Norwalk is a good track , but Thompson/Ohio , that track is slower .50 than Norwalk

 

Ostrich syndrome. "If I haven't seen it with my head in the sand; it doesn't exist."

Bob Cosby has more than solidified his reputation. He's a no B.S. racer. He lets his driving do his talking.

I knew a guy on the internet who doubted SRT-4s as much as you doubt 5.0s.......till I met him at the track and proved my car runs 13s stock.

Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't make it impossible. You admittadly go to ****ty tracks, so perhaps your view of other's reality is a bit skewed.

 

Anyone ever here of Norwalk? An excellent track.

If anyone knows geography, you would sorta figure out that Ohio is really not even close to being on a mountain...and from that you might get my point that....Ohio is not on a mountain. Our tracks do not go up hills. Yet these cars run these times here. In magic air they seem to.

Your ostrich syndrome might be valid to someone whom has not ever been to a track. I have made thousands upon thousands of runs, years of going 2 to 3 times a week to the dragstrip. I have no idea the number of 5.0's I have raced, so I might have some idea of what the cars happen to run. My primary street meal in my car was 5.0's when my car was running 14.0's...never got beat by a stock or mildly modified one...not even close, but they all said they ran mid 13's.

But I guess a 5.0 running mid 14's here could break into the 13's...sure, in -2000 DA...or some super stripped no option car...I give that, I know how important weather is with performance.

But back to the original thread topic...every kid thinks they have a 13 second car. Don't worry about it.

 

So let me ask you this: are you calling Bob Cosby a liar?

 

NO, BUT I AM CALLING BILL COSBY A LIAR THEM JELLO PUDDING POPS TASTE LIKE ***

 

I believe what I have seen first hands over 13 years of drag racing.

When all the facts are given, things look differently. Just look at the stock records...then the cars...not stock at all.

If you disagree with me, fine, but leave Bob's name out of this.

Either way, this is a mute point. You'll have the group that says they did and vice versa.

But like I said...when I ran 14.0's, I cleaned house with 5.0 Mustangs that were stock or very mildly modded. Ohio does not have the worst drivers, it is not on a mountain, get the point.

Find a bone stock 5.0 5 speed today with little mileage and see what it runs....I can and have.

 

Why leave Bob out? He's the perfect example. Or can I only provide you examples that support your point of view?

As for a low milage 5.0, mine has 25k. It's only been modified for the last 5k. I ran 14.2@98 in mine, bone stock. 13s is not out of the question, especially for an exceptional driver like Bob.

 

Your not getting it.

I am speaking from my experience. Your not going to ever convince me because I have seen enough 5.0's running to get a pretty good ideal of what they do.

If Bob did run that time, good for him, but for that one running that phenomal time, you have a thousand that run mid 14's and slower. But I guess since one can, they all can?

Is there not any articles that came out when these cars came out that state what they ran, like Camaro vs. 5.0?

Do you know Bob personally?

 

Maybe neon srt-4 is fast little family car , but this one looks better than the original ...

[IMG]www.mustangmods.com/data/3484/neon_srt4.jpg[/IMG]

 

I don't recall ever saying that. That's quite a leap of logic you're making. Unless of course, it's extreme sarcasm.

Bob gave you an example of a magazine running a 5.0 to a 13.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

If Bob ran a 13 (and he did) then 5.0s are capable of it. That's all i'm saying, nothing more, nothi ng less.

 

Look, obviously your not getting it.

You need to get your panties out of the twist they are obviously in if someone believes something else about the 5.0 performance.

What did your typical 5.0 Mustang run? Let's not mention the autos.

Let me see these articles, not from because someone said so. Interesting when you read articles and you find out what was taken out, what was done, all on a "stock" car and you know this, so what is the problem?

I want I meant from do you know Bob personally is I do not know him so I could I assume he is a good driver, well I don't know. Could be average Joe or John Force for all I know. But I sure as hell would not be talking up someone's driving ability unless I sorta knew them. Also, you have no problem believing what he says, yet what I say which you do not agree with it seems makes what he wrote gospel to you.

 

Well its . Never mind I forgot what I was going to say

 

UNCLE!

From my experience of racing, watching, and reading about 5.0's and what they ran, it is MY OPINION (based on the above) that factory-stock 5.0's were capable of 13.9's on stock rubber, stock everything, no 'free mods', etc. This applies mostly to low-option Coupes (like mine). However, the overwhelmingly-vast majority of 5.0 Mustangs were 14 second cars (be it low, mid, or high).

Bone stock 5.0 Mustangs running 13.9 are (were) about as rare as bone stock LS1 F-bodys running 12.9 (which I have not actually seen with my own beady little eyes, but have no problems believing). It did generally take a good track, decent air, and most certainly a good drive who knew what they were doing.

That said....my very first runs (14.08 best) were made at Indianapolis in July 88, and I had a long way to go before I could be considered a "good driver". Then again, I wasn't totally stock....I had a rather worseless chip and slightly larger tires.

 

I dont believe it. My good friend has a 92 LX 5.0 with heads, cam, headers, xpipe, 3:55 gears and a rich tune for his NOS 75 shot. I can beat him (barely, like half a car length) and all my car has is LT headers, pulley on the crank, and maybe some pcm tuning. I pull him slightly in every gear until his runs out of steam around 110mph (due to gears and crappy 5 speed). He would destroy my on the juice tho.

 

And that can sum up this whole argument. Has a bone stock 5.0 Foxbody run a 13.9? Yes. It is normal and should you expect it out of a majority of them? Definately not. Just like 99% of LS1s are NOT 12.9 second cars bone stock. You guys are arguing over petty differences. Everyone of course is going to have a different point of view; mine, the stock/lightly modded 5.0s at my track were usually running between 14.5-15.5, you never quite know what you're going to get. Just like how I saw certain stock LT1s running low 14's and others at mid 14's. No car's time is ever set in stone.