Blue S2

Why not get an Ultima and throw a Vette engine in there! I'm sure that car will run some mighty quick times! And you will be the coolest looking car at the strip!

EDIT: And to ensure no confusion, I DO mean Ultima, the British kit car, not Altima is in a Nissan.

944J

so this rx7 is a fixed rear suspension?



http://rx7.com/racing.html

is a corvette a fixed rear too?

yellowline

Not the newer ones, they have a 924/44-style torque tube and transaxle from '84 on.

Imo000

Not entirely true. The Corvette hasn't had a solid rear axle since the early 60's. It had independent rear suspension for a very, very, very long time. The torque tube design has only been in use since the C5. But that doesn't matter cause has nothing to do if the rear is fixed or not.

inactiveuser92616

don't early RX7 have a solid rear axle?

Legoland951

Yes up until 85. I had one with a 454 big block and a turbo400 trans in a 81 rx7 before. Yes the stock hood did shut with very slight mdifications.

mnypit944

As a matter of fact yes. But that is not important. You had a 383 and were only in the 11s?? Sounds like driver error. Or an extremely poor set up otherwise.

The fact that it was "scary fast in the straight line" is exactly why he should run that instead of a 944. Wasnt that the origional posters question???

I have owned 3 Trans Ams, 1 Formula and 2 Z28s. I was beating stock 00 and up Slugstangs in a relatively stock 87 LG4 Trans Am. Headers, cam, intake, carb, torque converter, rebuilt trans and 373 gears from a stock 83 TA. Less than $3000 total investment running 13.9s.

Nobody said they could handle well or drove nice. Although with some suspension work my 00 was acceptable. It still drove much rougher than my buddies 02 Mustang. That is why my wife used to call him Mudstang a girly car(just so you know we are not just some kids with computers, she is a 35 year old elementary school assistant principal). If you want real performance you need to forego the soft ride.

The 944 does not ride as soft as a Mudstang, but I dont hear you complaining about that.

The fact is, so far the 944 has been very easy to work on. Parts fit properly and the car has a timeless look. The Mustang is a soft riding not so fast car that handles poorly(made for the masses, not the enthusiasts). I have never worked on one so I cant say how easy they are, but I do know how much my 70k Lincoln Navigator with the V8 broke down and you couldnt give me another Ford product. All my f-body cars were fairly reliable. Parts are cheap and HP is easily added.


I think you will spend a lot of money to make a 944 work as a drag car and in the end you could easily just buy a factory built semi-hotrod.

And for IMO000. If you pick up a used set of headers, full dual exhaust minus the cats at a local shop, and a reprogram you can get into the 11s. I have done it and been kicked off the track. I did have drag radials and a cold air intake on there though, I had forgotten them in the last post. It is not necessary to have a full race rear end, but if you repeatedly abuse the stock rear you will snap the axles. Incidently I had a 12 bolt in my 96 Z28 and it cost me $450 and I dont let anyone else work on my cars, so labor is me.

I drove my 96 Trans Am 6 speed into the 10s, but with the stage 3 clutch it was a bitch to drive in traffic. I didnt mention this because I was trying to show how a relatively stock LS1 could achieve great times. This Trans Am car had a lot more mods, incidently included a Ford 9" rear, although I still only had about $3000 in mods. I am a pretty savvy shopper(lots of pre owned) and know the right people to help pick the right parts to make the parts work best together. I bought the automatic to commute 100 miles a day in traffic. My leg was getting tired.

mnypit944

Oh and you are right, the 4th gen f-bodies were ugly especially the 93 - 97. Can you say Geo Storm on steroids?? The 98 up in the right color looked a lot better.

Legoland951

$3k mods to run in 13.9? My 74 camaro bought from an impound ran 14.5s and it cost me a grand total of $750 including the car on free used street tires. A stock 94 camaro z28 did 14.1 with absolutely no modifications, driven by a guy who has never been to a dragstrip before with his 16 year old daughter in the passenger seat for added weight. Here's the kicker. My buddy ran a 70s rx2 with so much rust you can see through the car and a rebuilt junkyard motor did 11s with straight motor and no forced induction or nitrous. I think he had $1500 into his car (car included) not including the $200 cage. That's not the point of this conversation whether camaros are faster or who's ***** is longer or whether its the girth. Its about 944 on a strip. You can do it and have fun cheap if you know people with used parts and know how to wrench. The 944 is an absolute pain to work on compared to most "normal" cars. Tell me its easy if you ever changed a lower balance shaft rear seal.

87-93 5.0 mustangs have bulletproof motors and I often seen them go sub 12s 15 years ago. These are cars driven to the track, not trailered. The t5 transmissions in both the camaro and mustangs are ****boxes. However, I got 17 to 26 miles per gallon with the 5.0s I have owned, which is much better than the crapmaros I have owned for that era. I am a Chevy guy but you have to try both sides before you can knock either.

BigNNasty

Well, I did go to the drags yesterday, and saw MANY Camaros running. Some Z28's, some SS'. I saw a lot of Mustangs. Hell, a 03 or so GT Mustang was running 14.33, and it obviously had atleast an exhaust, as I was sitting next to it during the line to get in. I saw 10+ Camaros run faster then 14.33 and, not a one of them looked to have anything done.

The stuff that does run fast, however...is the stuff that looks like sh*t. I saw a damn Honda Accord 2dr, body kit...all the ricey accesories, and half the body kit was hanging on, not painted...and many other half thrown together things done. I even told my friends "what a POS!!!", even sounded like crap. It got out on the track, and ran a low 14 and SPANKED a 00 Si Civic. It had had an H22 dropped in with various mods. Don't judge a book by it's cover has never been more true to me. This car looks like complete sh*t, but is fast!

Overall, I like chevy more then ford. I don't like the fit and finish of fords at all. Buddies Mustang...every single thing on the car squeaks and raddles and it's only a 99.

Royal Tiger

The ford was a 4.9, regardless of what they put on the side of the rustang. The exploader 4.0 is really a 3.8, ford must have zero envy. As for intresting track vehicles, watch Pinks! on Speed Channel. They have a Chevy Astro Van on this week, Wednesday at 2130 eastern time.