fastest car for 10-12k.....

[Xionide]

Originally posted by: Aimster
e36 M3

/thread

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: melchoir
0-60 isn't everything, 0-60 in the 1/4th really doesn't mean squat. There's plenty of room left between 60 and the rest of the 1/4th to "play catch up".

I'm not trying to bash anyone. But I actually go to the track, and I actually race. I've seen stock Mach 1s, and Stock 05+ GTs race.

Not only that, but I've raced both and the outcome is as I've explained. It goes in this order. LS1 > Mach 1 > GT.

To toss more into the fire, the LS1 Camaro has been put to 12.8 (z28) and 12.9 (SS) second passes, stock, by a Mustang magazine. (Sting a little?)

http://www.stangbangers.com/01Bullitt_Article2c.jpg

All this does is further prove my point. For the price that the OP is requesting, a LS1 is the best bet.

Again why are we comparing stock cars and modern at that? in the 10k range you cant touch any of the cars you are arguing about.. hence why I brought up the REAL 5.0 (1986-1993) which can be had and extremely modded for under 10k into a 10 second car...
and the Camaros in that pricerange are NOT LS1s either so why were they even brought up?

sigh

I stang by what i said.. for a fast car in the 10k range find a nice 5.0 and mod the hell outa it.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: melchoir
0-60 isn't everything, 0-60 in the 1/4th really doesn't mean squat. There's plenty of room left between 60 and the rest of the 1/4th to "play catch up".

I'm not trying to bash anyone. But I actually go to the track, and I actually race. I've seen stock Mach 1s, and Stock 05+ GTs race.

Not only that, but I've raced both and the outcome is as I've explained. It goes in this order. LS1 > Mach 1 > GT.

To toss more into the fire, the LS1 Camaro has been put to 12.8 (z28) and 12.9 (SS) second passes, stock, by a Mustang magazine. (Sting a little?)

http://www.stangbangers.com/01Bullitt_Article2c.jpg

All this does is further prove my point. For the price that the OP is requesting, a LS1 is the best bet.

Again why are we comparing stock cars and modern at that? in the 10k range you cant touch any of the cars you are arguing about.. hence why I brought up the REAL 5.0 (1986-1993) which can be had and extremely modded for under 10k into a 10 second car...
and the Camaros in that pricerange are NOT LS1s either so why were they even brought up?

sigh

I stang by what i said.. for a fast car in the 10k range find a nice 5.0 and mod the hell outa it.

That's a fitting slipup.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: melchoir
0-60 isn't everything, 0-60 in the 1/4th really doesn't mean squat. There's plenty of room left between 60 and the rest of the 1/4th to "play catch up".

I'm not trying to bash anyone. But I actually go to the track, and I actually race. I've seen stock Mach 1s, and Stock 05+ GTs race.

Not only that, but I've raced both and the outcome is as I've explained. It goes in this order. LS1 > Mach 1 > GT.

To toss more into the fire, the LS1 Camaro has been put to 12.8 (z28) and 12.9 (SS) second passes, stock, by a Mustang magazine. (Sting a little?)

http://www.stangbangers.com/01Bullitt_Article2c.jpg

All this does is further prove my point. For the price that the OP is requesting, a LS1 is the best bet.

SVT > LS1 > Mach 1 > GT

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: AdamK47 3DS

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: melchoir
0-60 isn't everything, 0-60 in the 1/4th really doesn't mean squat. There's plenty of room left between 60 and the rest of the 1/4th to "play catch up".

I'm not trying to bash anyone. But I actually go to the track, and I actually race. I've seen stock Mach 1s, and Stock 05+ GTs race.

Not only that, but I've raced both and the outcome is as I've explained. It goes in this order. LS1 > Mach 1 > GT.

To toss more into the fire, the LS1 Camaro has been put to 12.8 (z28) and 12.9 (SS) second passes, stock, by a Mustang magazine. (Sting a little?)

http://www.stangbangers.com/01Bullitt_Article2c.jpg

All this does is further prove my point. For the price that the OP is requesting, a LS1 is the best bet.

Again why are we comparing stock cars and modern at that? in the 10k range you cant touch any of the cars you are arguing about.. hence why I brought up the REAL 5.0 (1986-1993) which can be had and extremely modded for under 10k into a 10 second car...
and the Camaros in that pricerange are NOT LS1s either so why were they even brought up?

sigh

I stang by what i said.. for a fast car in the 10k range find a nice 5.0 and mod the hell outa it.

That's a fitting slipup.

hahaha nice I didnt even see that =-)
Stangs on the brain I guess..

 

[otispunkmeyer]

nissan 240 sx? or is it nx?

or is it just the 200 sx ? i cant remember but im sure some one here knows the car im on about. its called the sylvia in other parts of the world, it just gets a number here.

 

[blckgrffn]

SVT mustang, 99-03 should be doable in that price range.

Good luck and tell us what you get

 

[melchoir]

Again why are we comparing stock cars and modern at that? in the 10k range you cant touch any of the cars you are arguing about.. hence why I brought up the REAL 5.0 (1986-1993) which can be had and extremely modded for under 10k into a 10 second car...
and the Camaros in that pricerange are NOT LS1s either so why were they even brought up?

sigh

I stang by what i said.. for a fast car in the 10k range find a nice 5.0 and mod the hell outa it.

