820bhp Supra wheel spin problem on launch.

[I6-4-eva]

I hate the wheel spin in the GT series either the tires get too much traction or you lose complete traction. This makes tuning certain cars a biotch because the physics are weird.

Try the MKIII Supras they have better grip.

 

[Drifting Thunda]

Getting the Supra to get traction is very tough, and the turbo spool makes throttle control harder and more dynamic. BUT I still run the beast fully-modded it's most certainly NOT impossible.

It won't hurt you to put a ballast all the way in the back, that's the biggest step to fixing the Supra. How heavy, I like to run anywhere between 23-45 kilos usually but in this case maybe even more. If the Supra will be used in 2p battle tune it on sports softs and with no TCS. NO TCS. That's right I said no TCS. Anyways, onto suspension...

This is the hard part because you have to compromise drag-spec with autox-spec, without making it handle like total crap. I would make the front springs softer than you would normally like, and the rear a bit harder than normal. Unfortunately you have to watch the rear rate and not go too hard or it will oversteer far too much, another natural characteristic of the Supra. I wouldn't do anything special for the front shocks, just whatever your preference decides, but the rear shocks actually need a higher bound rating to contradict what someone said earlier. Keep the rear rebound at a mild level. The front stabilizer should be stiff enough to help promote UNDERsteer, while the rear you will need to find what you like, because a stiffer one will help straight line traction but it will also promote too much oversteer if you set it too high. Keep the front camber between 2.8-3.2 so your turn response is good but not too fast, and the rear I have at around 1.6 to keep a decent contact patch on the pavement. Maybe some slight toe in at the rear will help negate oversteer.

With the transmission someone mentioned wider early gears, that's what I did and it helped a bit. My 1st and 2nd are wide as can be, and my 5th and 6th as short as possible, 3rd and 4th are between. I forgot what my rear gear was.

The Supra might benefit from a rollcage if it still oversteers too bad. Use a 1-way limited slip. Maybe take the carbon driveshaft and racing flywheel off to ADD drivetrain loss in torque, which would help traction without sacrificing high end power.

Still though the best thing you can do is throw a weight in the back. If you still can't master the beast than use a turbo with a lot of turbo lag (stage 3 or 4). I understand wanting the high peak horsepower because the Supras will outrun anything in it's class from a roll, so I won't tell you to drop hundreds of horses off.

 

[Drifting Thunda]

I hate the wheel spin in the GT series either the tires get too much traction or you lose complete traction. This makes tuning certain cars a biotch because the physics are weird.

This wheelspin problem only really happens on turbo cars, because you'll be at half throttle and be fine thanks to turbo lag, but then the turbo spools some and the tires will light up. Just the way the cookie crumples.

Shouldn't this be in tuning and settings sub-forum?

 

[ving]

lol, drop your power dood! you have way too much!

 

[para22]

Short shift.

Short shifting is where you shift up to the next gear before redline rpm. There will be a particular rpm in each of the lower gears where the torque exceeds traction. Use that as your 'redline' for that gear instead.

It's a common method of handling this problem in real race cars. Especially because it also saves gas and wear.


(Incidentally, I find it amusing when people say a car is ruined in GT4 because it's realistic enough that they don't have the skill to drive it. A lot of the fastest cars out there are _very_ hard to drive. The Supra is a very fast car if you can handle it)

- Skant

That is not exactly true, and it is especially not true in real life cars, especially in real life race cars! High revs help traction! And in a true race car that has an engine built especially for racing, flooring it in the lower rpm ranges would result in an extensive damage and expensive repairs. With higher revs it's harder to lose traction than in low rpm. That is why it is easier to lose traction with a viper or a corvette than with a ferrari F360 or honda NSX or something with a high rev engine.High torque in low rpm range is not very useful and causes nothing but wheelspin. What is unrealistic in GT is that to build a 800+ hp supra the rpm range would change, you'll probably have to run it to like 8500 or 9000 rpm to make that power useful, because the of the turbo spooling up sooner. The fastest supras in the world have built engines runing as high as 10000 rpm. That is something that has always quite annoyed me in the GT series because it is impossible in my opinion to build a 800 or 1000 hp engine with 3 liters discplacement and 6 or 7k redline.

