[Snake Pliskin]

Originally Posted by redwalsh87

If you really want to confirm your speed bring along a gps. It can give you your speed anywhere on the Earth and its very accurate. My gps also has a top speed recording so you can just drive and you don't have to look at the readout.

Can't retro GPS. The car is long gone and my testicles have shrunk since then. Also don't have a flux capacitor for time travel. The Terminator will get there easy but work will fire anyone getting a ticket of that magnitude even in their personal vehicle. Agreed it was a new car and it took a long time. Not sure if there was a downgrade or not. Just remember reading the specs back in the day religiously. LX's were good for just under 140 and GT's could just pass it barely. Of course I had to test that.

[RLG34750]

Originally Posted by Snake Pliskin

LX's were good for just under 140 and GT's could just pass it barely. Of course I had to test that.

I tried to resist.....

If a LX can't make into 140 .....

How can the heavier shaped more like a brick GT do it......

Please produce the articles to document these "performance claims"

[Snake Pliskin]

Originally Posted by RLG34750

I tried to resist.....

If a LX can't make into 140 .....

How can the heavier shaped more like a brick GT do it......

Please produce the articles to document these "performance claims"

i can't resist either. The "aero package" on the GT is there for a reason. Jeez..here we go again.

[RLG34750]

Originally Posted by Snake Pliskin

i can't resist either. The "aero package" on the GT is there for a reason. Jeez..here we go again.

the aero package on the GT is virtualy useless.....

the reason for the package is stricly decoration and not to mention the additional weight associated with it.....

Here we go again .....I don't think so

You were asked to produce documentation to support your claims....

I have yet to see it until that time i will stand on the position that a stock GT generally has about as much chance of doing a 140mph as snow ball does surviving in a blast furnace.....

[steelers1377]

wait i second...

this is my first time reading this thread...

and wow, i cant believe some of the mis-information on this thread!

reg, you are correct....a stock 20 year old gt isnt going past 140

and did someone really try to say a gt is faster then a lx....


just a word to everyone who argued against reg,

keep your mouth shut unless you have facts to back up what you say


im done with this thread... i suggest someone lock it...

[Snake Pliskin]

Originally Posted by steelers1377

wait i second...

this is my first time reading this thread...

and wow, i cant believe some of the mis-information on this thread!

reg, you are correct....a stock 20 year old gt isnt going past 140

and did someone really try to say a gt is faster then a lx....


just a word to everyone who argued against reg,

keep your mouth shut unless you have facts to back up what you say


im done with this thread... i suggest someone lock it...

I have always referenced my car back in 1990. The Lx was quicker, not faster on top end (the key word you used was virtually...a few miles a hour more is reality). Reg already supported my position in an earlier post. Googling 5.0 mustang top speed has yielded others. I have also mentioned a quote by Eagle Autosports (another moderator) which supports my position. Next you will tell me my Cobra can't go 160?

[Snake Pliskin]

One Snake Serving up large rookery of crow. "This new aero-look" helped decrease the mustangs CD to about 0.39 and increased top speed to about 145". 1987 to 1989 Mustang
Auto.howstuffworks.com/1987-1988-1989-1990-1991-1992-1993-Ford mustang3htm
WWW.ssip.net/manufacturers/ford/...mustang-gt-87
WWW.thirdgen.org/rt october1986 mustang vs. camaro irocz
musclecar facts.net/1988 ( this references a pig heavy vert going 138). Want more... You can google 5.0 mustang top speed, 1987 mustang top speed, 1988 mustang top speed, blah blah blah as easy as I can.

[Snake Pliskin]

Sorry that first quote came from www.mustang registry.org/lx_87_89.htm

[90 stock stang]

You can also reference the Ford 5.0 technical reference and performance handbook by Al Kirshenbaum which has at least five different magazine stats at the end of each chapter for all years of the fox from 79-93 including quarter mile and 0-60.

[90 stock stang]

I always liked the look of the 83-87 Monte Carlo SS. GM also got there money worth from the alumminum wheels they offered on the 85-87 models. I think they are the same alumminum wheel that they offered as an option on the 80-81 camaro z-28 just with a different center cap but I still think they look good on both cars.

[RLG34750]

Originally Posted by Snake Pliskin

I have always referenced my car back in 1990. The Lx was quicker, not faster on top end (the key word you used was virtually...a few miles a hour more is reality). Reg already supported my position in an earlier post. Googling 5.0 mustang top speed has yielded others. I have also mentioned a quote by Eagle Autosports (another moderator) which supports my position. Next you will tell me my Cobra can't go 160?

Originally Posted by Snake Pliskin

One Snake Serving up large rookery of crow. "This new aero-look" helped decrease the mustangs CD to about 0.39 and increased top speed to about 145". 1987 to 1989 Mustang
Auto.howstuffworks.com/1987-1988-1989-1990-1991-1992-1993-Ford mustang3htm
WWW.ssip.net/manufacturers/ford/...mustang-gt-87
WWW.thirdgen.org/rt october1986 mustang vs. camaro irocz
musclecar facts.net/1988 ( this references a pig heavy vert going 138). Want more... You can google 5.0 mustang top speed, 1987 mustang top speed, 1988 mustang top speed, blah blah blah as easy as I can.

Originally Posted by Snake Pliskin

Sorry that first quote came from www.mustang registry.org/lx_87_89.htm

What you have provided is manufactures propaganda....

With the exception of the motor trend article with i referenced

which most likely had FoMoCo as a major advertiser.....

the plot begins to thicken......

There is no real documentation other than what ford provide to back up the claims.....

This really is

[ratspider2000]

I bought my car, about a year and a half ago. When I bought it the body had about 70k miles on it and the engine and trans had about 6k. it was stock, and first day I had it i took it out by my dads in the country there is a very long stretch of road by his house and thats where i did 140.

[RLG34750]

Originally Posted by ratspider2000

When i do over 125 in my car their is only one way im going, straight. as in i cannot turn the car.

Originally Posted by ratspider2000

I bought my car, about a year and a half ago. When I bought it the body had about 70k miles on it and the engine and trans had about 6k. it was stock, and first day I had it i took it out by my dads in the country there is a very long stretch of road by his house and thats where i did 140.

So it doesn't handle at 125 so you pushed it to 140......


Sure it will do 140......





I was born at night but it wasn't last night......

[ratspider2000]

Yea handling is sketchy at 125, I can turn the car but im not going to be making any turns. thats all i meant by that.

[RLG34750]

Originally Posted by ratspider2000

Yea handling is sketchy at 125, I can turn the car but im not going to be making any turns. thats all i meant by that.

Ok that works for me.......

I really do admire conviction.......