motor is different too, the gt is an single overhead cam, while the cobra gets a dual overhead cam motor with different heads, and intake, exhaust, and a supercharger. Everything else from the brakes to the suspension is different also.

While looking similar, the cobra is an ENTIRELY different beast than the gt, sharing little, except maybe the carpet and doors.

I don't believe the mustang is anywhere near the class of the corvette, it just has the same performance. Most of my time figures are from people I have talked with first hand on many boards. WHile there are always a few bs'rs, the wide consenses agrees with these times,

one interesting thing I thought I would point out, is that ford pulls 390 horses from only a 280 cubic inch engine, and much much more power is left to be found.

Anyway, I thought I would just point out the differences, the cobra is not an upgraded gt, it is an entirely different built machine.
 
  #21  
Old 12-11-02, 09:20 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Different animal .

When the F car was around, I felt the Mustang was always at a disadvantage. It took Ford forever to realize that they needed a 351 in there to compete with the 350 in the F car which they had since 1987 .

In the 80's, GM had two hot cars, the 89 Turbo T/A and the 87 Grand National/GNX. Just now a Mustang is starting to touch those cars.

These were blazing fast in the 1/4 mile .
 
  #22  
Old 12-11-02, 03:08 PM
fuller911
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
<-----------Drooling over GNX.

The only Mustang I'd ever get would be a Cobra. Ford for the longest time has been content with so-so cars which is why I really don't like Ford that much.

GNX is a car that's pretty hard to come by and I don't care for the plasticy interiors of that generation.

What I would like is a Syclone or a Typhoon. AWD and fast as hell.

Just a lil bit of info. I remember reading somewhere that the Mustang wasn't even Fords fastest production vehicle between '89 and '93. Except for the 93' Cobra. It was the Taurus SHO.
 
Reply


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:53 PM.