 

[sn00pie]

Give it about 80% less throttle.

Damn I'm good.

 

[Conad]

That is why it is easier to lose traction with a viper or a corvette than with a ferrari F360 or honda NSX or something with a high rev engine.High torque in low rpm range is not very useful and causes nothing but wheelspin.

First of all, HP is a factor of torque. Torque is what wins races. Torque is always higher than HP below 5252 RPM's, HP is always higher than torque above 5252 RPM. Peak Torque ALWAYS happens in the lower RPM range.

Torque in the low RPM band is what you need when coming out of a tight hairpin, it's what gets your car moving forward again. Turbo cars always make MORE torque, because you are essentially increasing the engine displacement through forced induction.

Cars like the NSX use a lower final drive ratio (first gear+differential)... to multiply torque.

For instance, my brother with his 2ZZ engined MR2 Spyder turns 8000 RPM's and leaves his car in first gear for most of the really twisty autocross events, he'll even bounce it off the rev limiter to keep from having to shift coming into a turn. He places 1st in his class in most races. The guy that always shows up in the Z06, drives the twisties in 2nd or 3rd, because the torque of the engine is high enough (and power band wide enough) to pull him out of the turns, without needing the additional torque multiplication of the lower gear. He also places first in his class at every event I have seen him at.

To say lower RPM torque isnt useful, is a misconception of what torque does, and how different cars address the NEED for torque.

 

[Dee Voward]

got LSD?

 

[para22]

First of all, HP is a factor of torque. Torque is what wins races.

Yes what you are saying is true but what is also true is that you do not understand it fully. Hp is a factor of torque for some reason. That is a factor that was invented to make comparing cars easier. If only torque was what is improtant, the hp figures would be useless and nobody would care about them. But people do. And they are not wrong. Because HP is a factor of torque AND the engine speed (revs), and that is what people often tend to forget. Basically what i was trying to say is that it is better to have moderately high torque in higher engine speeds then a humongous amount of it in very low rpm ranges. That is the reason that for example a honda integra type r, with 178 Nm of torque at 7300 is a very fast car and has 190 hp. And let's say a VW Golf TDI with the ARL engine (i don't know if it is avaliable in the US but it is a normal stock car) has 320 Nm (which is almost double of what ITR has) and 150 hp and it is much slower. Very much. And having driven some modified diesel cars i can tell that enermous values of torque in the low rev range are not good. Not only it is the case of traction problems, but it also results in damaged gearboxes, clutches, broken axles etc. because torque is what affects drivetrain parts. And professional tuners who tune those cars for racing, write maps for ECUs etc always have that in mind, and they cut down the ammount of low rpm torque on purpose because it causes nothing but problems, even though it is not hard to achieve it, they rather make them have a bit lower torque value in higher engine speed range. And those cars perform better. A lot better than those with around the same hp value but enormous torque left in the low rpm range.

I hope things are a bit more clear now, i only have to appologize for my English not being good, but i am not a native, i was born and raised in a eastern european country and still live here . And this post was not meant to be offensive even though it might look like it was, i just want to let you know what the facts are. And other people might learn a thing or two too.

 

[98cobra]

98cobra........just a randomthing i noticed about youre sig.....
Ricers do have brand loyalties.... there the type that see a name brand and abuse it to the max. They dont care why its better they want it for the bling factor.

Either way they're idiots.

 

[Conad]

Yes what you are saying is true but what is also true is that you do not understand it fully. Hp is a factor of torque for some reason. That is a factor that was invented to make comparing cars easier. If only torque was what is improtant, the hp figures would be useless and nobody would care about them. But people do. And they are not wrong. Because HP is a factor of torque AND the engine speed (revs), and that is what people often tend to forget. Basically what i was trying to say is that it is better to have moderately high torque in higher engine speeds then a humongous amount of it in very low rpm ranges. That is the reason that for example a honda integra type r, with 178 Nm of torque at 7300 is a very fast car and has 190 hp. And let's say a VW Golf TDI with the ARL engine (i don't know if it is avaliable in the US but it is a normal stock car) has 320 Nm (which is almost double of what ITR has) and 150 hp and it is much slower. Very much. And having driven some modified diesel cars i can tell that enermous values of torque in the low rev range are not good. Not only it is the case of traction problems, but it also results in damaged gearboxes, clutches, broken axles etc. because torque is what affects drivetrain parts. And professional tuners who tune those cars for racing, write maps for ECUs etc always have that in mind, and they cut down the ammount of low rpm torque on purpose because it causes nothing but problems, even though it is not hard to achieve it, they rather make them have a bit lower torque value in higher engine speed range. And those cars perform better. A lot better than those with around the same hp value but enormous torque left in the low rpm range.

