05 GT, M5 Dyno.

254 rwhp @ 5500rpm
274 torque @ 3750rpm



http://www.livernoismotorsports.com/prod_imgs/gal-70-p-1-large.jpg

http://www.livernoismotorsports.com/prod_imgs/gal-70-p-723-large.jpg

http://www.livernoismotorsports.com/prod_imgs/gal-70-p-724-large.jpg

http://www.livernoismotorsports.com/prod_imgs/gal-70-p-728-large.jpg

hrmmm
With 15% loss...figures out to be 292hp. Guess its not overrated as everyone here has hoped for.
Didnt LS1's come close to dynoing 300 at the wheels? This is a little low IMO. How much break in time did it have?

Its also on a mustang dyno.

Hmm... was that 3550 weight with a driver in the car or just the car?

i'm sorry, but that's kind of laughable. i was expecting closer to the 270-280hp range with all the rumors of it being underrated by 20hp. :lol: actually if you think about it, 254rwhp/.85 ~300hp crank, which is the advertised power rating. i'm disappointed it ONLY puts out it's rated power. have we become so jaded?

Hmm... was that 3550 weight with a driver in the car or just the car?

The car itself. It's about 100lbs heavier than a F-bod.

Yes, it's a Mustang dyno. It would be 270ish on a dynojet I imagine.

Better than the 04' GT, but it's still no LS1.

:lol:

dont lt1's do better on average? it doesnt matter anyway, ill have a cam by the time i ever see one of these on the road:D

i call ugly on that one.

LT1's don't generally dyno that high in stock trim. I think the M6's could see 240-245RWHP, MAYBE some with 250RWHP. But, there are exceptions. I bet with proper break in those numbers would be a bit higher for the 'stang. None the less, I'm still a bit surprised at the numbers.

LT1's don't generally dyno that high in stock trim. I think the M6's could see 240-245RWHP, MAYBE some with 250RWHP. But, there are exceptions. I bet with proper break in those numbers would be a bit higher for the 'stang. None the less, I'm still a bit surprised at the numbers.

Another thing, it's a mustang dyno which usually reads lower. I haven't heard of any stock Lt-1's dyno'ing 254rwhp on a mustang dyno.

Interesting numbers nonetheles. Still not Ls1 caliber, but i'm interested in seeing what this manual will run.

LT1's usually dyno 250-265 for an M6, I have even heard of a few that were north of 270 but that is not the norm. Torque is about 290-300. Early LS1's dynoed about 290-305 and the later ones were about 310-325 so they were plenty stout. As pointed out, if it is a Mustang dyno then the numbers are too low so does 270 sound right for a comparable Dynojet run? That weight is pretty heavy. I was under the impression that it was going to be 34xx pounds. I would like to see more of these dynoed so we can get some sort of consensus.

And people here were worried a 5.3L in the Camaro wouldn't be enough to stay ahead of the Mustang GT. :lol:

I'd rather have an LS7 myself. Or atleast an LS2 or 3. :)

This is pretty funny, because the dyno sheet clearly shows it was on a Mustang Dyno. Because of the eddy current motor that simulates load, the results on a Mustang Dyno will be lower.
Stock ‘03/’04 Cobras usually dyno in the 330rwhp range on a Mustang Dyno, and 360+rwhp on a Dynojet.
This (http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/MustangVsDynojet.cfm) link explains the difference between a Mustang Dyno and a Dynojet. Pretty simple…the Mustang Dyno uses an eddy current motor that simulates load as the car is accelerated.
Chevy High Performance (http://www.mustangdyne.com/Articles/CHP0603-article-01.htm) did a Mustang Dyno and Dynojet comparison, which clearly illustrated the differences.
This (http://www.slugbitchracing.com/mach1_dyno_data.shtml) is an interesting link. It shows a Mustang Dyno sheet for a Mach I and compares the same car on a Dynojet.
An LS1 owner in this (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194136&highlight=Mustang+dyno) thread made 274rwhp on a Mustang Dyno.

This (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191978) thread clearly illustrates the differences between a Mustang Dyno and a Dynojet.

Numerous examples of LS1’s on a Mustang Dyno. (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191759&highlight=Mustang+dyno)
Seems like most stock LS1's dyno around 270-280rwhp on a Mustang Dyno, which would put an LS1 about 20-30rwhp higher than the new Mustang GT.
Those look like some pretty damn good results to me. It's hard to exactly convert to Dynojet numbers, but the general concensus seems to be around 8-10%. The best way would be to put the car on a Dynojet and make a pull. I'd bet around 270-280rwhp SAE corrected.
S.

Mine Dynoed 264hp when it was stock...........haven't done it since......

Good to know that I'll be able to keep ahead of the new GT's.:)
Although it's never been much of a problem with stock Mustangs.........:rolleyes:

264 on a Mustang Dyno?
I doubt it.
S.

Those example were of pre-01' LS1s.

LS1s with the LS6 intake tend to dyno a little higher.

Here is a bone stock 99' SS dyno.

http://lethalss.ssgraphix.com/images/SteveSSDyno.jpg

Given that 01-02 LS1s can dyno as much as 20rwhp higher on dynojets, I'd say it's more in the 285-300rwhp range on a mustang dyno for those years. M6

Mustang dyno, Dynojet dyno.....it isn't that impressive. For it to run with LS1s in stock form it is going to need some pretty stout gearing if this is more the norm...

It's interesting how MT goes 13.6@100 in a GT and we get posts saying with a simple tune the GT will break into the 12's, now we see a dyno result that relieves Chevy guys...how about we wait a few months and see these things in the hands of real drivers and see what they'll average. All this information is quite conflicting.

250rwhp on a stock LT1? My friend dynoed at like 283 or something like that... alls he had was an intake and gutted cat. Then he got a tune and some LT's and now he does 310/350

Do 96-97 WS6 M6's typically dyno higher then 93-95 M6's?

250rwhp on a stock LT1? My friend dynoed at like 283 or something like that... alls he had was an intake and gutted cat.

I'd have to say that LT1 was a factory freak....the stock LT1s I've heard about were definitely not as stout as this '05 Mustang GT on the dyno...I've typically seen 230-240.....

I got the MT issue with the 05 stroty yesterday. They had a dyno of the auto in the 260ish range. Not sure what type of dyno they used.

Given that 01-02 LS1s can dyno as much as 20rwhp higher on dynojets, I'd say it's more in the 285-300rwhp range on a mustang dyno for those years. M6[/QUOTE]

Which probably means that the car is putting out 275rwhp and 295rwtq on a dynojet, exactly what we had posted originally when guys at Steeda dynoed it.

In the end, when looking at it from a "talk the talk/walk to walk" perspective, the dyno values are just "talk" since there are many other factors involved (ie. traction). Its the 0-60 and quarter mile times that do the walking. And so far, 13.6sec with the auto from a magazine not known for getting the fastest times is definately saying a lot for the new mustang.

Given that 01-02 LS1s can dyno as much as 20rwhp higher on dynojets, I'd say it's more in the 285-300rwhp range on a mustang dyno for those years. M6

Which probably means that the car is putting out 275rwhp and 295rwtq on a dynojet, exactly what we had posted originally when guys at Steeda dynoed it.

