NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/autos/tech/17327

Text File | 1993-01-01 | 3.8 KB | 72 lines

Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov!chu
From: [e-mail] (Eugene Chu)
Subject: Re: Mustang GT EPA legal perfromance maximized
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: SAR Systems Development & Processing, JPL
References: <[e-mail]_>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:51:59 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]_> [e-mail] writes:
>
>I have been considering purchase of a new Trans Am next spring
>with the 275 hp version of the Chevy 5.7.  An article indicated
>that this would be the hot setup, second only to a 5.0 litre
>Mustang.  When I went to a Ford dealer previously, the material on
>the Mustang did not give the hp rating of the 5.0 litre engine.
>Can someone tell me what it is rated at, both in hp and torque?
>
>                                    Terry Quinn

I think they might be referring to the Mustang Cobra to be released by
Ford's SVT for 1993 only in a limited production run.  That car has a
retuned engine whose new rating is some 240 HP.  With the Trans Am being
heavier, the acceleration of both cars should be close.  However, even
though I am a Mustang enthusiast, I can't believe that the T/A would
be second to the SVT Cobra.  The T/A has a better front suspension setup,
and could ultimately fit bigger tires in their wheel wells.  They also
have better height to width ratio, enabling them to ultimately corner
better.  However, I know personally that the Camero/Trans Ams sacrifice
much ergonomics for the performance lay-out.  I recall having a lot of
trouble getting comfortable in the front passenger seat because of that
hump in the floor.  I hear the hump is worse in the new cars, and the
rear seats are for looks only.  I have at least sat in the back of my
own Mustang for long periods and found it survivable.  Also, I heard that
Mustangs tend to handle better on tight-twisty tracks due to their shorter
wheelbase.

On the matter of the T-5 transmissions; what Ford offers are the standard
version with the 3.25 first gear and a a sub-300 lb-ft torque rating and
the "World Class" HD version with a 2.95 first gear and a 305 lb-ft rating.
Even though the HD version has stronger gears, I would tend to believe that
the torque ratings are limited by the case/tail shaft/bearings (~1000 lb-ft).
So, the one with the milder first gear can handle more input torque since it
multiplies it less going out.

For the guy who wants to add that Paxton or Vortech blower, just remember
that the most damaging element to the transmission is the shock factor.
This means popping the clutch with the engine revved from stand-stills,
banging the gears as you shift, or (god forbid) trying to shift into 5th
and going into 1st by mistake.  These can be very hard on the transmission,
with or without blower.  However, a smooth, steady application of power
will let the transmission live longer.  The other thing I know about the
Mustang is that you can't really apply too much power in first gear, or the
rear end will simply burn tires, even without help.  So, you'll probably
get the most useful acceleration in 2nd gear, where 450 ln-ft of input torque
should be taken in stride.

For those who REALLY want to bang gears in your Mustangs, you might look
into the Tremec 5 speed.  It will presumably replace the T-5 in a Mustang,
but is MUCH stronger.  (It's an aluminum duplicate of the Ford Top-Loader
with a 5th gear OD added.)

eyc
--
>:<  Me:  Eugene Chu (Mr. Butterfly)        | Radar Science & Engineering  >:<
>:<  [e-mail]               | Jet Propulsion Laboratory    >:<
"T'is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness"
But t'is so much easier to curse the darkness.