I hope things are a bit more clear now, i only have to appologize for my English not being good, but i am not a native, i was born and raised in a eastern european country and still live here . And this post was not meant to be offensive even though it might look like it was, i just want to let you know what the facts are. And other people might learn a thing or two too.

Your English is very good. The Integra Type R is not a fast car. Well maybe it depends on your definition of fast. As I said before low torque engines use lower gear (higher number) multipliers to compensate for the lack of torque. For instance the old VW Beetles used to have a 5.20:1 1st gear and low gear ( I forget the exact numbers) differential, to compensate for the low power engine. On the other extreme, a 1970 Cadillac Eldorado made 550 ft/lbs of torque (400 hp) and only used a 2.46:1 1st gear and a 2.23 differential.

HP makes speed, torque makes momentum. You cant have speed without creating momentum first. As far as tuners that do as you say, well when they are working with fragile rice parts, they do have to take such things into account. The transaxle on a 1970 Eldorado is about 2.5" in diameter, it'll handle plenty of torque without breaking, verus the tiny little sticks the Integra Type R uses for transaxles. Torque will break **** thats not up to the task.

Tire spin is related to torque, but proper tire selection and suspension setup's can nullify that. Like I said in the beginning, the tire selection in this game is poor, you cant choose the size nor the air pressure, which is critical. I would imagine real life 800 hp + Supra's have some pretty wide tires under the back, and hook really well. This game seems to keep the tire size the same as stock, and meerly adjust the stickiness of the tires. If you are ever in the US, give me a call, I will take you for a ride in my 85' Buick Regal that has a 1970 Eldorado 500 CID engine in it. You wont be complaining about low rpm torque anymore. Heck the engine floats the valves at 4500 rpm, but it runs high 12's (usually between 12.9 and 12.7 depending on the day) in the 1/4 mile. Torque makes you smile when you step on the gas peddle.

 

[98cobra]

Your English is very good. The Integra Type R is not a fast car. Well maybe it depends on your definition of fast. As I said before low torque engines use lower gear (higher number) multipliers to compensate for the lack of torque. For instance the old VW Beetles used to have a 5.20:1 1st gear and low gear ( I forget the exact numbers) differential, to compensate for the low power engine. On the other extreme, a 1970 Cadillac Eldorado made 550 ft/lbs of torque (400 hp) and only used a 2.46:1 1st gear and a 2.23 differential.

HP makes speed, torque makes momentum. You cant have speed without creating momentum first. As far as tuners that do as you say, well when they are working with fragile rice parts, they do have to take such things into account. The transaxle on a 1970 Eldorado is about 2.5" in diameter, it'll handle plenty of torque without breaking, verus the tiny little sticks the Integra Type R uses for transaxles. Torque will break **** thats not up to the task.

Tire spin is related to torque, but proper tire selection and suspension setup's can nullify that. Like I said in the beginning, the tire selection in this game is poor, you cant choose the size nor the air pressure, which is critical. I would imagine real life 800 hp + Supra's have some pretty wide tires under the back, and hook really well. This game seems to keep the tire size the same as stock, and meerly adjust the stickiness of the tires. If you are ever in the US, give me a call, I will take you for a ride in my 85' Buick Regal that has a 1970 Eldorado 500 CID engine in it. You wont be complaining about low rpm torque anymore. Heck the engine floats the valves at 4500 rpm, but it runs high 12's (usually between 12.9 and 12.7 depending on the day) in the 1/4 mile. Torque makes you smile when you step on the gas peddle.

Very well explained Conad.

