Stock Quarter Mile Reply #15 – July 23, 2014, 08:36:58 PM Quote from: ThunderFox;433098My old '77 Olds 98 Coupe with a 350 had similar stock power numbers (165hp / 275 tq), a 3 speed auto, similar rear end gears, much more weight and it still put down 17.4 in the quarter. The T-Bird is definitely faster than that car.Ha! I had a 78. Did a cam swap with my uncle the weekend I bought the car. Woke that bad girl up big time. Threw a rod in it later on.... Wish I still had it..... Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #16 – July 23, 2014, 10:39:26 PM Bruiser ran 14.6 @98 standing 1/4 mile 2.3 5 speeder with just a tune and 20 LBS of wind. On slicks. Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #17 – July 28, 2014, 12:34:47 PM Quote from: Haystack;433102 tbird does a bit under 10 to sixty, but it has a t-5 and seems to run better then the cougar.Isn't that a v8 car? I have timed my 88's 0-60 to 8.x seconds with a 3.8 and AOD...I would love to take my cougar to the track but I need a new windshield first... Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #18 – July 28, 2014, 04:38:52 PM i think mine did 1/8th mile in 11sec :( Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #19 – July 29, 2014, 01:32:26 AM Yes, both v-8's and the tbird is well over 250k and cougar is 197ishk miles i beleive.the 88's 3.8 isn't a.bad motor for a stock power plant... 140hp puts it a whole 10hp less then the 302, but ill bet it makes more power at higher rpm's which would really help once its moving. my high mile 302's are all done at 4000rpm's. Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #20 – July 29, 2014, 06:27:49 AM Quote from: Haystack;436531Yes, both v-8's and the tbird is well over 250k and cougar is 197ishk miles i beleive.the 88's 3.8 isn't a.bad motor for a stock power plant... 140hp puts it a whole 10hp less then the 302, but ill bet it makes more power at higher rpm's which would really help once its moving. my high mile 302's are all done at 4000rpm's.The 3.8 is a terrible motor. I have changed many head gaskets on them over the years and FEL PRO came out with a superseded head gasket and they were much better but still an issue. In my 50 years in the business i am willing to say the 3.8 is one of the most engines i have replaced for mechanical failures (GAS ENGINES). The 302 according to my mustang DYNE actually produced good high end power over 3000 RPM,s much more HP and Torque compared to the 3.8. And the 302 is by far a very reliable engine no one can argue that fact.The 3.8 falls off quite nicely over 2200-2500 as most V6 engine inherently do. Now inline 6 cylinders accomplish much greater torque and a much better power band than a V. Most stock 302 FORDS i have checked actually pull quite nicely right up to 4600 RPM's with good flat torque and good hp at those numbers.. Have a great day guys. Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #21 – July 29, 2014, 11:36:56 PM Knock on wood, but I've seen at least 10 high mile 3.8's and none of them needed any major work. i wouldn't buy a 3.8 car unless i planned on swapping the engine.the 3cfi 3.8's I've driven had no balls down low compared to a 302, but all seemed to pull harder up top. i also was really suprised at one 88 3.8 i drove causr you could swear it was a 302. Had enough power to chirp the tires and seemed to move out better then any of my stock high miles 302's did. obviously a h.o. swap and it would all be over, but you could make the same arguement with a split port swap on a 3.8.One thing i hated about my 3.8's, got the same or worse freeway mileage then a 302. City was slightly better.though. Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #22 – July 30, 2014, 05:35:16 PM The SEFI 3.8 I had in a 95 Thunderbird didn't want to rev for anything. You would nail the throttle to pass, the tach would rev up, and it would kind of move forward. Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #23 – July 30, 2014, 06:16:37 PM i also was really suprised at one 88 3.8 i drove causr you could swear it was a 302. Had enough power to chirp the tires and seemed to move out better then any of my stock high miles 302's did. Here is my DROP TOP GT churping the WHEELS just like a 3.8???? OK GOT IT!!!. Have a great evening guys. Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #24 – July 31, 2014, 02:27:56 AM Not talking stangs tom, stock 150hp 3500lb thunderbird/cougars with 200,000 mile neglected engines.looks like your stang is missing some of the front and back . Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #25 – July 31, 2014, 03:18:24 AM My first cat was a 3.8 car with trak-lok and 3.27s. I put 2.25" dual exhaust on it and a larger air cleaner. Ran VERY well for what it was. Would leave 2 solid rubber tracks about 6 foot long if I mashed it from a standstill. No power braking. 87 CFI car. Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #26 – July 31, 2014, 06:47:32 AM Quote from: Haystack;436637Not talking stangs tom, stock 150hp 3500lb thunderbird/cougars with 200,000 mile neglected engines.looks like your stang is missing some of the front and back .Not any more that was when it was being restored. Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #27 – July 31, 2014, 07:10:33 AM The old iron-head 3.8s were pretty reliable. I had 2 fox marquis and 2 cougars all 1983-1985s, and they all had over 200k miles on them with no major problems. I didn't drive them hard though. It's funny, the 1983 cougar 3.8 with the carb was the only carbed car I ever owned that I can say ran perfect. Started right up in any weather, never hesitated, you'd swear it was fuel injected. The other 3 3.8's were CFI. Again, reliable, but with only a C5, they got about the same mileage as a 5.0.I don't know where I was going with this post. I think I was just trying to say the older 3.8s don't (in my experience) eat head gaskets like the newer ones, and they can be a reliable commuter engine. You just won't win any races. Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #28 – July 31, 2014, 02:34:14 PM Quote from: CoogarXR;436641The old iron-head 3.8s were pretty reliable. I had 2 fox marquis and 2 cougars all 1983-1985s, and they all had over 200k miles on them with no major problems. I didn't drive them hard though. It's funny, the 1983 cougar 3.8 with the carb was the only carbed car I ever owned that I can say ran perfect. Started right up in any weather, never hesitated, you'd swear it was fuel injected. The other 3 3.8's were CFI. Again, reliable, but with only a C5, they got about the same mileage as a 5.0.I don't know where I was going with this post. I think I was just trying to say the older 3.8s don't (in my experience) eat head gaskets like the newer ones, and they can be a reliable commuter engine. You just won't win any races.Actually all 3.8s had aluminum heads. The CFI head is different from the 88 and up SEFI (well 88 batch fire) head. The 88 and up 3.8s are the ones that are more pr0ne to head gasket failure. If I remember correctly it was due to the gasket fire ring being redesigned. It was too close to a coolant passage. Quote Selected
Stock Quarter Mile Reply #29 – July 31, 2014, 02:59:15 PM Are these 3.8's running with a factory tune? No short belts, advanced timing, etc., etc.? It's neat to see what people can squeeze out of stock hardware. Quote Selected
Topic: Stock Quarter Mile (Read 6926 times)
previous topic - next topic