You can purchase an LS1 for 6k and up. It just depends on where you're looking.
A good condition, decent mile (50-60k) 98 LS1 TA/Camaro can be had for $10k.
Ask me how I know.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
SVT mustang, 99-03 should be doable in that price range.

Good luck and tell us what you get

The Cobra's get spanked by LS1s until 2003, as until then they are nothing more than barely tuned GTs.

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
SVT mustang, 99-03 should be doable in that price range.

Good luck and tell us what you get

The Cobra's get spanked by LS1s until 2003, as until then they are nothing more than barely tuned GTs.

If you've ever owned a regular GT, you will know that A)the solid rear axle alone is a great reason to get the SVT and B)the 4.6DOHC loves, loves, loves mods.

Saying they are "barely tuned" is pretty hilarious, actually. I guess when you conisder only straight line speed, it might seem that way.

Nat

*and there has never been an issue hanging with LS1's for me until the end of second gear (~60 MPH), how fast are you planning on going in this thing, anyway?

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: melchoir

Again why are we comparing stock cars and modern at that? in the 10k range you cant touch any of the cars you are arguing about.. hence why I brought up the REAL 5.0 (1986-1993) which can be had and extremely modded for under 10k into a 10 second car...
and the Camaros in that pricerange are NOT LS1s either so why were they even brought up?

sigh

I stang by what i said.. for a fast car in the 10k range find a nice 5.0 and mod the hell outa it.

You can purchase an LS1 for 6k and up. It just depends on where you're looking.
A good condition, decent mile (50-60k) 98 LS1 TA/Camaro can be had for $10k.
Ask me how I know.

Man really like to know where I can find cars at that price casue down here where Stangs and Camaros are worth thier weights in gold you arnt getting much for 10k when it comes to F bodies... 10k its gonna have over 150k miles on it for an LS1 and be ragged out...

most decent 5.0s are still in the 8-12k range for really nice examples..(either mint or lots of performance stuff already installed)
you can find ragged 5.0s for 5k all day long and they are easy to fix back up...

most of the decent quality LS1 cars are at least 14-16k down here in good shape..

 

[chairbornrangerx]

mitsubishi 3000 GT VR4

or (it might not be the prettiest thing) but an old mustang 5.0

 

[fire400]

civic car with enhanced interal body equipment will run for like 10K, and then just use the extra 2K to tune up and tweak the rest of it out.

 

[Tremulant]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
nissan 240 sx? or is it nx?

or is it just the 200 sx ? i cant remember but im sure some one here knows the car im on about. its called the sylvia in other parts of the world, it just gets a number here.

The Silvia is known as the 240sx in US, the Silvia in Japan, and the 200sx in Austrailia.

The US 200sx in had the SR20DE engine, wheras the Silvia (and AUS 200sx) had a SR20DET (T denoting Turbo). The Infiniti G20 also has the SR20DE engine.

The 240sx had the KA24DE, which was found in their small pickups. IIRC, the previous gen Altima also had the KA24DE engine.

Edit: I've heard that Nissan didn't bring the SR20DET into the 240sx because they were worried about reliability issues with the turbo. Instead they gave it a bigger engine.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
SVT mustang, 99-03 should be doable in that price range.

Good luck and tell us what you get

The Cobra's get spanked by LS1s until 2003, as until then they are nothing more than barely tuned GTs.

If you've ever owned a regular GT, you will know that A)the solid rear axle alone is a great reason to get the SVT and B)the 4.6DOHC loves, loves, loves mods.

Saying they are "barely tuned" is pretty hilarious, actually. I guess when you conisder only straight line speed, it might seem that way.

Nat

*and there has never been an issue hanging with LS1's for me until the end of second gear (~60 MPH), how fast are you planning on going in this thing, anyway?

Yeah, you're right, I was just thinking factory engine tunes 305 HP vs 260 HP = barely tuned GT at first glance, and it's well know that the SS has always been faster which doesn't help with that image. It wasn't until the '03/'04 that they got serious with the 4v. Blown or not, 900+ HP on a stock block with 6 bolt mains, thats well beyond GT territory finally

 

[blckgrffn]

I've actually been thinking about selling my GT to pick up one of the numerous low mileage cobras out there, but living in MN has kind of put the k-bosh on that. Need to find something with 4-wheel drive.

*The mustang is actually quite decent in snow compared to my old S-10. The problem is that we are moving out to the "country" and the GF and I have the types of jobs where we may need to be at work at any time of the day/night so having a snow vehicle is nearly a must.

Anyway, good luck on the car search. Personally, I have always been a GM man but can't stand the seating position of the F-body, and thus bought the mustang instead. It's plenty of fun for me, although it no longer feels nearly as fast as it once did. Passengers always get a kick out the 0-90 charge though

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: railer
2 door/4 door....I don't care.