 

[TwinTurboZ]

Like I said in the beginning, the tire selection in this game is poor, you cant choose the size nor the air pressure, which is critical. I would imagine real life 800 hp + Supra's have some pretty wide tires under the back, and hook really well. This game seems to keep the tire size the same as stock, and meerly adjust the stickiness of the tires.

Amen to that my friend... Titan Motorsports-built Supra that I mentioned in the beginning of the post ran 315 BFG Drag Radials or Nitto Drag Radials, probably dropped to 12-14 psi on pressure, and it would hook like mad! Granted you couldn't hear the tires squeal since that giant turbo screaming topped all sounds.
I was trying to find the video of some crazy Supras and here's what I found:
http://www.highboost.com/movies/1000_HP.mpg
http://www.highboost.com/movies/TitanRace/
In correction on my previous post, the Supra I saw ran low 9's at 146mph. They seem to have moved the movie, and the link is broken.

 

[Conad]

Amen to that my friend... Titan Motorsports-built Supra that I mentioned in the beginning of the post ran 315 BFG Drag Radials or Nitto Drag Radials, probably dropped to 12-14 psi on pressure, and it would hook like mad! Granted you couldn't hear the tires squeal since that giant turbo screaming topped all sounds.
I was trying to find the video of some crazy Supras and here's what I found:
http://www.highboost.com/movies/1000_HP.mpg
http://www.highboost.com/movies/TitanRace/
In correction on my previous post, the Supra I saw ran low 9's at 146mph. They seem to have moved the movie, and the link is broken.

I really would like to see some of these Supra's run against some similarly set up GN's. Seems like it would be a fair fight. New school turbo inline 6's vs old school turbo V6's. Full frame car versus, unibody. Used to be us GN owners vs 5.0 Mustangs back in the day, they never had a chance

If I can find another GN, I will be looking to hook up with some Supra's at the dragstrip. Should be good fun.

 

[Crayola]

well in real drag racing, the spring rate in the rear is usually set at max in order to gain traction (you dont want your car to 'squat' and shift weight too much)

I dont know where you're getting that from because almost all drag cars transfer there weight to the back in order to gain traction.

 

[para22]

Conad, yes you are right that a 800hp+ Supra will be VERY fast with fat drag radials on a sticky drag strip, but on the street with real street tires that kind of power is not very useful. At least on our streets, maybe in the US the quality of asphalt is better but i have been there a couple of times and did not notice that much difference. I know a guy who has a 950 hp supra and he really can find no traction on our less-sticky surfaces he couldn't run lower then mid to high 11s on drag radials, and it is definitely not the thing that he can't drive the car, because other people (race car drivers etc.) tried that too and could not do any better. The run looks like constant wheelspin up to third gear and then the car launches like it was being shot from a catapult . And as for the example i have given about diesel cars they are actually not rice, the drivetrain parts can handle this power in most cases (save the normal OEM clutch, it is not suprising that it can't handle big values, even in most sport cars with rasing the power you have to throw in some other type of clutch in order to reduce slip) but diesel engines are specific, they produce a lot of torque like under 2000rpm and it is not necessarly good, it was kind of extreme example. What also is a very important is the shape of torque and power curves, wheelspin is very much connected with the... (here my english is not enough ) pace of how dynamically they're changing (hope you can imagine what i was trying to say ). And thanks for the explaining it is always good to learn something, but i don't think i was exactly wrong. Anyway as far as low-rpm torque enjoyement goes i have in garage something that gives me a slight idea, it's a porsche 928 GT, a 32V 5.0 V8 RWD car with 330 hp and lots of low end torque so i get the idea, but you have to be careful and focused as you drive as the car likes to perform some rear wheelspin even when you dont' want it and press the accelerator a little too hard. But i love it to death . Anyway if i ever get to US once more (and that's probably this summer for around 2 months) i'll try to get to drive some of your torque-monsters 👍 .

 

[Conad]

Anyway if i ever get to US once more (and that's probably this summer for around 2 months) i'll try to get to drive some of your torque-monsters 👍 .

Umm who said you could drive?

Yeah VW diesels aint rice, but, disels dont exactly fit into the same category as gas engines. 150 hp is also a long way from 190hp so that was an unfair comparision even assuming all things are equal. Thats close to 25% more HP. On a larger scale thats like 1000 HP Supra racing a 750 HP one. Yeah it's alot slower. My father runs around in a TDI New Beetle, it's not that bad, not fast, but for a small turbo diesel it does well. However, despite being a low rpm torque motor, it cant spin the tires.