In the end, when looking at it from a "talk the talk/walk to walk" perspective, the dyno values are just "talk" since there are many other factors involved (ie. traction). Its the 0-60 and quarter mile times that do the walking. And so far, 13.6sec with the auto from a magazine not known for getting the fastest times is definately saying a lot for the new mustang.

Eh, not 295torque...no way.

All I see and hear from these cars is low 14 runs thus far. Only MT managed to get a sub 14 run with a rather agressive start and a likely prepped track.

Eh, not 295torque...no way.

All I see and hear from these cars is low 14 runs thus far. Only MT managed to get a sub 14 run with a rather agressive start and a likely prepped track.

Um, first off..... did you miss the part about Steeda dynoed the 05 at 275rwhp and 295rwtq on a dynojet?? (Its a fact)

Secondly, I don't get you're point about the MT time. They achieved 13.6sec (which is slightly <sarcasm> below 14 seconds) ....another FACT.

Third, since when do you baby it out of the hole when doing a 1/4 mile run? :rolleyes:

Eh, not 295torque...no way.

All I see and hear from these cars is low 14 runs thus far. Only MT managed to get a sub 14 run with a rather agressive start and a likely prepped track.


You hear low 14's thus far? How many reports have you seen other then that video that never showed the et? To my knowledge MT is the first to post any times from a car they actually drove. Everyone else used estimates.

Why doesn't everyone wait to see more times?

IMO it looks like it will be a solid 13 second car. Those hp numbers may have put an 04 GT lower than that, but the new one gained some weight too. I predict high 13s on average stock, anyway. What I would be more interested in is how easy they are to work on, reliability, responsiveness to mods, handling, etc. Everybody beats a few tenths to death and forgets the rest of the car. Anyway, it won't be an LS1 killer, but it looks like stock LT1s better look out- if there's any stock ones left :D

This was on a Mustang dyno which is important because they typically measure lower than a dynojet. Keep in mind Mustang dynos will have a wider variation in their results beacuse of the way it works. Dynojets are better for bench racing but still have too many variables between tests and really shouldn't be used like they are.

This is pretty funny, because the dyno sheet clearly shows it was on a Mustang Dyno. Because of the eddy current motor that simulates load, the results on a Mustang Dyno will be lower.
Stock ‘03/’04 Cobras usually dyno in the 330rwhp range on a Mustang Dyno, and 360+rwhp on a Dynojet.
This (http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/MustangVsDynojet.cfm) link explains the difference between a Mustang Dyno and a Dynojet. Pretty simple…the Mustang Dyno uses an eddy current motor that simulates load as the car is accelerated.
Chevy High Performance (http://www.mustangdyne.com/Articles/CHP0603-article-01.htm) did a Mustang Dyno and Dynojet comparison, which clearly illustrated the differences.
This (http://www.slugbitchracing.com/mach1_dyno_data.shtml) is an interesting link. It shows a Mustang Dyno sheet for a Mach I and compares the same car on a Dynojet.
An LS1 owner in this (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194136&highlight=Mustang+dyno) thread made 274rwhp on a Mustang Dyno.

This (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191978) thread clearly illustrates the differences between a Mustang Dyno and a Dynojet.

Numerous examples of LS1’s on a Mustang Dyno. (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191759&highlight=Mustang+dyno)
Seems like most stock LS1's dyno around 270-280rwhp on a Mustang Dyno, which would put an LS1 about 20-30rwhp higher than the new Mustang GT.
Those look like some pretty damn good results to me. It's hard to exactly convert to Dynojet numbers, but the general concensus seems to be around 8-10%. The best way would be to put the car on a Dynojet and make a pull. I'd bet around 270-280rwhp SAE corrected.
S.

thanks for that info...all this time i was never really sure of the differences :confused:

and that 3550 lbs (without driver or added testing equipment) is bordering on shameful...the weight i had in mind was 3425-50 lb...I worry that a future cobra with IRS and a larger DOHC or blown engine could easily cross over the 3700 plateau, without some significant dieting measures

thanks for that info...all this time i was never really sure of the differences :confused:

and that 3550 lbs (without driver or added testing equipment) is bordering on shameful...the weight i had in mind was 3425-50 lb...I worry that a future cobra with IRS and a larger DOHC or blown engine could easily cross over the 3700 plateau, without some significant dieting measures


That weight is incorrect.

The 2005 Mustang GT weighs 3450lbs. Confirmed in the chief engineers presentation I attended. Not much more than a Mach 1.

For what its worth, Car & Driver TV dynoed a '99 Z28 during a Z28 vs. Mustang GT test back in '99. I have it on tape and the Z28 dynoed 312 rwhp. They also dynoed the Mustang but I don't recall off hand what it dynoed. I am not sure what kind of dyno they use on there show. I'll have to get the tape out and look closer when they show the screens.

Um, first off..... did you miss the part about Steeda dynoed the 05 at 275rwhp and 295rwtq on a dynojet?? (Its a fact)

Secondly, I don't get you're point about the MT time. They achieved 13.6sec (which is slightly <sarcasm> below 14 seconds) ....another FACT.

Third, since when do you baby it out of the hole when doing a 1/4 mile run? :rolleyes:

First of all, you can take into consideration the numbers posted by Steeda but I wouldn't take them as fact. They are not really an independant, you have no idea what was done to it, however small, and it may not even be an off-the-line production car. The point is, there are too many questions. It may turn out that this is a decent number but not enough data has been logged to assume anything.

Lastly, you baby it out of the hole when you actually have a lot of power and street tires.

That weight is incorrect.

The 2005 Mustang GT weighs 3450lbs. Confirmed in the chief engineers presentation I attended. Not much more than a Mach 1.

so the dyno sheet is a typo?

This (http://lethalss.ssgraphix.com/images/SteveSSDyno.jpg) link shows a 3600lb. '99 SS.
That's not what the car weighs.
The dyno sheet for the '05 does not accurately represent the weight of the car.
It is within 50lbs. of the current car, which is lighter than a medium-heavily optioned F-body.
S.

so the dyno sheet is a typo?

I don't know, but the official number from Ford is 3450lbs.

First of all, you can take into consideration the numbers posted by Steeda but I wouldn't take them as fact. They are not really an independant, you have no idea what was done to it, however small, and it may not even be an off-the-line production car. The point is, there are too many questions. It may turn out that this is a decent number but not enough data has been logged to assume anything.

Lastly, you baby it out of the hole when you actually have a lot of power and street tires.

Steeda dyno'ed a stock GT. The guy who did the dyno confirmed that.

Second, what I meant was that Schismblade saying that MT only got 13.6sec with an "aggressive start" doesn't make sense. How else do you expect to get a good time without an aggressive start :confused:

Should we be comparing a non-aggressive times? Like taking off from idle? :)

From Ford's perspective (along with many others who will buy this car), the numbers are just fine. The car will hold it's own on the street and will sell in droves.

Personally, I can't stand the new design. However, you can't deny that it's a decent car for the money...

