1968 High 14s and Low 15s

[Scott]

Took the matching nos GT/CS 302, 4V, C4, 2.79 cogs ran high 14s and low 15s. Reaction time from .080 to .288.

Confused that the fastest runs were with the slower reaction times.

I thought it felt like I didn't get traction until a fair way through first and slipped a little more into second. Is that possible or am I imagining it? [opinions and science are both appreciated]

Tyres are Firestone 215/65/R14s on the back and Bob Jane 215/65/R14s on the front. The mismatched tyres are a sore point - theives wrecked two of the firestones when they crashed while I was chasing them. Bob Jane is an Australian motorsport legend and very good at selling tyres as a result.

It was at Western Sydney International Dragway which has open track on Wednesday evenings and I'm working nearby so will be there most Wednesday nights for a while if anyone in Sydney wants to come and play?

By the way, it is summer in Sydney (although very cool for this time of year at about 20C on track) and there was only one kangaroo on the track the whole night.

 

[Midnight Special]

Took the matching nos GT/CS 302, 4V, C4, 2.79 cogs ran high 14s and low 15s. Reaction time from .080 to .288.

...That's about right for that set up, isn't it? Perhaps a J-code with 3:00 or 3:25 cogs would be mid to low 14's...

 

[davidathans]

Took the matching nos GT/CS 302, 4V, C4, 2.79 cogs ran high 14s and low 15s. Reaction time from .080 to .288.

Confused that the fastest runs were with the slower reaction times.

I thought it felt like I didn't get traction until a fair way through first and slipped a little more into second. Is that possible or am I imagining it? [opinions and science are both appreciated]

reaction time has nothing to do with e.t. if that helps....you could sit there (as long as you dont move) for 10 seconds and still run 15 flat

makes sense that you were spinning your tires (a 215 is not alot of patch, especially if you don't have some sort of limited slip differential) although you probably weren't spinning too much because you would have ran slower e.t.'s

 

[robert campbell]

Scott,
These are impressive times for a stock 302 4V with 2.79 gears! Your car is working very well!

Rob

 

[gofastguy]

That's about what I would expect from the S code with me driving. I'm not entirely sure that the old school muscle cars were near as fast as we thought they were at the time. Is there a thread somewhere about quarter times?

 

[Scott]

Sorry, didn't mean to mislead but have. I didn't mean to suggest it is stock. Just the numbered bits are matching but not stock. Has roller and upgraded valve train, edlebrock intake, bit of head work, 650cfm carb.

For sure the special's 15 seconds is a lot more exciting than the 13 seconds it takes the evo to cover the same ground.

 

[rvrtrash]

Back in the late '70's, my buddy's CS with a built up 302/auto was running high 14's, so that sounds about right. The variation in your ET's was probably due to when your car got traction and hooked up, or if you were shifting manually, at what RPM you were shifting. The longer you're spinning, the slower you are. 2.79's are hard to launch with. It seems you either spin the tires or bog down. Shifting at different RPM's will change your ET. If you hold it too long after your power band flattens out, you're wasting time. You would want to dyno your engine, see where the power is being developed and then set your shift light at that point. At least that's the old school technology that I'm familiar with. David, Rob?

 

[CougarCJ]

Thanks for clarifying, I was going to question the math involved converting from the metric system. :grin:

Back in the day a J code, C4 with 2.79 gears, probably ran closer to a 16 flat.

 

[Midnight Special]

...'Found some data to compare to. I'm not sure how accurate these specs are, however. What's your opinion re; performance and mpg stats, etc... for the various options? Does anyone know of a handy (performance) chart?

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/FORD_USA/MUSTANG_1gen/MUSTANG_1gen_Base_Hardtop/1968.html

 

[di81977]

I got a kick out of the fuel consumption numbers (MPG). Quarter mile times seem reasonable.