Best comparison I can think of, is my old 1977 Monza Mirage with it's 145hp 305 v8 (smog equip was removed so it was more in the 155-160 range). Had someone with an 83' 944 challenge me once, after all he made more HP and the cars were close to the same size. Well monza's have excellent weight transfer and launch really well, so I killed him out of the hole when the light turned red. He gave up after about 200 yards. His quote I will never forget "all I could do is wave bye". The only advantage my car had was old fashioned torque. His cost 3 times as much, and had a high tech 4 cylinder.

I like torque.

 

[Speeden]

when you get off the line dont floor it keep gas about half way then about 80 floor it it will take some time to figure out when and how to do it but it works

 

[enuttage]

I agree whole-heartedly that tire size, wheel size and tire pressures should be options in the game, especially when it comes to this very thing.

You'd also feel the consquences (good or bad), of staggering your tires to compensate for traction problems and then having to deal with the understeer that results (usually - depends on the car).

All that being said, it seems a bit unrealistic, not being able to keep a 820hp Supra on the road, assuming you're able to modulate (feather) throttle properly and such. IRL, my guess is that this isn't as much of an issue. I'm not a Supra guy though. I spent years with a highly tuned RX-7 though. And if PD thinks there are no traction issues there with 500hp and stock tire/wheel width, they've gone off the deep end. I finally moved to 285mm rubber in the rear and it helped. But feathering the throttle and knowing when to let off were what it was all about. No TCS IRL.

An echo that softer spring bound in the back with (if you can set it - in the game you can) stiffer rebound will help on the strip, but you'll have to reach a happy medium for the racetrack. For me, I always ran (out of 5), 4F and 1R for the strip, ~3F and 2R for autoX, and 5F and 4R for the road course.

On a side note, I'm not sure why (if I understood it correctly) anyone would claim that something is 'rice' because parts won't hold up under stress. Silly neon and stickers and bodykits are a whole 'nother story. Every vehicle is built for a different purpose. Of course if you quadruple the power on a Civic, things are going to start breaking.

That being said, my FD3S was built to be lightweight and nimble. And if you abuse one at the strip too much, you'll snap your power plant frame fairly easily. However, the car that started this thread has one of the most bulletproof engines ever built, and can take HUGE amounts of power without giving up, even with stock internals. And as a final note, those gigantic, heavy, American drag car drivetrains were a good part of the reason I could chew up and spit out just about anything short of a Z06 (and only then if modified) on a roadcourse. I'd be happy to romp all over some 'well-built' American muscle any time and then go lose to them by less than a second at the drag strip.

-E

 

[Crayola]

Having torque a low RPM isnt as good as having it at high-rpm. You want to be able to stay in low gears for as long as possible and if your torque curve drops too early you have to shift up.

 

[Skant]

That is not exactly true, and it is especially not true in real life cars, especially in real life race cars! High revs help traction! And in a true race car that has an engine built especially for racing, flooring it in the lower rpm ranges would result in an extensive damage and expensive repairs.

Oh really? And which race cars would those be? Can you list some? Because that's news to me. And I race in RL. In fact, honestly, I think you're just making that up.

With higher revs it's harder to lose traction than in low rpm. That is why it is easier to lose traction with a viper or a corvette than with a ferrari F360 or honda NSX or something with a high rev engine.High torque in low rpm range is not very useful and causes nothing but wheelspin. What is unrealistic in GT is that to build a 800+ hp supra the rpm range would change, you'll probably have to run it to like 8500 or 9000 rpm to make that power useful, because the of the turbo spooling up sooner. The fastest supras in the world have built engines runing as high as 10000 rpm. That is something that has always quite annoyed me in the GT series because it is impossible in my opinion to build a 800 or 1000 hp engine with 3 liters discplacement and 6 or 7k redline.

I can't agree at all with your assessment that an engine with high revs makes it harder to lose traction. If the car is putting down too much torque for the circumstances, just short shift to the next gear. It has _exactly_ the same effect as an engine with less torque and a higher redline.