BTW...my WS6 weighed in at 3550 on the nose with 1/4 tank of gas and me in it. I don't understand why ppl think that F-bodies are so heavy. Maybe mine is an exception :confused:

Wow... all this bashing... those numbers sound respectable to me.

How do they compare with the 2005 Camaro dyno numbers? Anyone seen those yet?

How do they compare with the 2005 Camaro dyno numbers? Anyone seen those yet?
:lol: :lol:

Wow... all this bashing... those numbers sound respectable to me.

How do they compare with the 2005 Camaro dyno numbers? Anyone seen those yet?

Its sad...but you know whats worse? When 3 years later, Ford with 3v heads, VVT, and all this "high tech" crap in there engine, still cant make numbers the Camaro and Firebird were doing back in 02....

Now thats sad. Anyone have 05 GTO numbers?

Wow... all this bashing... those numbers sound respectable to me.

How do they compare with the 2005 Camaro dyno numbers? Anyone seen those yet?

i understand and agree your point, but those "2005 Camaro" jokes have been passe for more than two years on this board

That weight is incorrect.

The 2005 Mustang GT weighs 3450lbs. Confirmed in the chief engineers presentation I attended. Not much more than a Mach 1.


This makes a little more sense. Otherwise I wouldn't know what to think - a 300 HP Mustang weighing in at 3550 lbs with an automatic trasmission pulling off 13.6 ???? :confused: :confused: I mean, gearing is gearing, but to pull of such times almost defies laws of drag racing ;)

Wow... all this bashing... those numbers sound respectable to me.

How do they compare with the 2005 Camaro dyno numbers? Anyone seen those yet?

Puhleez.... Will we ever stop seeing these comments?
:cool:

Steeda dyno'ed a stock GT. The guy who did the dyno confirmed that.


With all this talk on the 93 octane tune, I am going to guess that that number was with the tune. I saw that at stangnet and that was what I thought then, too.



Should we be comparing a non-aggressive times? Like taking off from idle? :)



I ran a 13.5 with a launch from idle, stock, with unmatching bald M+S tires with a 2.1 60 footer :D

Shows you what a good track prep/the driver mod can do.

-Todd

Its sad...but you know whats worse? When 3 years later, Ford with 3v heads, VVT, and all this "high tech" crap in there engine, still cant make numbers the Camaro and Firebird were doing back in 02....

Now thats sad. Anyone have 05 GTO numbers?

goes to show you how dyno numbers and track times really mean jack sh*t to most car buyers. i mean look at it, 20k fbodies total in 02? that REALLY looks like people cared that they ran good or dynoed high...

frankly, i can respect those numbers considering they came from a mustang dyno. still makes more than my turd gen did on a dynojet and for the time being will run faster than i will too. i guess some people on this site lack the tact to comprehend that.

goes to show you how dyno numbers and track times really mean jack sh*t to most car buyers. i mean look at it, 20k fbodies total in 02? that REALLY looks like people cared that they ran good or dynoed high...

frankly, i can respect those numbers considering they came from a mustang dyno. still makes more than my turd gen did on a dynojet and for the time being will run faster than i will too. i guess some people on this site lack the tact to comprehend that.
20k cars because gm wanted to shut down the plant because it was getting old.. period.. the camaro was GOING to be killed one way or another... but yeah... lets compare it to an 05 GTO!!! 100HP Difference!!!!oopss.. IRS and i'm betting low 13s 1/4mile @ 10mph EASILY more. so there you have the difference...

Sorry but its not fair to compare an 05 car with a 95 car.. there are 10 years difference... the reality.. both new.. i choose the LT1 over that crappy 4.6

Cripes, let this die.

We'll know soon enough what it really runs on a regular basis at a track.

From the information we have so far, LS1 F-car vs. '05 GT = driver's race, with the GT taking the LS1 out of the hole (because of gearing) and the LS1 running it down up top (because of the power advantage).

Saying anything more or less than that is just stupid at this point.

Arguing about it is even dumber.

20k cars because gm wanted to shut down the plant because it was getting old.. period.. the camaro was GOING to be killed one way or another... but yeah... lets compare it to an 05 GTO!!! 100HP Difference!!!!oopss.. IRS and i'm betting low 13s 1/4mile @ 10mph EASILY more. so there you have the difference...

Sorry but its not fair to compare an 05 car with a 95 car.. there are 10 years difference... the reality.. both new.. i choose the LT1 over that crappy 4.6

you cant compare the Gt to the GTO. wanna know why? because the GTO isnt out yet. there are no dyno numbers. no track times. nothing. its just all speculation.

and why an lt1 over a 4.6? the 4.6 having 3 valves per cylinder has a greater chance at making better numbers on paper. the lt1 does make good numbers but i would rather have something smaller that makes better numbers.

the lt1 does make good numbers but i would rather have something smaller that makes better numbers.

God, here we go again...

SMALLER?

What planet are you on???

The only way the 4.6 is smaller than the LT1 is in displacement. Other than that the damed thing is a boat anchor. It's freaking HUGE.

Displacement means NOTHING unless you are racing in a displacement-limited class.

you cant compare the Gt to the GTO. wanna know why? because the GTO isnt out yet. there are no dyno numbers. no track times. nothing. its just all speculation.

and why an lt1 over a 4.6? the 4.6 having 3 valves per cylinder has a greater chance at making better numbers on paper. the lt1 does make good numbers but i would rather have something smaller that makes better numbers.


wrong. Their ARE dyno numbers. I can link you:
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198796

You can take your smaller engine dude. People who compare engine size and say "your engine is bigger, thats why" are ricers. Especially when it is stock vs stock.

-Todd

GTO isnt out yet? Someone better tell Darth and NikiVee that.

Thanks glovesperson... how about that ... 100rwhp more... even mod vs mod the ls2 is a far superior engine...

3valves per cylinder isn't much if it isn't making hte power.. i would have hoped that that engine would make more or less the same power as the ls2 since it has 50% more valves vs 30% more displacement???? that is following your logic...

The reality is that i bet the ls2 heads flow better than those 3 valve heads... in the end it proves that the head design from that 4.6 is totally crap if with more valves you can't do more flow than with 2v/cyl

as a matter of fact... i have a video where a SVT guy says.. "there is no way we could make the power we wanted out of the 4.6, so we forged it and strapped a supercharger to it."

God, here we go again...

SMALLER?

What planet are you on???

The only way the 4.6 is smaller than the LT1 is in displacement. Other than that the damed thing is a boat anchor. It's freaking HUGE.

Displacement means NOTHING unless you are racing in a displacement-limited class.

displacement determines powerband sometimes. a smaller engine will most likely have a longer powerband, something that makes a car faster than off idle torque. so i go back to my original statement. i would like a smaller displacement higher revving engine.

Al, reading comprehension buddy. i was talking about the 05 GTO. i dont know of any that are out yet. but i could be wrong like i was with the dyno numbers.

