|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 123
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 123 |
All i know is that my last car was a 90 Probe GT and i've smoked a lot of cars with that thing. Especially if you have your boost turned up a little bit. I'm willing to say that an inexperienced SVT driver will lose to a Probe GT (but only in the early years when they had a turbo).
'00 CSVT silver frost
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,128
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,128 |
93-97 = NO BOOST
like i said.. I've owned BOTH..
no way will a csvt loose to a 93+ pgt unless he starts in 2nd... then shifts to 5th
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 85
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 85 |
In 1993 I bought a brand new Probe GT, 5-speed, every option except leather and a moonroof. The first week out in it I took a Mustang GT from a light from about 0-60ish then he sloowwwly started to pass. I always thought that my PGT was pretty fast for 164hp. I could see a really good driver in a PGT beating a really bad driver in a CSVT.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392 |
Originally posted by binfordtools:
In 1993 I bought a brand new Probe GT, 5-speed, every option except leather and a moonroof. The first week out in it I took a Mustang GT from a light from about 0-60ish then he sloowwwly started to pass.
was it a convertible automatic? because a '93 era mustang would put a retarded beating on a probe. stock a 5-sp gt was a mid to low 14 second car. 
02 Mustang GT... Tuned by Nelsons. Low 12's, anyone? 
.....______
___|______\_____
|/-\_________/-\_|
.\_/...............\_/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 85
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 85 |
Originally posted by MxRacerCam:
was it a convertible automatic? because a '93 era mustang would put a retarded beating on a probe. stock a 5-sp gt was a mid to low 14 second car.
stock 1991 Mustang GT: 0-60: 7.3sec. 1/4 mile: 15.6
stock 1993 Probe GT: 0-60: 7.5sec. 1/4 mile: 15.8
"because a '93 era mustang would put a retarded beating on a probe." - A retarded beating? Not quite. A stock 91 GT like the one my buddy drove in 93 that I raced was NOT a 14 sec. car. A stock LX notchback 5-speed car would get times in the 14.5 sec. range, but not a stock GT. By the way, in 93 the HP ratings actually dropped for the Mustang.
My buddy that I raced in the 91 Mustang GT was a pretty crappy driver, and never really raced too many people. Me on the other hand by 1993 had owned, and street raced 3 different 13-12sec. Mustangs. I was a pretty good driver by then so it was pretty easy for me to kick his ass out of the hole in my PGT.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,857 |
Originally posted by binfordtools:
Originally posted by MxRacerCam:
was it a convertible automatic? because a '93 era mustang would put a retarded beating on a probe. stock a 5-sp gt was a mid to low 14 second car.
stock 1991 Mustang GT: 0-60: 7.3sec. 1/4 mile: 15.6
stock 1993 Probe GT: 0-60: 7.5sec. 1/4 mile: 15.8
"because a '93 era mustang would put a retarded beating on a probe." - A retarded beating? Not quite. A stock 91 GT like the one my buddy drove in 93 that I raced was NOT a 14 sec. car. A stock LX notchback 5-speed car would get times in the 14.5 sec. range, but not a stock GT. By the way, in 93 the HP ratings actually dropped for the Mustang.
My buddy that I raced in the 91 Mustang GT was a pretty crappy driver, and never really raced too many people. Me on the other hand by 1993 had owned, and street raced 3 different 13-12sec. Mustangs. I was a pretty good driver by then so it was pretty easy for me to kick his ass out of the hole in my PGT.
dude you are sooooooooo far off on those 91 gt stats its not even funny...i have owned no less than 5 fox bodied stangs and the only one that ran 15's was a bone stock 2.73 geared auto gt...and it ran 15.2's all day long...ALL of the 5 speed fox bodied stangs ran well into the 14's BONE STOCK....
the car and driver posted times for a STOCK 1991 mustang gt are - 0-60 6.0 SECONDS....1/4 in 14.6 SECONDS @ 97 mph...and a top speed of 135 mph...how is that not a 14 second car????
also your statement about losing hp in 93 is off as well...in 1993 ford changed the way they rated hp...the 93 engine is exactly the same as the previous engine(except for having hypeuretic pistons)the 93 engine was dyno proven many times to put out the same wheel hp as previous models...
and it is a fact that a PROPERLY RUNNING fox bodied stang WOULD in fact put a RETARTED beating on a stock probe gt PERIOD......
new,new ride!
'99 svt
black/mnb
'95 mustang gt sold!
'98 svt #800 sold!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392 |
Originally posted by binfordtools:
stock 1991 Mustang GT: 0-60: 7.3sec. 1/4 mile: 15.6
stock 1993 Probe GT: 0-60: 7.5sec. 1/4 mile: 15.8
"because a '93 era mustang would put a retarded beating on a probe." - A retarded beating? Not quite. A stock 91 GT like the one my buddy drove in 93 that I raced was NOT a 14 sec. car. A stock LX notchback 5-speed car would get times in the 14.5 sec. range, but not a stock GT. By the way, in 93 the HP ratings actually dropped for the Mustang.
My buddy that I raced in the 91 Mustang GT was a pretty crappy driver, and never really raced too many people. Me on the other hand by 1993 had owned, and street raced 3 different 13-12sec. Mustangs. I was a pretty good driver by then so it was pretty easy for me to kick his ass out of the hole in my PGT.
having "owned and raced" three mustangs apparently doesn't mean much. i had a stock 91 notch 5 speed than i got into the high 13's, and i seriously doubt that the extra 300 lbs of GT weight would add nearly two seconds to its times. like i said, it was either an automatic convertable (which still should beat a stock probe, but you never know) or the guy driving it was an absolute dolt.
02 Mustang GT... Tuned by Nelsons. Low 12's, anyone?
.....______
___|______\_____
|/-\_________/-\_|
.\_/...............\_/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 435
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 435 |
Originally posted by FlechaAutoSports:
no way will a csvt loose to a 93+ pgt unless he starts in 2nd... then shifts to 5th
I agree,a Probe GT isnt even worth talking about...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 670
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 670 |
The guys on probetalk.com would disagree. They seem to have no problems handing it to the CSVT.
-R-
I'm a Karate Man. Karate men..bruise on the inside.
"The difference between oversteer and understeer: oversteer is when the passengers are scared, understeer is when the driver is scared." -Driver Unknown
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 435
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 435 |
Originally posted by Kung Fu Joe:
The guys on probetalk.com would disagree. They seem to have no problems handing it to the CSVT.
-R-
I am also on probe talk,all I hear are what I would call "Ricer" kill stories by 16 yr old kids.
But there are some on there that have very respectable cars that have quite a bit of $$$ into there Probe...but most probe ricers are talking about stock SVT's that are driven by probably more mature adults that could care less about racing a punk kid in there 1,100 dollar Probe with a fart can.
|
|
|
|
|