In fact, I think what you're really talking about is gearing. Because it doesn't really matter much whether it's a high rev engine with low torque or a low rev engine with high torque. The torque multiplication in the drive train will have been chosen to equalize it out to roughly the same torque at the drive wheels.

The effects you're talking about have more to do with how aggressive that gearing selection is.

The Corvette in your example comes from a muscle car heritage. And it is designed to double as a drag car and a track car. For this reason, it is endowed with a aggressive 1st gear ratio which it can hold down at full throttle only while going in a straight line (aka a drag race). For autocross... with lots of low speed technical turns... a lot of racers stay out of 1st gear in the vette and just use 2nd gear instead. It can still put down pleanty of torque in 2nd gear and the top of the gear is quite high. In fact, many autocrossers will never leave 2nd gear in a vette.

Whereas the NSX in your example has never been a drag car. It's 1st gear is much less aggressive. It's more like 2nd gear in a vette.

Myself... not only do I use 1st gear in my vette on the autocross... but I even have a more aggressive ratio in my rear end so it's putting down even more torque than normal. It must be working because I have a championship trophy. It's all about fine throttle control. I appreciate having more torque than I need available at any time so that I can keep it right on the limit.

- Skant

 

[TwinTurboZ]

I really would like to see some of these Supra's run against some similarly set up GN's. Seems like it would be a fair fight. New school turbo inline 6's vs old school turbo V6's. Full frame car versus, unibody. Used to be us GN owners vs 5.0 Mustangs back in the day, they never had a chance

If I can find another GN, I will be looking to hook up with some Supra's at the dragstrip. Should be good fun.

Don't be knocking on the 5.0's now. Sure, the GN could launch harder off the line. But the 5.0 with comparable drivers, especially the coupe, would more often than not catch the GN about 3/4 of the way, and dust it. Don't be misled by my nick and avatar: I've owned both a 5.0 and a Z before, and very familiar with their characteristics.
Surprisingly, the Z had more hp, but the 5.0 was still a heck of a lot more fun to drive. Maybe it was because it was my first car! Who knows...

 

[Drifting Thunda]

I dunno about that, the stock GNs did run quicker quarters than the stock 5.0s most of the time. The GN is like a back-alley brawler drag car capable of well over 1000 hp. The fox Mustang can do anything you want it to, it has been called the swiss-army knife of muscle cars. Though the potential for drag racing a fox chassis Mustang/Cougar/T-Bird/Capri/Fairmont is virtually limitless because that chassis has nearly infinite aftermarket products.

I drove a Z, I don't think I would like a 5.0 Stang over one but I'm not a huge Stang fan actually, as much as I love Fords. The 350Z is a truly inspiring machine.

By the way I sat down and tuned a high power Supra and now it's quite drivable on sports softs provided you have decent throttle control. I forgot what all I did to it but one thing is for sure; do not use the Original Turbo kit, waaaay too much torque down low. I switched to Stage 4 and it made a world of difference in drivability and it has more peak power for the high speed sections.

If you wanna avoid the problem nearly altogether though Stage 3 is the way to go, but what's the fun in that? It's not a Supra if it doesn't spin spin spin hook and FLYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!

 

[DemonSeed]

See the thing is, my friend kept complaining that he couldn't beat Tokyo Route 246 in the Tuning Car Grand Prix Professional Hall with his 820bhp Supra, even when the race was only 1 A-Spec point. I was thinking "WTF" in my head I beat that race with a NA 350Z at 67 A-Spec points. Then I tried playing that race he said he had so much problems on and I was going WTF myself! The main problem is because there's this crazy tuned Opera S2000 and a bunch of cars that out classed his Supra. The race was 137 A-Spec points. The other problem was he rear wheels kept spinning out on acceleration and coming out of corners and that was the main reason he could never keep up with the other cars.

One other thing I've notice about the roster of cars, even when it's 1 A-Spec point, is that the computer sometimes puts a crazy powerful 1st place car that you can't never catch up to. I've had this happened many times and the minute I switch to a more powerful car the crazy fast 1st place car is gone.

don't know if we are playing the same game but after reading your post i had to try [i love supras] and i beat opera s2000 [was in 2nd place] by 20 seconds, and i had a very bad first lap as well. in 845bhp supra rz. black. love it . now, i'd say im below average driver and the wheels keep spinning through all first 3 gears, still, no problem with winning.
maybe just practice a bit?