Actually no... i prefer the bigger displacement engine making the same HP.. why?? because it will make more torque overall than the smaller engine... And you know... the more torque you get overall means you get more hp overall means you get to the top rpm range faster, which means accelerates faster.

if not... why don't you put a v6 DOHC honda engine on the Camaro since it had 270HP also... its a lot smaller... lets see how it pulls the camaro w/o the torque.. and it has 4valves and it has VTEC... sorry bud...

displacement determines powerband sometimes. a smaller engine will most likely have a longer powerband, something that makes a car faster than off idle torque.

Bull**** it does. Displacement has NOTHING to do with the ability to rev. You can see differences due to the "squareness" of the engine, but a square 5.7 liter is going to out-power a square 5.0 liter if all other things are held constant.

In truth, due to the fact that larger displacement motors can provide adequate torque for driveability with far more radical cam timing events (and thereby wind out further), the situation is even WORSE for the smaller motor.

They can run bigger valves, more radical cams, better rocker setups, have higher flow heads (since displacement for a given design usually means that the cylinder heads themselves grow along with it... look at the heads on a small block Chevy vs. a big block Chevy some time...) all while maintaining better driveability and higher average power.


so i go back to my original statement. i would like a smaller displacement higher revving engine.

Then welcome to the "Club of the Terminally Slow".

Anything you can do to a little motor, I can do to a big one - and get more out of it for less money.

displacement determines powerband sometimes. a smaller engine will most likely have a longer powerband, something that makes a car faster than off idle torque.
You have it bass ackwards. If we are going to make a generalization about the powerbands with regard to displacement, than the larger displacement motor generally has a much wider band, whereas the smaller motor will be nothing but a peak near the redline. None of this is really academic, because the cam has more to do with the shape of the curve than the displacement. What you see are small motors that are setup to make as much power as possible, which means the sacrifice of low end torque for peak power. The may end up with as much peak power as a motor with greater displacement, but they will be more "peaky."

Have you ever heard of "small man syndrome"? Its actually deamed a true psychological disorder. Maybe there should be a new disorder for the Ford Boys called "small engine syndrome"!

Have you ever heard of "small man syndrome"? Its actually deamed a true psychological disorder. Maybe there should be a new disorder for the Ford Boys called "small engine syndrome"!

Ever noticed how a lot of ford guys say "you engine is bigger", yet we have never said "you have more valvues". Looks like we go by the saying "run whatcha brung" (my liscense plate holder :) )

-Todd

Or "more cams"! hehe

goes to show you how dyno numbers and track times really mean jack sh*t to most car buyers. i mean look at it, 20k fbodies total in 02? that REALLY looks like people cared that they ran good or dynoed high...

frankly, i can respect those numbers considering they came from a mustang dyno. still makes more than my turd gen did on a dynojet and for the time being will run faster than i will too. i guess some people on this site lack the tact to comprehend that.

Sorry, but I just can't let this comment stand.

02 Camaro total production = 42,098
http://www.ls2.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56795
02 Firebird total production = 30,690
http://www.ls2.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113481

That's a total F-body production of 72,698. Not stellar by any means, but far removed from 20k. I honestly don't understand why people continue to dog the 4th gens by painting a bleaker picture than there was. I personally think 72k total production is pretty good considering all advertising had been pulled and the decision to kill it had been made 5 years earlier.

Sorry, but I just can't let this comment stand.

02 Camaro total production = 42,098
http://www.ls2.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56795
02 Firebird total production = 30,690
http://www.ls2.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113481

That's a total F-body production of 72,698. Not stellar by any means, but far removed from 20k. I honestly don't understand why people continue to dog the 4th gens by painting a bleaker picture than there was. I personally think 72k total production is pretty good considering all advertising had been pulled and the decision to kill it had been made 5 years earlier.

The LT1 sales were seriosly good against the mustang, especially since the mustang absolutly sucked back then. If GM didn't under-rate the LS1, I think a lot more people would have bought those, too.

-Todd

The LT1 sales were seriosly good against the mustang, especially since the mustang absolutly sucked back then. If GM didn't under-rate the LS1, I think a lot more people would have bought those, too.

-Todd

Since you bring it up - http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7419&highlight=camaro+lt1+sales

Post #12 has the total F-body numbers against Mustang. Notice what happened in 97 before the bottom fell out of the F-body program.

Mustang dyno, Dynojet dyno.....it isn't that impressive. For it to run with LS1s in stock form it is going to need some pretty stout gearing if this is more the norm...

It's interesting how MT goes 13.6@100 in a GT and we get posts saying with a simple tune the GT will break into the 12's, now we see a dyno result that relieves Chevy guys...how about we wait a few months and see these things in the hands of real drivers and see what they'll average. All this information is quite conflicting.

The GT that was tested was an AUTO. With around 275 rwhp on a dynojet, the 5spd should be low 13 second capable.

Its sad...but you know whats worse? When 3 years later, Ford with 3v heads, VVT, and all this "high tech" crap in there engine, still cant make numbers the Camaro and Firebird were doing back in 02....

Now thats sad. Anyone have 05 GTO numbers?

And the "high tech" LS-1 never made the power that the "low tech" L-88 Vette made back in '67. Point????? Stupid argument.

And the "high tech" LS-1 never made the power that the "low tech" L-88 Vette made back in '67. Point????? Stupid argument.
Your comment is also a more stupid comment.. that vette would have never made 400hp if it would have to meet all the emission standards... but i can certeinly assure you that the c5r engine made a lot more power on pump gas than that vette.... lets compare apples to apples

the ls1 still is a pushrod 2v engine.. more tech yes in the engine managment and a few years in design, that is why you can have a pump gas engine with super lower emission standards that can perform even better than that 7l engine... oh please.

And the "high tech" LS-1 never made the power that the "low tech" L-88 Vette made back in '67. Point????? Stupid argument.

Erm, the L-88 option basically cost as much as the whole car.

Furthermore, as pointed out previously, I'd like to see SAE NET numbers on the L-88. My guess is that the LS6 and LS2 out-power the L-88 and the power density numbers are nowhere near close.

Regardless, I don't have any clue whatsoever the L-88 vs. LSx comparison has to do with the price of tea in China.

A more important comparison would be the L-88 vs. the LS7. My money's on the LS7. Any takers?

Your comment is also a more stupid comment.. that vette would have never made 400hp if it would have to meet all the emission standards... but i can certeinly assure you that the c5r engine made a lot more power on pump gas than that vette.... lets compare apples to apples

Point of all of this was since it went over your head that comparing the power output if a SOHC modular Ford and trashing it compared to what an older GM engine could do was stupid. Maybe sarcasm is above your grasp?


the ls1 still is a pushrod 2v engine.. more tech yes in the engine managment and a few years in design, that is why you can have a pump gas engine with super lower emission standards that can perform even better than that 7l engine... oh please.

See above statement.

Erm, the L-88 option basically cost as much as the whole car.

Furthermore, as pointed out previously, I'd like to see SAE NET numbers on the L-88. My guess is that the LS6 and LS2 out-power the L-88 and the power density numbers are nowhere near close.

Regardless, I don't have any clue whatsoever the L-88 vs. LSx comparison has to do with the price of tea in China.

A more important comparison would be the L-88 vs. the LS7. My money's on the LS7. Any takers?

