TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
The Band, not the Disease!
Joined
·
3,090 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
ok, I got a 97 tbird sport w/ some minor mods. Runs me 15.0 flat. Who would win?
(Stock Aurora, mind you) What are some TQ and HP ratings? 1/4 mile times? 0 - 60? Thanks guys!
 

·
MN12 Fanatic
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
You should cream an Aurora

They run low 16's. If you are running 15 flat you should have no problem. If your bird was stock, it would be a close race.

Hope this helps!
 

·
MN12 Fanatic
Joined
·
1,459 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
16.3 and 250 HP??? Something can't be right there, sometimes magazines get some awefully crappy 1/4 mile times, can the 1/4 mile really be that bad with 250 HP?
 

·
MN12 Fanatic
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
I was thinking the same thing! The newer ones claim to run like 15.7. I also found that it has 260 TQ. 250HP and 260TQ. It should be running alot faster than that, but everytime i seen a 1/4 mile time for it they were all upper 15's to low 16's. They are also large/heavy cars, so that might make a difference, but they can't wiegh much more than a mn12 or even at all. I was a little cofused myself. That car-stats site seems to be accurate with most of the times, thats why I checked there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
Are those front drive? That would make a difference and truely prove that it is pointless to use a front wheel drive car for drag racing.
 

·
MN12 Fanatic
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
Yep, they sure are! The kinda remind me of say a cadillac seville. V8 front wheel drive and have 300HP and TQ! But aren't all that quick in the 1/4 mile..... they run upper 14's to low 15's. Yeah thats fast and all but not fast enough for a car with 300hp and tq.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
about the aurora

my best friend owns a aurora and we raced top end and he beat me by like maybe a half a car lenght its not going to smoke u if it does beat u but we both have 20's and adjustable suspension on our cars and we were just playing when we did it but mine slow as dirt so u might have a better chance
 

·
Ohio TCCoA
Joined
·
863 Posts
Hey do you still have the 94-95 front bumper with the 96-97 gfx. Loved that front end still have a pic around here somewhere I think.


Later,
jay
 

·
Smoothmeister K
Joined
·
887 Posts
RWD vs FWD

One concept I still haven't been able to fully understand yet is why RWD is preferred in drag racing over FWD? My friend owns a '93 Plymouth Duster (3.0L, 5-speed, FWD), and he claims he can beat a 5.0 Mustang (5-speed) in a 1/4 mile because the Mustang is RWD? Since the Duster is FWD, he said it gets up to speed quicker than a RWD since the tires can grab better in the front than the back? Anyway, can someone describe to me how RWD has an advantage over FWD in drag racing? I'm confused as hell. TIA
 

·
MN12 Fanatic
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
I don't think thats true!

I have to disagree with your friend. It is all about weigfht transfer... Think of it this way. When you take off fast the front raises up and which makes it lighter and then the weight transfers to the rear of the car. So when a fwd car takes off the front tires have less friction with the ground and then causes wheel spin. This is more likely to happen with a powerfull fwd car though. So since the weight transfers to the rear the rwd cars have more friction with the ground, which makes them better for drag racing :D . Hope this helps some.... oh and I don't think he could take 5.0 either, unless he is moded and really good at shifting. So you never know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
726 Posts
Your buddy, hes not very smart is he? RWD is far superior to FWD. First in drag racing, when a car launches, fwd or rwd, weight is transferred to the back. You know how important traction is in drag racing don't you? If you don't have traction, you have nothing. Whats the use for 500 hp if you can't get it to the ground? Anyway, on a fwd, when the weight is transfered, the front lifts up, taking traction OFF the drive wheels and putting it where it does no good. So, for a rwd car, when the front lifts on launch, weight is transfered to the rear, same as the fwd, but this time, the weight is on the drive wheels, thus INCREASING traction. All things being equal except the drive wheels, the rwd car will kick the living crap out of the fwd. FWD is bad, very bad for drag racing. It also sucks for just about every racing sport out there. Like i always say, fwd is merely a crutch for the weak.

[edit] Damn! tony beat me to it!
 

·
Smoothmeister K
Joined
·
887 Posts
Ahh, sweet, now I can tell him off. One last question though. Why is it that a FWD gets better traction than a RWD on snow/ice? I tried racing my same friend in winter on a deserted road, and he took off like a bat out of hell, while I floored it 3/4 way and traveled a foot for about 4-5 seconds until I slowly started to move. I know this is probably a dumb question on this forum, I guess I'm not too knowledgable in this matter. TIA (Thanks in Advance)
 

·
MN12 Fanatic
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
Okay, let my try to explain this. In order to have weight transfer you have to have some kind of traction to start with such as dry ground. Since a car doesn't get much weight transfer on snow and ice, the balence of a car kicks in. On a fwd car the engine sits above the drive wheels which gives a fwd car more traction on snow/ice because the front is heavy and stays heavy because of less weight transfer. Now on a rwd car the rear end is alot lighter because there is no engine sitting on top of the wheels like a fwd. So since there is alot less weight transfer, the rear remains light. FWD drive is generally better for snow/ice. Its the only thing there good for. Well hope this is accurate and helps you understand a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I agree (a little bit)

I have a Mercury Mystique too 2.0 auto trans. that I SCCA race for kicks.
All that I've done to it is a K&N panel filter, axed the silencer and cut the resonators out of it and welded in straight pipe where they used to be.
it is constantly faster around a given course than my Cougar also when I'm just going into a curve I can get on it harder and sooner and the FWD will "pull" the car through the curve.
I'll admit that RWD is far superior for dragging but on a tight road course where balance and total traction as well as chassis control and drive train responsiveness come into play the table is balanced or tilted to the other end(assuming the cars are "street" cars).
PS if you doubt it I'll take ya on on any SCCA course you can find in the midwest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
AnthraxBird said:
ok, I got a 97 tbird sport w/ some minor mods. Runs me 15.0 flat. Who would win?
(Stock Aurora, mind you) What are some TQ and HP ratings? 1/4 mile times? 0 - 60? Thanks guys!
How does your Tbird run flat 15's? I mean, @ 300FT altitude, and about 70f weather, mines does higher 15's.

Blitzcat said:
I have a Mercury Mystique too 2.0 auto trans. that I SCCA race for kicks.
All that I've done to it is a K&N panel filter, axed the silencer and cut the resonators out of it and welded in straight pipe where they used to be.
it is constantly faster around a given course than my Cougar also when I'm just going into a curve I can get on it harder and sooner and the FWD will "pull" the car through the curve.
I'll admit that RWD is far superior for dragging but on a tight road course where balance and total traction as well as chassis control and drive train responsiveness come into play the table is balanced or tilted to the other end(assuming the cars are "street" cars).
PS if you doubt it I'll take ya on on any SCCA course you can find in the midwest.
I totally agree. I used to take curves HARD on my Contour, and it took em. It handled SOOOO much better compared to my Tbird.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top