The EVO's and STI's of a few years ago didn't have the snort that the '04+'s have. Any they go for well over 20k. I keep going back to Mustangs and <shiver> camaros.
1) They're cheap
2) They're fast
3) They're cheap to fix. Blowing up a Mitsu Lancer Evo won't make the wife happy.

I honestly dread being seen in a camaro....but they're faster AND cheaper than Mustangs. So please god someone mention some other cars.

Are you really on crack? only the WS6 Trans ams and SS Camaros are faster than a stock 5.0...

Dude, no reason to be hateful.

Don't think that's been the case in most of the magazine tests (& videos) I've seen. Is everyone else able to drive Mustangs faster than all the magazine road test drivers?

1998 Ford Mustang GT 5-speed Manual
0-60 mph 6.20 s
(1/4 mile) 15.00 s @ 93.7 mph

1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 6-speed Manual
0-60 mph 5.40 s
(1/4 mile) 13.90 s @ 103.6 mph

Older

Cobra vs SS

Even the convertables. Text

 

[blckgrffn]

Yeah, the 5.0's and the early 4.6's aren't really that fast. Now, the older 5.0's are pretty much a tweakers dream, so plenty could be done there

A better comparison would be the 99+ plus mustangs, they gained quite a bit of power there.

Nat

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Slickone

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: railer
2 door/4 door....I don't care.

The EVO's and STI's of a few years ago didn't have the snort that the '04+'s have. Any they go for well over 20k. I keep going back to Mustangs and <shiver> camaros.
1) They're cheap
2) They're fast
3) They're cheap to fix. Blowing up a Mitsu Lancer Evo won't make the wife happy.

I honestly dread being seen in a camaro....but they're faster AND cheaper than Mustangs. So please god someone mention some other cars.

Are you really on crack? only the WS6 Trans ams and SS Camaros are faster than a stock 5.0...

Dude, no reason to be hateful.

Don't think that's been the case in most of the magazine tests (& videos) I've seen. Is everyone else able to drive Mustangs faster than all the magazine road test drivers?

1998 Ford Mustang GT 5-speed Manual
0-60 mph 6.20 s
(1/4 mile) 15.00 s @ 93.7 mph

1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 6-speed Manual
0-60 mph 5.40 s
(1/4 mile) 13.90 s @ 103.6 mph

Older

Cobra vs SS

Even the convertables. Text

again youre comparing stock.. which is not what we were talking about.. Ford stangles the 5.0s with a very restrictive 4 cat 2.1/4 exhaust.
the first mod any 5.0 guy makes is trashing the entire system down to the tails and putting in no cats/highflows and 2.5 inch pipes with good headers which instantly puts the 5.0 well into the 13s.. for under 400 bucks.. and bumps the HP a good 40 points and torque to match

then simply adding a cam and intake (GT40/Cobra/TFS) and 3:55/73 gears will put the same car into the 12s... add good heads (Aluminum TFS TW) and 11s... add a supercharger or nos or turbo and boom 10s/9s

all of that can be done in a home garage for under 7k if youre a clever shopper and have the ability to install yourself

comparing stock cars is only valid for cars people dont mod.. its pointless for hotrodders as we care less what the car did or does stock.. we only care what it will do when we are done with it, how easy it is to work on and the price of parts to make it better...
in these aspects there is no car except old classic muscles (like dusters and chevelles etc..) that are easier to work on and have the abundant cheap parts than the 1986-1993 5.0 Mustang..

 

[railer]

Actually, we were talking stock, and everyone knows that a bone stock LS1 destroys any stock 4.6 or 5.0 na 'stang, up to 05. Yea, destroys. Mustang mags have dyno'd STOCK LS1's at 320 hp......at the wheel. They're good for 350 at the crank, stock, in 2001-2002.


Anyway, picked up a 94 Firebird LT1 a few weeks ago. It was a fall special, so pretty cheap, ($3k). 'Tis very fast in a straight line. Kind of fun to drive....but it gets old.
I bought it cheap enough so that I can fix the couple minor details that are wrong with it, and sell it in the spring and make a few bones. I don't like the look of these F-bodies, and I hate the seating posiiton and visibility. Once you've done the 0-80 charge a few dozen times....I must say it gets old. I might jump up to a 98+ f-body in the spring, (they're ugly, but fast and cheap)....but.....maybe I'm just getting practical....a Lancer Evo seems like a real sweet ride. Just wanted to update......

 

[DarkKnight69]

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf
Mustang and f-body are the two best for that kind of money if you want to stay newish. If you go older you can get some imports that can keep up but they aren't going to be as relaible as the domestic yeah thats right.

I agree, pick up a fox-body 5.0 and with some very basic mods you will be running very fast...

 

[Kroze]

Get a domestic if you want the fastest car for $10k and not care about quality & interior.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Anything that you get will achieve 32 ft/s2 off a cliff.

 

[jme5343]

Pics of the firebird?

If you ever want a few amenities + above average speed, check out some Buick Regals, GS to be more specific. 1-60 in 6 or less, 14 sec quarters EASILY attainable w/ few mods, I've seen a lot of them in the mid 12s, and tons of them in the 13s. Sharp looking car, w/ all the comforts grandpas expect from Buicks

 

[b0mbrman]

Fox body + mods?