L-88 was meant to be underrated, much like the LS-1 was. The tri-carb aluminum headed L-89 was rated at 5 more HP than the L-88 option to keep the general buying public from wanting the car. Real output was in the low 500 hp range and trap speeds on slicks in the day was mid 11's in the mid 120's stock with drag options and gears from the factory. Some were set up for high speed racing and could hit 200 mph on the straightaways. The L-88 rode like a bread truck and had no heat or radio, it was not a daily driver. Anyway, this was meant to show Al how ridiculous his argument was to base the modular engine family as a failure based on the numbers a GM engine made XXX amount of years ago. Apparently no one caught that point.

L-88 was meant to be underrated, much like the LS-1 was. The tri-carb aluminum headed L-89 was rated at 5 more HP than the L-88 option to keep the general buying public from wanting the car. Real output was in the low 500 hp range and trap speeds on slicks in the day was mid 11's in the mid 120's stock with drag options and gears from the factory. Some were set up for high speed racing and could hit 200 mph on the straightaways. The L-88 rode like a bread truck and had no heat or radio, it was not a daily driver. Anyway, this was meant to show Al how ridiculous his argument was to base the modular engine family as a failure based on the numbers a GM engine made XXX amount of years ago. Apparently no one caught that point.

First, I'm a Corvette nut. I have a pretty good knowledge base relative to the L-88's... and I also know there is a LOT of hype around them. Some of it deserved, some of it just hype.

Regardless, at the time Hot Rod got a blazing 13.56 @ 111.1mph out of one, dead stock.

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

No threat to a Z06.

Fluke? Bad day? Unhappy gods about?

Maybe... but that trap speed is AWFUL low.


Anyhoo... Al's got a good point in that 3 years after the F-car dies, the Mustang GT may FINALLY be able to present a 2002 Z28 a good race.

I believe the 4.6L modular engines to be little short of terrible. Big, heavy, thirsty, generally low powered (apart from the blown 4.6).

Were I in the market for GT, I'd be looking hard at what the GTO is going to run with the LS2.

[/b]

Point of all of this was since it went over your head that comparing the power output if a SOHC modular Ford and trashing it compared to what an older GM engine could do was stupid. Maybe sarcasm is above your grasp?

[/b]

See above statement.
Sorry buddy but YOU Fail to grasp that we are comparing COMPETING engines!!!!!!

If its a lesser engine it was FORDS decision to strap in a crappy 4.6L in the first place... it was FORD's Decision to strap a supercharger to go pick on the z06 and came short... it was FORDS decision to do the car the way it did it and honestly.. the car looks good but the engine and tranny kills it.

Furthermore, as pointed out previously, I'd like to see SAE NET numbers on the L-88. My guess is that the LS6 and LS2 out-power the L-88 and the power density numbers are nowhere near close.


If my memory serves me correct, i believe they (Hotrod or some mag) took an ls1 (98 i believe?) and put it on an engine dyno and it make 407hp with no accessories. Pretty much how gross figures are measured in the old muscle cars. So it is comparable to a lot of the big cube v8 engines rated at around 400-410 gross hp before the SAE NET method came into affect.

If its a lesser engine it was FORDS decision to strap in a crappy 4.6L in the first place... it was FORD's Decision to strap a supercharger to go pick on the z06 and came short... it was FORDS decision to do the car the way it did it and honestly.. the car looks good but the engine and tranny kills it.

I think the blown 4.6 was an excellent motor. As far as it coming short on matching the ls6 output for output, i disagree. It was the blown 4.6 that has dyno'd higher on average. As for it comparing to a z06 (or the base c5 for that matter), absurd. Both cars are different in almost every aspect, and thought of drawing parrallel between the two as equals or competitors is rediculous. Not even in the same class.

As for the 05's, i don't see how the engine could kill the car as you put it :confused:. So it isn't as powerful as an ls1? So? That must automatically make it a crappy motor? :confused: Given its showing in the motor trend article (13.6 for auto), and its relatively mild tune (tuned for 87 octane and mild compression ratio) and low cubes (281), i think it does a fine job and is perfectly suited for a BASE performance model in the mustang lineup.

That's what i love about camaro, you can get the engine of a 4Xk dollar vette in a 24k z28. But for mustang, you're either happy with the GT's performance (which is more than decent if the 13.6 holds true) or you pony up the dough for the higher performance models which will be due in a couple of years (ex: rumored 5.4 Cobra with 420+ horses).

In the end, i think Fords upcoming family of modular v8's will work well for their given applications and am looking forward to what the higher performance mustangs will have in store as far as powertrain and output:).

IT makes it a crappy motor because the engine breaks with ease... My best friend own a shop and i have seen them break so easily with all kinds of clanking noises... i have yet to see a broken ls1 or a stock broken lt1...

IT discredits the car, because unless you buy the car to rapidly pour in 20k to make it comparable to most fully bolt on ls1s, w/o going to n2o, then... why bother?? 31% stiffer chassis is not that much either really...

FORD SAID the cobra was going to target the corvette. THEY SAID THAT ... IIRC specifically the z06.

SUpercharging was the easier way to get the power, because i have it on video actually, as they said.. there was no way they could get the power they wanted.. PERIOD.

IT makes it a crappy motor because the engine breaks with ease... My best friend own a shop and i have seen them break so easily with all kinds of clanking noises... i have yet to see a broken ls1 or a stock broken lt1... .

Break with ease? News to me. From my understanding, they hold up just as well. I think you're experiences are isolated cases. I've been in the mustang community for a while, and have never heard of mass failures of 4.6 engines. I've heard of a stock 98 4.6 Dohc supporting 22lbs of non-intercooled boost and lasting 60+ 9 second runs in the strip and personally know of a 4.6 Sohc that runs 14psi on a daily basis, but them continuously breaking down with ease? Doubt it.

IT discredits the car, because unless you buy the car to rapidly pour in 20k to make it comparable to most fully bolt on ls1s, w/o going to n2o, then... why bother?? 31% stiffer chassis is not that much either really... .

Where’s bob cosby when you need him;). Ask him about his 20k in mods and timeslips. They’re not as lacking as you think.

Lemme ask. Why bother spending 2k in bolt-ons for an ls1, when you could run faster for a couple of hundred bucks in a blown Cobra? In fact, why buy a newer car? Why not buy an old cheap Fox or 3rd gen if cheapness of mods and going fast for the least amount of $$ spent is your priority. Not EVERYONE bases their buying decision on ability to run 10 sec 1/4 miles or engine alone.

Btw: While the sn95's (excluding 03+ Cobra) weren't as fast as the 4th gens, they still offered a very nice bang for your buck in terms of stock and modified performance. Perhaps 2nd only the the 4th gen f-bods in terms of performance value for your buck. GT and Mach 1 are still great performance buys. Again, that hardly qualifies it as crap.

FORD SAID the cobra was going to target the corvette. THEY SAID THAT ... IIRC specifically the z06. .

In output? YES since the Cobra does put out 405+ horses...as far as the whole package, doubtful. That's just them BS'ing and pulling peoples legs. Cobra isn't half the car the vette is. In the end it is a pony car, and the vette a world class sports car.