 

[Conad]

Don't be knocking on the 5.0's now. Sure, the GN could launch harder off the line. But the 5.0 with comparable drivers, especially the coupe, would more often than not catch the GN about 3/4 of the way, and dust it. Don't be misled by my nick and avatar: I've owned both a 5.0 and a Z before, and very familiar with their characteristics.

I dont ever remember that happening. Whomever you were racing must have let off the throttle, or the 5.0 was on the bottle (which happened alot). I had some good duels with mustangs, but dont recall any stock stang gaining on me... ever. The one that kicked my ass was running a paxton, but he couldn't hang with the GN guys that had upgraded their turbo's (not many street cars could).

, but the 5.0 was still a heck of a lot more fun to drive. Maybe it was because it was my first car! Who knows...

Yeah I hear that from 5.0 drivers quite often. Ford put really cushy seats in them cars so you would sink into them further than most then the throttle was mashed. The illusion of speed.

 

[Conad]

Having torque a low RPM isnt as good as having it at high-rpm. You want to be able to stay in low gears for as long as possible and if your torque curve drops too early you have to shift up.

If you have a low rpm torque motor, you dont need the torque multiplication of the lower gears.

 

[TwinTurboZ]

I dont ever remember that happening. Whomever you were racing must have let off the throttle, or the 5.0 was on the bottle (which happened alot). I had some good duels with mustangs, but dont recall any stock stang gaining on me... ever. The one that kicked my ass was running a paxton, but he couldn't hang with the GN guys that had upgraded their turbo's (not many street cars could).



Yeah I hear that from 5.0 drivers quite often. Ford put really cushy seats in them cars so you would sink into them further than most then the throttle was mashed. The illusion of speed.

I thought we were talking stock vs. stock cars. The upgrades on the Fords 302 block are nearly limitless (can't compare a force-inducted 6-cyl. to a force-inducted V8)... Don't get me wrong, I like GN's and would buy one as a collector's car if I had the money (right after buying a black unmolested low-mileage 5.0 coupe Mustang), but as far as drag racing is concerned, coupes flat out outrun the GN on the top-end. Anything above 1/8th mile, and the 5.0 would grab the first spot stock on stock with comparable drivers. Don't mean to hurt no one's feelings, but I will disagree with you there...
As far as the illusion of speed goes, when you roll onto the throttle in 3rd on the highway and the tires break loose at 75 mph, all illusions are out the window (before you start jumping on the issue, the 5.0 was not stock). And the cushy seats are there so my a$$ wouldn't hurt from having to sit so long and wait for the rest of the pack to catch up!

 

[Conad]

I thought we were talking stock vs. stock cars. The upgrades on the Fords 302 block are nearly limitless (can't compare a force-inducted 6-cyl. to a force-inducted V8)... Don't get me wrong, I like GN's and would buy one as a collector's car if I had the money (right after buying a black unmolested low-mileage 5.0 coupe Mustang), but as far as drag racing is concerned, coupes flat out outrun the GN on the top-end. Anything above 1/8th mile, and the 5.0 would grab the first spot stock on stock with comparable drivers. Don't mean to hurt no one's feelings, but I will disagree with you there...
As far as the illusion of speed goes, when you roll onto the throttle in 3rd on the highway and the tires break loose at 75 mph, all illusions are out the window (before you start jumping on the issue, the 5.0 was not stock). And the cushy seats are there so my a$$ wouldn't hurt from having to sit so long and wait for the rest of the pack to catch up!

Well "stock" GN is hard to define. They made alot more horsepower after they were "tuned". Wastegate needs to be adjusted, no new parts, just adjusted. Rumor I always heard was they were detuned enough where the Vette could still out run em. Mine was adjusted, only modifications I had were centerlines with the good ole goodyear "gatorbacks". I considered it stock. I loved to run that car, and never lost to a "stock" 5.0. It'd break into the 12.s pretty consistantly. Stock 5.0's were usually just trying to break into the 13's.