How much horsepower...?

Considering mavericks are fairly light weight cars, how much horsepower do you think it takes to make them a competitive street car. Say, to hang with something like a new mustang gt, the late model trans am, camaros etc... I think most of these late model cars hit right around the 300hp to 310hp mark. But, they weigh in much heavier than most mavericks. Lets say a maverick with a small block ford (289-302) C4-auto and posi-unit with 3:50 to 3:91 gears.

 

Not sure about the horsepower, but I'm willing to bet a mildly warmed over 289/302 with the setup you mentioned could easily keep up with just about anything on the road.

 

ok first off, who's driving? you or me?? just jokingok when you say hang with them are we talking 1/4mile or road racing. unless you change transmissions long distances they may out do you, i know where i'm at in texas alot and i do mean alot of the camaro's and t/a are 11 sec cars if not some in the 10's i'd personally like to get a gear vendors set up for my comet, having 8 forward gears instead of 4 couldn't be bad....just remember lighter wieght = traction problems anyway, i'm hoping soon to destroy some ego's in my town:evilsmile

 

I would bet even 300 rwhp would put the hurtin' on a good majority of the average modded street car.

 

definately traction is an issue. ran my first T&T this weekend. first run i burned tires the WHOLE 1/4 strip and got there in 20 seconds. best time of the night was a 15.13 on my street tires after i lowered the pressure and i still spun them a little on that run. this is at close to 5k foot of altitude where your N/A off the line response is slower.

 

I have the luck of seeing both sides of you question.
I have owned several Mavs and old Fords, but also owned 3 late model Z28s.
93 M6
95 A4
98 M6 LS1...

The thing about these cars is they are PORKY! They start out at 3400lbs without the driver, and that is a stripper. My 98 was loaded and was almost 3600 lbs.
With only a free flowing muffler and air filter, the LS1 can make 320 to 340 rwhp depending on year. These cars were seriously underrated.
Mine pulled 330 rwhp, which translates to roughly 375 fwhp (12% losses through drivetrain).
So the way I look at it is that car was pushing 10 lbs per every fwhp (with me in the car).

Now when I compare cars I look at how many pounds it is pushing to get an idea of performance that I can relate to. This isn't fool proof... gears, drivetrain losses, traction all play a role.

Anyway, I figure if a Mav was to weigh 1000 lbs less with driver, for example, it should run with a stock LS1 car with 100 less fwhp. That is an oversimplified way of putting it. The drivetrain losses on modern pony cars are far less than old Fords.

It would probably be more accurate to use rwhp in comparision. The math is just more involved than what I like to do on the fly.

3800 lbs (me in a 99.8% stock Z28)
divided by rwhp 330
= 11.5 lbs per rwhp

2800 lbs (rough guess of a reasonably stripped small bumper Maverick with 200 lb driver)
divided by 11.5 lbs
= 243 rwhp needed to be as fast. Assuming of course optimal gearing and such.
You may be wise to add a couple hp to make up for areodynamics.

My .02
Dave


Btw: My 98 was a 12 flat car.
Is anyone here doing 12 flat with 245 or so rwhp? (maybe a little more for areo)
If so, that would confirm my theory...

 

Ratio411, that makes sense... I had a chance to drive a late model Trans Am this past weekend. 2001 model with the 5.7 liter, auto all stock. It pulled real hard from a 10-20 mph start through the gears. My maverick is running a strong 302, C-4 and a posi-unit 9" with 3:90 gears. Just a seat of the pants feel, but the Trans Am felt like it would hang in a 1/4 mile well, if not equal. I was very suprised.

 

I beat or tie most mustangs (pre-2005), even some with some moderate bolt-on additions, at least in the 1/8. I would like to try a 1/4, but think it wouldn't make much difference...

I am still running my stock rotating assembly with original rings and 8:1 compression on 59000 miles, but added Performer Plus (mild) cam, single plane intake, and 3.80 gears.

Even a little bit of modification to our cars will make them "fast". I doubt I have much over, if even, 200 HP.

 

scooper, you never know there are people faster than me in the 1/8 that are slower in the 1/4. of course my sleeping at the light doesnt seem to help

 

Reaction time doesn't effect ET. It all depends on how the car is set up. If it's not hooking like it should the 1/4 mile ET will seem a little quicker than it should due to the short time not being up to par. Same goes with cars that make a lot of HP but lack torque. Aerodynamics and weight have to do with this issue as well.

 

the brazilian maverick gt, 302 v8, with all original parts has 197 cv, oops cv is in portuguese, 197 HP

 

so your saying my 1/8 may have been much quicker if i wasnt so worried about stopping the spinning tires? off the light nap time didnt really matter

BTW, off the line response was in reference to how quickly the N/A vehicles accelerate from low RPM in the thinner air. very noticeable difference, i could only imagine a denver track

 

I'm confused, because I could sit at the light for 20 seconds, and still run a 10.80, just the same if I cut a perfect light. I can't tell if your trying to be funny or what.

ET will suffer from wheel spin obviously, and your mph will show wheel spin because your mph will be higher than what it should be for a certain ET.

 

i think im just confusing you with terms, when i stated reaction lag i was referring to lag in acceleration at altitude. its more noticeable when you hit the throttle at the start, but its there all the way up. the lower the rpm the more your affected, so as you get more RPM going it compensates.you can compensate somewhat but if i take any of my vehicles to visit the bay area, i about get whiplash and have a hard time not burning the tires because im used to giving it more throttle. i was trying to be funny about napping at the light though, my best reaction was a .4 range and most of them were around a .9 pretty pathetic

 

Ah yeah I was confused. You said napping at the light and I assumed you meant R/T. I had some pretty lazy lights in my last Mustang and still netted 10 second E/T's and I'm thinking, jeez, I hope I don't have to show slips of my 1.1 RT haha.