Explain this?

I'll rattle off a few thoughts.

The cams changed over the course of time for the 5.0's. The weight of the accessories does make a difference. About 200lbs worth of options will reduce 1/4 mile time ~.2 seconds, although this would be less significant in 0-60 times. Your 88 was a speed density car which, in stock form is better than a mass air car (88 California and all 89 and up 5.0's). Mass air cars are more forgiving for engine mods, but the meter is a restriction in the intake tract. Your 88 may have been one of those cars where the tolerences from the factory in the engine all happened to be "right" to the point that it made more power. Your 93 may have been the opposite and had specs on the high and low ends.

3.27's are a waste of time if you're changing gears in an AOD car, IMO. I wouldn't have went any higher than 3.73's otherwise it's a waste of time and money.

How did you go about measuring your 0-60 times? Was it a stopwatch and the speedo? If so, it is pretty easy to be off on when you hit start/stop. Also, the accuracy of the factory speedometer comes into play also. Without a third wheel or some other time of accurate measuring device, how accurate are you?

The only true way to measure is to get on an 1/8th or 1/4 mile drag strip and see what it does that way. Anything else would be questionably reliable.

Steve

99 Ranger 4x4

Much of it. And the fact that the '87 and '88 speed-density cars were faster.

Question: How/where did you measure the 0-60 times? Altitude, surface traction and weather conditions can play a BIG factor in 0-60 times.

The best way to compare the two cars is with 1/4 mile trap speeds.

Patrick '93 Cobra

They changed in '89.

So I read the Buick is gone..? Are you into a house now? How have things been going?

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

Well, if you were on IM anymore I could keep you up to date. :)

The Buick has been gone for a few months now. It's somewhere in New Jersey, owned by a guy who is doing a frame-off resto on a 71 Stage 1 car.

We should be into the house by the end of Sep or beginning of October. We'll have plenty of space if you ever make it to this side of the country and want a place to shack up.

It's been a busy time for the last couple of months, since we decided to sell the condo and try to find a house. Everything out here is WAY overpriced. So when we found this place, we had to make an offer on it immediately although we hadn't had any offers on the condo yet. Luckily an offer came in on the condo about a week later. That made things a bit less scary since we got preapproved regardless of the condo selling (when we really needed it to sell).

Are you back on AOL now? I never know where you are.

Steve

99 Ranger 4x4 (I changed my sig once the Buick sold, I'm surprised nobody mentioned it)

I agree. But even people who rode in the car could tell it was significantly slower. Also, it took ages (done on a track) to reach

220kph where it could go no further. The 88 hit 248kph. Based on the way the car revved (they were radically different) my bet for the major difference in speed came down to cam profile.

-Rich

That actually isn't too strange. I remember hearing that the lower geared

5.0's (3.08 vs 2.73) could get up to a higher top speed, which goes against conventional thinking. It had to do with the torque multiplication of the 2.73's not being enough to go faster - I hope I'm explaining that correctly.

Steve

99 Ranger 4x4

Makes perfect sense. Corvettes had the same issue with a rear end option... one set was better for both top end and off the line solely because it put you closer to the peak of the power band as opposed to before it. The engine couldn't overcome the gear ratio and lower RPM range to propel the car any faster, but put in the higher gears, the engine's spinning faster, closer to the peak HP range, and not having quite as much work due to gear multiplication, so it could push the car a bit easier and farther.

JS

I'm sure cam profile could play a part in top speed, but so could the gears as posted a little farther down.

I still seriously belive it to be mostly a weight thing. Look at Buzz Haze here in RAMFM. Stock engine + transmission in a 1987 Mustang LX 5-speed notchback. Serious weight reduction, gears, exhuast, shifter, chassis stiffening, and a few other very small things have put his car into the

12.90's. No supercharger, no turbo, no nitrous, no intakes, cams, throttle bodies, heads, or stroker cranks. There are guys breaking 11.90's in stock long block '96-'98 305hp Cobras with much the same plus a ported stock intake. Without the ported intake they're in the 12.teens. It's all a weight game. Buzz's car weighs less and goes faster than some nitrous/supercharged Mustangs, at least in the straights. It's also not full of the creature comforts. It's all in what you like.

JS

I've ridden in that car... creature comforts aren't it's strong points unless a good power/weight ratio is a creature comfort. Oh yeah... that harness isn't very forgiving either. :) I kept thinking I'd have to lean over and help around slow corners with the turning! I'm amazed Buzz isn't sporting some 20" biceps by now!

Steve

99 Ranger 4x4

I'm not on long enough, or frequent enough, to use IM. I've been on a bit lately because of "homework." But if it wasn't for the homework keeping me on the computer, I'd be busy doing something else. I have lots of home projects that I want to get done.

That's cool. At least a real car guy has it. Are you looking for another car to drop the other 455 into?

Thanks for the offer. I don't have any plans to go up there, but who knows. I never planed on settling in FL either.

Things always seem to work out.

Hell no. Dial-up service here runs at prehistoric speeds. It's not even an option. I've been running cable.

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD