Has anyone run their stock (or near stock) 5.0 Fox T-Bird/Cougar at a drag strip? I tried searching and can't find anything matching this. My 1990 Mark VII with nearly 180k miles and only an off road H-Pipe and Thrush welded lers ran 15.5 but thats an H.O. and a much heavier car.
Any ideas or time slips?
Thanks.
15.5? That's pretty good...you're right about all of that. Wow. Any idea what rear end ratio it has?
I have a G-Tech Pro (the FIRST one they ever made in like 1999) and it repeatably gave me 9.4 seconds as a 0-60 for my 1987 20th Anniversary Cougar. Stock 5.0 150 horserpower, car itself, 1/4 tank of gas, me not sitting in it, weighs 3550 lbs.
I think it would be at LEAST a 17 second 1/4 mile, maybe even 18 or 19 depending on options. I think sheetmetal-wise, the Tbirds have a slight weight advantage, and power seat tracks EACH are about 50 lbs. So ranging from an ultra-stripped down four-eye car to a fully loaded 87/88, 5.0/AOD/2.73 rear held constant let's say (that's what I *had* at that run), you could see some significant variation in speediness...
I know Mark VII LSC's could have a 3.27 gear optionally, the LSC anyway with the H.O. would have gotten the 8.8 axle. Not sure if anything higher was available. Next one up would be 3.55 but I feel like that wouldn't be a factory car gearset. Ranger? Maybe.
That's pretty good considering stock Mark VIIs (LSC with a 3.27 rear) run around 16.1-16.2 @ 86mph or so.
I will also note that you people on the east coast must have better tracks or tracks below sea level. Every really good quarter mile track time I see comes from the east coast. Out here guys seem to run about a half second slower.
When I ran my old Mark VII that was at Raceway Park in NJ which is 20 feet above sea-level. Lol
I know the Thunderbird has 2.73's compared to the Mark's 3.27's and even with my top swap the Mark Would have had a nice advantage in horsepower and some torque but there has to be a big weight difference, right? IIRC the Mark was at or around 4k lbs. I'm hoping I can be somewhere in the 16's...
I g-tech'd my car back when it was 100% stock and it was always right around 17.00 in the quarter. That's with 5.0 SO, AOD, and 2.73 gears. I need to try it again now that I have 5.0 HO, T-5, and 3.73's...its still slow but not nearly as slow as it once was.
I was figuring it would be high 16's at the most. I guess I'll find out for sure within the next month or so when I go to the track with it. My old '77 Olds 98 Coupe with a 350 had similar stock power numbers (165hp / 275 tq), a 3 speed auto, similar rear end gears, much more weight and it still put down 17.4 in the quarter. The T-Bird is definitely faster than that car.
I'd hate to think how slow a 5.0 CFI car is haha
My 86 cougat does about 12 seconds to.sixty, no idea on 1/4 mile.
tbird does a bit under 10 to sixty, but it has a t-5 and seems to run better then the cougar.
I would think high 16's@ 82 ish....if it's a sport and has working posi that would help with the 60'
Also a sport will have 3.08 vs 2.73....
I'm impressed with the mark7....that hauling for such a stock setup...
My bone stock 93 SC auto super loaded....i.e. fat.
That ran 15.4@89.
Travis
I would think high 16's@ 82 ish....if it's a sport and has working posi that would help with the 60'
Also a sport will have 3.08 vs 2.73....
I'm impressed with the mark7....that hauling for such a stock setup...
My bone stock 93 SC auto super loaded....i.e. fat.
That ran 15.4@89.
Travis
I originally did just an H.O. swap, with full 2.5" exhaust. I probably could have swung a GT40 setup, but I pretty much learned what that was after the fact. I also learned about rear end gears....and confirmed what my seat-of-the-pants-o-meter thought: it was not the major improvement I had expected. I was 17 and had no practical knowledge of power. My uncle had a '96 Vette about that time. He gave my brother and I each a ride once. He never actually...went FAST with it. Mom would never have approved. If only he were the wild type, I would have known what I needed a lot sooner! :rollin:
That's pretty good. Best stick Thunderbird SC I've seen run was 15.6@90.
The track here is open on py weather days for test and tune. The best day I've had over the past several years was last year when it was 68* with about 70% humidity. The track is 630 feet above sea level. Converting the DA for that day was something like 1400 feet above sea level. When I plug my times into the dragtimes DA calculator my car ends up being .2 seconds and almost 2 mph faster at sea level. Best run that night was 14.12@98+mph with a 2.25 60'. My car spins bad off the line on street tires. Using that calculator it still converted to a 13.9 something at a little over 100mph. I need a cooler day and some drag radials as my 60' sucks. Plus I suck at launching. I've got a full weight (3700+lbs with driver) 13 second car if I could get it to hook.
I wish the track was open on a 45*-50* night :hick:.
It's gotta be faster than my Mark VII LSC. At 3900+lbs with driver it hits 60 in a little under 8 seconds. It seems decently quick until I drove it a couple of hours after driving the Thunderbird. The Thunderbird (spinning like a mofookie off the line) will hit 60 in a timed 5.4 seconds.
Thunderjet....take that bird to the track and get your 13's....it can do it...LOL
Travis
Ha! I had a 78. Did a cam swap with my uncle the weekend I bought the car. Woke that bad girl up big time. Threw a rod in it later on.... Wish I still had it.....
Bruiser ran 14.6 @98 standing 1/4 mile 2.3 5 speeder with just a tune and 20 LBS of wind. On slicks.
