0-60 in 1.9 seconds in 1994

"TysMagic" (twjeffery) 11/21/2016 at 12:36 • Filed to: None

2

19

We rode rock n roller coaster when we were in Disney World last week. It starts with a 2.8 second 0 - 57 mph run. I have been hung up on that. I know the Tesla in ludicrous mode does it in less than that as do a bunch of super cars, but I just can’t imagine being at the wheel of that kind of force/power.

While looking at the list of car that can hit 60 in under 3 seconds:

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

one very interesting find came up: the 1994 Ford SVT Boss Mustang 10L Concept

0 to 60 in 1.9 seconds in a 1994 Mustang that looks pretty much like any other mustang from the outside and from what I can find on the inside too

And here’s a low quality shaky once over of what’s in the engine bay

Think of all the crowds this could take out!

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 12:42

1

Is it really a 10.0 or are they rounding up from 9.8?

Party-vi > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 12:45

1

I refuse to believe that figure unless there’s test data, or Ford meant to type 2.9s.

TysMagic > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 11/21/2016 at 12:46

1

according to what I can find, 610.2 cubic inches which is 9.9993865 liters

TysMagic > Party-vi 11/21/2016 at 12:51

0

pretty much just an assortment of articles all supporting that, a burnout video or three, but nothing official with a time after a run

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 12:53

0

In Ford math, if you divide 610 in half, you get 302.

Party-vi > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 12:56

0

It’s a 598. 4.6" bore with 4.5" stroke, based on a 460 big block (or some sort of Ford Racing derivative, like the A460).

Party-vi > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 12:57

0

It just seems so ridiculous.

TysMagic > Party-vi 11/21/2016 at 13:00

0

right! I can’t picture it in a new car even with all the electronics keeping me “safe.” This can’t have much of anything that would really keep you from just killing yourself in, well, 1.9 seconds,

Nibby > Party-vi 11/21/2016 at 13:07

0

It was actually 0.9s

Urambo Tauro > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 13:15

0

I need it.

Comes over to help work on your car and only drinks beer > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 13:17

1

A buddy in HS had an old Yugo that could do this...

(wait, sorry, I thought that said 1.9 minutes.)

Party-vi > Nibby 11/21/2016 at 13:25

0

boo and hiss

RutRut > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 13:37

0

Nothing about this is surprising: Drag radials+2800 stall+3.70 rear+big block= extremely quick 0-60 on a prepped surface.

Mustafaluigi > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 14:26

1

I’m sure 1.9 is possible on racing slicks after a proper burnout on a prepped drag strip. Physically impossible on street tires ESPECIALLY of that era.

traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn > Nibby 11/21/2016 at 15:32

0

- 0.9 s

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 15:48

0

That’s cool but can it set a sub 3 second time on a loose surface?

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 15:48

0

That’s cool but can it set a sub 3 second time on a loose surface?

NJAnon > TysMagic 11/21/2016 at 21:20

0

I vaguely remember seeing a magazine article on it. But yeah they did say it was 1.9seconds and that they didn’t use normal tires. But while that is a Mustang, its performance setup is overkill and was done with only the mindset of getting a really low acceleration time sacrificing all other things.

e36Jeff now drives a ZHP > Party-vi 12/10/2016 at 20:43

1

I was in the same boat, but apparently that 1.9s 0-60 is from Car and Driver with actual data to back it up, still trying to find a copy of the article.