ITR571

Uh unless I am wrong I saw 7.2 0-60 for the 89 5.0 Mustang, and 6.2, stock for stock equal drivers, how can you say a 12 year stock car that is slower new than a new type R, will beat it with 12 years on it on top of that? Stock for Stock, equal drivers, the R will win, I am not saying stangs are slow, becasue they arent, but this situation is an 89 5.0 Vs. a basically new type R, the R will win, physics are physics.

Evil DOHC

I love the way H-Pimp smacks all these newbies into reality. You have to give credit when credit is due.

EVIL

BenR

I'm just speaking from my personal experience here. I'm not saying it wouldn't be close - I've been beaten by stangs I thought were "muffler only" 5.0's (the domestic equivalent of rice) but there were many more that the R was able to catch and pass (you'll never get them off the line). You must read the same 5.0 rags I do and stock, well-maintained 5-speed GT's w/3.08 gears on street tires typically run high 14's to low 15's around 92-93MPH - Virtually identical to a Type R's observed times and trap speeds. Granted, it doesn't take much to get a Mustang into the 13's or even the 12's with the right bolt-ons, but stock vs. stock is anyone's race.

BenR

Whoops... I said 3.08 gears when I meant 2.73's - My old LX had the optional 3.08 gears from the factory, which I forgot about. The 200lb lighter LX with 3.08 gears could run the quarter in the mid fourteens @ 95MPH bone stock. I used to occasionally borrow a friends '91 GT w/2.73's (until it was stolen) and unlike the LX, it practically laid down and died when you hit 3rd gear...

B20Vtec

I clicked on the link you provided..It states that the 97' Type R is 4/10's of a second slower than the 00' model...Now if this publication is so accurate tell me how that can be true...The 97' is definitely lighter than the 00' model...There were no changes what so ever to the motor...The only difference was that the 00' Type R has air standard...Plus a rear windshield wiper...So how the heck can a 97' be slower...Especially by 4/10' s of a second...That is a huge difference!! If I am not mistaken the 97' is probably at least 50 pounds lighter...No difference to the gears, ECU etc etc...

R748

This is NOT true. It's a "magazine racing" myth.

There are more than a few 97/98 R's that've run 14.3s and 14.4s stock. There are variances between cars, but such a blanket statement is incorrect. This all started when SCC got nice numbers when they tested the 00 cars. Car and driver got 15.1 (or was that 15.3) with a 97 ITR. This could be due to (1) Green engine (2) lack of driver skill (3) just a bad car, etc., who knows.

Dyno numbers for the 00 Rs are about the same as the average 97/98 R, and no one has proven that the 00Rs have different gearing.