SUpercharging was the easier way to get the power, because i have it on video actually, as they said.. there was no way they could get the power they wanted.. PERIOD.

281 cubes does limit you. 4 ways manufacturers make power with their engines...1) Small displacement N/A engine 2) small displacement engine with F/I 3) larger displacement N/A engine or 4) larger displacement engine with F/I.

Ford went with what best suited their goals and objectives. Asking why they went F/I is like asking why GM went with 346 cubes instead of 281?

Getting a Cobra to make 405+ with a N/A 281ci v8 is no easy task. They could have gone with a larger dicplcement v8 engine (5.4 dohc could have done it), but they stuck with the 4.6 and blower combo instead.

The LSX motors are awesome and I would say that they are superior to Fords modular v8 family, but that doesn’t necessarily make the 4.6’s crap, especially the 3 and 4 valve version.

Believe me they are crap... while they could have made a complete 6 point mains they still use 4 mains with some kind of spacer that really looks aweful..

While the short-block perse looked good I still see them too much breaking and not producing... they simply do not widstand harsh conditions...

don't put the same excuse about buying an older car and putting in the $. that is not the point.. that is the stupid comment that most make on why buy a ferrari or such big dog cars...

You can mod a corolla to run like a vette but it wont ever be a vette...

anyways... to each its own.. the engine is a crappy engine by my standards.. it requires huge ammounts of power...

I remember seeing a fully modded cobra on the dyno day with 21psi boost.... i was like damn... i'm getting my ass handed because i had only 8psi after my aftercooler installed.. veredict. they did 427 and i did 555 oopss... what happened to the heads, cam, and all that **** in there????

Sorry man... but.... its still a crappy engine.

don't put the same excuse about buying an older car and putting in the $. that is not the point.. that is the stupid comment that most make on why buy a ferrari or such big dog cars...

Then why did you try to bolster your "its crappy" argument with a bang for your buck comment when the 4.6 mustangs clearly offers a bang for your buck value 2nd only to the 4th gens? :confused: You made it sound like a civic. You seemed to have stressed bang for you buck, yet paint the 4.6's as a crappy performance/bang for your buck buy when it is clearly one of the industry leaders.

anyways... to each its own.. the engine is a crappy engine by my standards.. it requires huge ammounts of power...

By power, you probably meant mods. If you decide to go the N/A route, then yeah...the 4.6 won't come anywhere near the potential of the ls1 as far as hp. But most 4.6's go the F/I route, and they're putting up good numbers....especially the Dohc cars. Mach-1's will get into 12's with bolt-ons, and 11's and quicker with F/I or a good N/A combo, etc... Not the expensive money pit you make them out to be. 2 valve GT's are more limited, but they can go the F/I route and put up decent numbers without a 20k investment;).

I remember seeing a fully modded cobra on the dyno day with 21psi boost.... i was like damn... i'm getting my ass handed because i had only 8psi after my aftercooler installed.. veredict. they did 427 and i did 555 oopss... what happened to the heads, cam, and all that **** in there????

A fully modded Cobra with 21psi of boost putting down 427 at the wheels? You don't think there's something VERY wrong with those numbers? :think:

Again, i see the LsX engines as being superior, but i wouldn't call the 4.6's "crap". Like you said, to each his own i guess :).

Your comment is also a more stupid comment.. that vette would have never made 400hp if it would have to meet all the emission standards... but i can certeinly assure you that the c5r engine made a lot more power on pump gas than that vette.... lets compare apples to apples

the ls1 still is a pushrod 2v engine.. more tech yes in the engine managment and a few years in design, that is why you can have a pump gas engine with super lower emission standards that can perform even better than that 7l engine... oh please.

i remember a few years ago (2000, iirc), Corvette Fever magazine dynoed an all-original stock '67 427ci 425HP vette, and it put something like 279 to the wheels...not quite the ground-pounder by today's standards (I also realize HP ratings were taken differently back in '67)

To me they are real crap... SOHC or DOHC doesn't come even close to the ls1x... as a matter of fact.. the 5.0L was a lot more responsive to mods than the 4.6

Bang for what buck??? mod for mod the mustang ends up being more expensive in the end and performs less.

I personally believe the LS1 to be the best mass-produced performance engine every made. Bar none. However, I don't see where the DOHC fails to respond to mods like the 5.0 or the LSx or anything else. Could you please provide specifics?

I'd also like to see, in print, where Ford says they were targetting the Z06 with the Cobra. Vette? Yes. Z06? Don't think so - but I'm willing to admit being wrong if it can be proven.

The motor in the 03/04 Cobra, while hardly indestructable, is still pretty stout. Internally, the weakest area is the piston skirts and the pin area. We start to see failures here at about the 550 RWHP level and above. Of course, it is very easy to get a lot more power than that out of a mostly-stock 03/04 motor, so people do blow them up. Then again, put a 250 shot of N2O on virtually any stock motor and see what happens to it.

To me they are real crap... SOHC or DOHC doesn't come even close to the ls1x... as a matter of fact.. the 5.0L was a lot more responsive to mods than the 4.6

Bang for what buck??? mod for mod the mustang ends up being more expensive in the end and performs less.

OK, i'll tell you that repeating over and over again a statement does not make it more right. And personal opinion (which is what you say at the end anyways) is just that - personal opinion.

Let's hear some facts. Let's hear some data. Let's hear some real-life observations.

When it comes to bang for the buck - it falls short of 4th gens, but that was stated already. Other than that, it seems to be a pretty good motor for mods, especially going F/I route. Seeing how LSx is the best bang for the buck, everything else is crap if I follow your logic :confused:

As for it falling apart and not standing up to pressure... On a drag day, at your local drag strip, average out the number of Mustangs running in the 12's, 11's, 10's, and 9's and then compare to fbodies. Oh, and let's strap some 8-12 psi of boost on a stock LS1 and make a couple of runs with them :( .

It's fine to be of certain persuasion, but it's not fine if that persuasion clouds reasoning and goes against available info.

First, I'm a Corvette nut. I have a pretty good knowledge base relative to the L-88's... and I also know there is a LOT of hype around them. Some of it deserved, some of it just hype.

Regardless, at the time Hot Rod got a blazing 13.56 @ 111.1mph out of one, dead stock.

http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm

No threat to a Z06.

Fluke? Bad day? Unhappy gods about?

Maybe... but that trap speed is AWFUL low.


Anyhoo... Al's got a good point in that 3 years after the F-car dies, the Mustang GT may FINALLY be able to present a 2002 Z28 a good race.

I believe the 4.6L modular engines to be little short of terrible. Big, heavy, thirsty, generally low powered (apart from the blown 4.6).

Were I in the market for GT, I'd be looking hard at what the GTO is going to run with the LS2.