Isn't that a v8 car? I have timed my 88's 0-60 to 8.x seconds with a 3.8 and AOD...
I would love to take my cougar to the track but I need a new windshield first...
i think mine did 1/8th mile in 11sec :(
Yes, both v-8's and the tbird is well over 250k and cougar is 197ishk miles i beleive.
the 88's 3.8 isn't a.bad motor for a stock power plant... 140hp puts it a whole 10hp less then the 302, but ill bet it makes more power at higher rpm's which would really help once its moving. my high mile 302's are all done at 4000rpm's.
The 3.8 is a terrible motor. I have changed many head gaskets on them over the years and FEL PRO came out with a superseded head gasket and they were much better but still an issue. In my 50 years in the business i am willing to say the 3.8 is one of the most engines i have replaced for mechanical failures (GAS ENGINES). The 302 according to my mustang DYNE actually produced good high end power over 3000 RPM,s much more HP and Torque compared to the 3.8. And the 302 is by far a very reliable engine no one can argue that fact.The 3.8 falls off quite nicely over 2200-2500 as most V6 engine inherently do. Now inline 6 cylinders accomplish much greater torque and a much better power band than a V. Most stock 302 FORDS i have checked actually pull quite nicely right up to 4600 RPM's with good flat torque and good hp at those numbers.. Have a great day guys.
Knock on wood, but I've seen at least 10 high mile 3.8's and none of them needed any major work. i wouldn't buy a 3.8 car unless i planned on swapping the engine.
the 3cfi 3.8's I've driven had no balls down low compared to a 302, but all seemed to pull harder up top. i also was really suprised at one 88 3.8 i drove causr you could swear it was a 302. Had enough power to chirp the tires and seemed to move out better then any of my stock high miles 302's did. obviously a h.o. swap and it would all be over, but you could make the same arguement with a split port swap on a 3.8.
One thing i hated about my 3.8's, got the same or worse freeway mileage then a 302. City was slightly better.though.
The SEFI 3.8 I had in a 95 Thunderbird didn't want to rev for anything. You would nail the throttle to pass, the tach would rev up, and it would kind of move forward.
i also was really suprised at one 88 3.8 i drove causr you could swear it was a 302. Had enough power to chirp the tires and seemed to move out better then any of my stock high miles 302's did.
Here is my DROP TOP GT churping the WHEELS just like a 3.8???? OK GOT IT!!!. Have a great evening guys.
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c209/tfalconier/100_4088.jpg) (http://s28.photobucket.com/user/tfalconier/media/100_4088.jpg.html)
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c209/tfalconier/100_4089.jpg) (http://s28.photobucket.com/user/tfalconier/media/100_4089.jpg.html)
Not talking stangs tom, stock 150hp 3500lb thunderbird/cougars with 200,000 mile neglected engines.
looks like your stang is missing some of the front and back ;).
My first cat was a 3.8 car with trak-lok and 3.27s. I put 2.25" dual exhaust on it and a larger air cleaner. Ran VERY well for what it was. Would leave 2 solid rubber tracks about 6 foot long if I mashed it from a standstill. No power braking. 87 CFI car.
Not any more that was when it was being restored.
The old iron-head 3.8s were pretty reliable. I had 2 fox marquis and 2 cougars all 1983-1985s, and they all had over 200k miles on them with no major problems. I didn't drive them hard though. It's funny, the 1983 cougar 3.8 with the carb was the only carbed car I ever owned that I can say ran perfect. Started right up in any weather, never hesitated, you'd swear it was fuel injected. The other 3 3.8's were CFI. Again, reliable, but with only a C5, they got about the same mileage as a 5.0.
I don't know where I was going with this post. I think I was just trying to say the older 3.8s don't (in my experience) eat head gaskets like the newer ones, and they can be a reliable commuter engine. You just won't win any races.
Actually all 3.8s had aluminum heads. The CFI head is different from the 88 and up SEFI (well 88 batch fire) head. The 88 and up 3.8s are the ones that are more pr0ne to head gasket failure. If I remember correctly it was due to the gasket fire ring being redesigned. It was too close to a coolant passage.
Are these 3.8's running with a factory tune? No short belts, advanced timing, etc., etc.? It's neat to see what people can squeeze out of stock hardware.
I my experience with the SO vs HO 5.0....is the SO is dead after 3500rpms....I would assume the factory heads and the pencil for a cam are to blame...
Travis
Not really the SO actually makes a flat wide power curve on the DYNO. I have checked a few over the years and they seem strong up to and including torque to about 4200- 4400. The mild cam gives it a flat torquey curve and very consistent as all engines with wimpy cams do. Have a great day guys
Just not my driving experience Tom....The car would rev to 4500rpms just not make any power about 3500rpm...But that was 20 years ago...so maybe I have forgotten...LOL.
Travis
At 3500rpms on my digital dash on my first 86 it would stop pulling on the freeway. to exceed about 110 mph i actually had to let off the gas till it shifted back up to od and not floor it so it wouldnt downshift.
Why in the world would any engine not pull after 3500 RPM'S with a stock cam. It makes absolutely no sense as a stock cam is so mild it has absolutely no problem making good torque in that RPM band . And the band that engineers use is idle to 4500 when designing. reason being you need torque to pass and when downshifting. Passing power is always designed in to an engine and that is as i said is around 4500 rpm's. Anyone that has ever looked at a cam book will know instantly that a mild cam is linier and strong all the way up to 4500-5000 RPM'S. Stock cams fall in to those categories. Have a great day guys