come to think of it, this sounds like the post of that kid who asked if a tuburon would beat his '02 z28. sometimes i just wonder

 

wow........wow sometimes people cant read these days, i you cant read dont post. i said i would smoke him but i just wanting to see who has one or raced a fast Quad 4 before. so read carefully before you post and keep dumb comments to self.

Black Lightning
-stock

mods soon

 

Has he actually run 14.15 with his car?? I mean, if he's done work to it, then it's entirely possible that it did, in fact, run 14.15.

IF that's the case, then you're not necessarily guaranteed the win. I've seen Lightnings (I'm assuming all stock) running from low 14's to high 13's, so don't doubt until you find out (<-- that rhymed and I didn't mean for it too!? )

 

well maybe i did jump the gun a little bit and i apologize. it just seems like we have been having alot of outrageous race questions lately.... i must have been out of it

 

How many people yearn to buy a "fast Grand Am?" None! Because there aren't any! I don't care how "hot" of a 4 cyl it has, it's still nothing close to a L. He could turbo it, spray it, and strap a jet engine to the back and it still wouldn't be as quick as a stock L. It's a freakin 10+ yr old econo box. They didn't run 15's stock - that was almost musclecar territory back in the day.

The Quad 4 is/was a great engine. It would easily beat other small family haulers of its day. To compare it to a supercharged v8 more than twice its size is just rediculous.

Joining a Camaro board to ask how a Lightning will do against a Grand Am will net you "dumb comments" like these. What do you think would happen if I joined a Lightning board just to ask how my Subaru would do vs. a Camaro?

 

Is your 'bro "special"?

 

You've obviously never seen any REALLY fast 4 cylinders have you?? As much as I like to think that only V8's can do ~10's and stuff like that, I've seen first hand 1.6L Hondas and such running 9's, 10's, and 11's at the track. Some people are nuts, and they'll spend money and time on cars that MOST people would never even consider (such as a '92 Grand Am) but it doesn't mean that it couldn't be built to run 14's with a little work. And how fast do you think STOCK Lightnings are anyways?? They're only ~13-second trucks at best (stock). What's to say a little "econo-box" couldn't run 13's?

 

Ohh nooo - I've never seen any fast 4 cyls. I've only owned a half dozen turbo DSMs, a Galant VR4, and a Mirage turbo over the past 15 years. Did you not notice I drive a Subaru 4 cyl family sedan that does 13.9s with 1 piddly mod? My 4070 lb v6 wasn't too shabby either.

I suppose you could build a fast Grand Am but I've never heard of any. I've never seen one that would have worried me in my Grand Marquis either, and it only ran 9.9 in the 1/8th (though I have also seen automatic Mustangs that didn't do that well).

 

...but you never answered my 2nd question.

 

grand ams are weak dude. ive road in a trillion of them (ok not that many, just so some people on here dont get mouthy and call me out on the trillion), anyway, ive ridden in lightnings too, and they are hella fast pickups, they are pretty cool for ford. and hey, i rode in a 4 banger the other day that could hand my z to me on a rusty metal shingle, it had ~420hp in an eclipse, fast little sucker.

 

All , pay homage to the 4 cyl

 

I'd give a stock L around 13.8 - 14.2 depending on the driver and available traction. It's far too easy to smoke the tires in a truck, especially one with the instant off-idle power of a roots blower.

Being a Ford, there's a good bit to be gained in the transmission too, electronically (faster, firmer shifts) and mechanically (various material upgrades).

 

I have always felt when it came to Ford's in general, the automatics left a lot to be desired...but not the Lightning automatics. Do they shift better after a valve body swap, sure or a line pressure bump, sure, but so does anything else.