I've been following Corvettes for over 20 years and I also have a good knowlege base of them, and you should realize that the L-88 could come in many forms, made either for drag racing or for high speed runs. I have seen test in both Corvette Fever and Vette magazines back in the mid 1990's testing stock L-88's to the times I mentioned on modern tires, not bias ply tires of the day. I've also seen times for a 68 L-89 vette running high 1-teens on modern tires. There were too many variables back in the day to get a consistent figure on what they could and could not do, whether they were auto or not, whether they were saddled with 2.77 gears or 4.11's, coupe or convertible etc. Hopefully you get the idea. Since the GT is nowhere near the price of the GTO, I would wait for the new Cobra to come out since it is in the same price range as the GTO.

Sorry buddy but YOU Fail to grasp that we are comparing COMPETING engines!!!!!!

I understand fully, your comparison is just ridiculous. Too bad YOU
can't comprehend that. I also did not realize that the Mustang was competing with a 3 year old dead car or with cars 10K+ ahead of it in price. That's new to me.


If its a lesser engine it was FORDS decision to strap in a crappy 4.6L in the first place...

Crappy in who's opinion? In your all mighty know-it-all opinion? Yep, the Mach I with a a full liter less displacement almost running the same times as the all mighty LS-1. Yep, that's crappy allright. I guess the LT-1 really sucks, huh?


it was FORD's Decision to strap a supercharger to go pick on the z06 and came short...

Cobra is $35,000 and the Z06 is over 50K :confused: The car was made to what the enthusiasts buying the car wanted, not to compete with the Z06 Vette (a completely different class of car) The car is a pulley swap and exaust away from the 11's and 120+ traps, how is that falling short for the money? They did more than "strap on a supercharger", the entire package is different.


it was FORDS decision to do the car the way it did it and honestly.. the car looks good but the engine and tranny kills it.

A 6spd tranny, 415 (real) flywheel horsepower and internals that is all forged and can take 900+ horsepower kills things? Damn, I hate to see what your standards of a "good car" is :rolleyes:

I think the blown 4.6 was an excellent motor. As far as it coming short on matching the ls6 output for output, i disagree. It was the blown 4.6 that has dyno'd higher on average. As for it comparing to a z06 (or the base c5 for that matter), absurd. Both cars are different in almost every aspect, and thought of drawing parrallel between the two as equals or competitors is rediculous. Not even in the same class.

As for the 05's, i don't see how the engine could kill the car as you put it :confused:. So it isn't as powerful as an ls1? So? That must automatically make it a crappy motor? :confused: Given its showing in the motor trend article (13.6 for auto), and its relatively mild tune (tuned for 87 octane and mild compression ratio) and low cubes (281), i think it does a fine job and is perfectly suited for a BASE performance model in the mustang lineup.

That's what i love about camaro, you can get the engine of a 4Xk dollar vette in a 24k z28. But for mustang, you're either happy with the GT's performance (which is more than decent if the 13.6 holds true) or you pony up the dough for the higher performance models which will be due in a couple of years (ex: rumored 5.4 Cobra with 420+ horses).

In the end, i think Fords upcoming family of modular v8's will work well for their given applications and am looking forward to what the higher performance mustangs will have in store as far as powertrain and output:).

Thank you, someone with some sense.

Break with ease? News to me. From my understanding, they hold up just as well. I think you're experiences are isolated cases. I've been in the mustang community for a while, and have never heard of mass failures of 4.6 engines. I've heard of a stock 98 4.6 Dohc supporting 22lbs of non-intercooled boost and lasting 60+ 9 second runs in the strip and personally know of a 4.6 Sohc that runs 14psi on a daily basis, but them continuously breaking down with ease? Doubt it.



Where’s bob cosby when you need him;). Ask him about his 20k in mods and timeslips. They’re not as lacking as you think.

Lemme ask. Why bother spending 2k in bolt-ons for an ls1, when you could run faster for a couple of hundred bucks in a blown Cobra? In fact, why buy a newer car? Why not buy an old cheap Fox or 3rd gen if cheapness of mods and going fast for the least amount of $$ spent is your priority. Not EVERYONE bases their buying decision on ability to run 10 sec 1/4 miles or engine alone.

Btw: While the sn95's (excluding 03+ Cobra) weren't as fast as the 4th gens, they still offered a very nice bang for your buck in terms of stock and modified performance. Perhaps 2nd only the the 4th gen f-bods in terms of performance value for your buck. GT and Mach 1 are still great performance buys. Again, that hardly qualifies it as crap.



In output? YES since the Cobra does put out 405+ horses...as far as the whole package, doubtful. That's just them BS'ing and pulling peoples legs. Cobra isn't half the car the vette is. In the end it is a pony car, and the vette a world class sports car.



281 cubes does limit you. 4 ways manufacturers make power with their engines...1) Small displacement N/A engine 2) small displacement engine with F/I 3) larger displacement N/A engine or 4) larger displacement engine with F/I.

Ford went with what best suited their goals and objectives. Asking why they went F/I is like asking why GM went with 346 cubes instead of 281?

Getting a Cobra to make 405+ with a N/A 281ci v8 is no easy task. They could have gone with a larger dicplcement v8 engine (5.4 dohc could have done it), but they stuck with the 4.6 and blower combo instead.

The LSX motors are awesome and I would say that they are superior to Fords modular v8 family, but that doesn’t necessarily make the 4.6’s crap, especially the 3 and 4 valve version.

Beat me to it again.

People... why don't you ditch the ltx and lsx and all get 4.6 in the maro then????

One of the reasons i don't use them...

Sorry i never had all the mods done to most of the cars that i test here, being from the GM side, very few tell me what mods do they have in there... i do the same..

but how about this:

5.0L engine (Never answered when i asked if it was a stroker, so i'll leave it at 5.0)
Procharger DISC i think it was (although the intake pipe was 4" so not sure if it was a D1R) running at 17psiG (he told me)
Worked heads and "special cam" oh please...
it was auto though...

they guy claimed he was going to spin the dyno and he was going to burn up the tires on the dyno... first run... 461.. second run 431... third run 426.... oh welll keeps getting worse... lets put it down... actually... he is supposedly a mechanical engineer nad argued with me that air cools better than water!! ok.. next please

for 17psi worked heads and cam and a huge supercharger a lot bigger than a T-trim INTERCOOLED, the guys is ONLY pumping 460 on RACE GAS? you have got to be kidding me... BTW car had no a/c and no P/s...

I'll gather more info from other cars from a few people here and i'll post them...

Here are some pics of the ford engine

http://www.cartechpr.com/img1.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img2.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img3.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img4.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img5.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img6.jpg

Didn't witness this personally... but i have seen a few broken blocks with only 500rwhp!!! WTF?

THe other guy i saw at the track... Mustang GT 2000 (IIRC) from what i know from the body shop i saw and they told me (different from what he said).. the guy is running worked heads and cam (and probably stroker) 12psi non intercooled from a t-trim... he did 113mph on the 1/4. but need to be more specific.. man i can go on and on and on about all the mods i've seen on 4.6L that really unimpress me about the engine... period.. i've seen it on my friends shop breaking, broken rods.. broken rod caps.. spun bearings (most common, but that could be through lots of misuse)... in the end... believe what you want.. if you are so daring.. put a 4.6 in a camaro and then...

The cobra is the only car that will respond well to mods... yes its virtually indestructible, seen lots of good things, but the car is a bit heavy to compete... strap a twin screw, set of headers and teh car will rip to the 600rwhp and the low 11s mark... 650 good gas, good tires, skinnies up front and it'l rip 10.7 not bad for a 50k car here.

and sorry for overrepeating myself...

Where did i heard the cobra was after the z06? i think it was a car adn driver program testing the car with jim scout...

The reason I responded to your post was because you made general, all-encompassing comments. There is no doubt that there are some poor-running 4.6s with stupid mods. Just the same, there are some very good running cars with light (or stupid) mods.

People... why don't you ditch the ltx and lsx and all get 4.6 in the maro then????
Been there, done that....err....had the 4.6, traded for an LSx, then traded that for a 4.6. We each have our individual biases and reasons, I am no different.

One of the reasons i don't use them...
I don't understand where this fits into your post.

Sorry i never had all the mods done to most of the cars that i test here, being from the GM side, very few tell me what mods do they have in there... i do the same..
Completely understandable, but it does not at all support your claim that the 4.6 does not respond well to mods. In fact, it hurts your claim.

but how about this:

5.0L engine (Never answered when i asked if it was a stroker, so i'll leave it at 5.0)
Procharger DISC i think it was (although the intake pipe was 4" so not sure if it was a D1R) running at 17psiG (he told me)
Worked heads and "special cam" oh please...
it was auto though...

they guy claimed he was going to spin the dyno and he was going to burn up the tires on the dyno... first run... 461.. second run 431... third run 426.... oh welll keeps getting worse... lets put it down... actually... he is supposedly a mechanical engineer nad argued with me that air cools better than water!! ok.. next please

for 17psi worked heads and cam and a huge supercharger a lot bigger than a T-trim INTERCOOLED, the guys is ONLY pumping 460 on RACE GAS? you have got to be kidding me... BTW car had no a/c and no P/s...
I thought this was about 4.6s? Regardless, there are plenty of 5.0s with heads, cam, intake and a blower making well in excess of 500 RWHP, and in some cases, near 600 - with the stock cam. One needs to only reference the NMRA's Real Street class for valid examples.

For true daily drivers, 450-500-ish RWHP is not uncommon.

I'll gather more info from other cars from a few people here and i'll post them...
Please do. However, it is likely that if you try, you can find plenty of "mediocre" cars out there. I can probably find plenty of not-so-mediocre cars out there. In the end, the real story is going to be somewhere in the middle.

Here are some pics of the ford engine

http://www.cartechpr.com/img1.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img2.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img3.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img4.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img5.jpg
http://www.cartechpr.com/img6.jpg

Didn't witness this personally... but i have seen a few broken blocks with only 500rwhp!!! WTF?
A stock 5.0 block is only good, reliably, to about 500 RWHP. Those pics don't surprise me at all. The engine (the roller block came out in 1985) was never made for that kind of power. However, other 302 blocks are out there that can handle significantly more power. This is little different from folks running iron LSx blocks in their high HP F-bodies (see many examples on LS1Tech.com for evidence).

THe other guy i saw at the track... Mustang GT 2000 (IIRC) from what i know from the body shop i saw and they told me (different from what he said).. the guy is running worked heads and cam (and probably stroker) 12psi non intercooled from a t-trim... he did 113mph on the 1/4.
I can show you a car with basic bolt-ons and aftermarket cams (stock untouched heads) that does almost that MPH. Bill Putnam, Atlantic Blue 2000 GT. Look him up at www.modulardepot.com.

Nobody is saying that the 2V 4.6 is in LSx territory for power. Then again, I don't think it is quite as bad as you are trying to lead others to believe.

but need to be more specific.. man i can go on and on and on about all the mods i've seen on 4.6L that really unimpress me about the engine... period..
That it doesn't impress you is without question. It is likely nothing I put here will change your mind. That is not the point of my response, however.

i've seen it on my friends shop breaking, broken rods.. broken rod caps.. spun bearings (most common, but that could be through lots of misuse)... in the end... believe what you want.. if you are so daring.. put a 4.6 in a camaro and then...
Silly arguement. I've never, ever seen a "broken rod" or "broken rod caps" in a 4.6. Seen spun bearings, collapsed piston land ring areas, etc - but none of what you say. Kind of hits in the credibility department.

The cobra is the only car that will respond well to mods...
Disagree. There are examples of 2Vs running as quick as 8s in the 1/4. Certainly the 4V is a better basis to start from, but that doesn't mean that the 2V doesn't respond well to mods - keeping things relative to the starting point.

yes its virtually indestructible, seen lots of good things, but the car is a bit heavy to compete...
I'd love to lose 300-400 lbs out of my Cobra. That hurts a lot, no doubt about it. FYI...my 04 Cobra is ~140 lbs heavier than my 99 T/A was.

strap a twin screw, set of headers and teh car will rip to the 600rwhp and the low 11s mark... 650 good gas, good tires, skinnies up front and it'l rip 10.7 not bad for a 50k car here.
Are you referring to a DOHC here or something else? Certainly 600 RWHP should be good for far better than low 11s, unless you are talking real street tires. 650 should be enough to go deep, deep into the 10s, and well into the 9s with a well setup car.

and sorry for overrepeating myself...
You did?

Where did i heard the cobra was after the z06? i think it was a car adn driver program testing the car with jim scout...
Please provide proof or evidence. It is easy to make any claim you wish on the internet. It is another thing altogether to back up said claims.

Well... its got to be the climate here then really... because out of all the mustangs i've seen only 2 or 3 perform where they are supposed to and they have quite a few bucks in... I post what i see not what i get on the forums or on the net.

Well... its got to be the climate here then really... because out of all the mustangs i've seen only 2 or 3 perform where they are supposed to and they have quite a few bucks in... I post what i see not what i get on the forums or on the net.

I take it that the factual data I requested to back up your claims is not going to show up?

Regardless, if you are implying that I get my data only from the internet, then you are badly mistaken. I see lots of cars - of all makes and models - that do not perform as well as I think they should. Conversely, I see some "over-achievers" too.

Never said or implied you took your data out of the net.. just said i didn't...

my factual data was the one i posted... it is the one closest to me at the moment.. don't like it.. sorry... still mod for mod.. the lsx and ltx will be a better choice than the 4.6.. if you defer then its your choice and or opinion, i got mine...
Like i said.. if you like the 4.6 so much.. get a camaro and put in a 4.6 ford in it.

People defend what is theirs.. so do you... you got a cobra, you don't want it bashed... the cobra i like it regarding to power. the rest.. i don't.. i test drove it and i don't like its moves... and that is MY OPINION.

Oh and i forgot.. that cobra 03 that had 647rwhp that did 10.7 HERE.. that car broke 4 pistons.... with the kenne bell supercharger... so they are not that indestructible.

Maybe to add some tempering to the conversation...

My issues of contention with the 4.6 are not related to aftermarket performance. The core of the issue is the constraints placed on a production vehicle that uses the motor - size, weight, fuel economy.

I don't think Ford is dumb, I think they bought into the OHC argument and didn't want the Mustang to appear as technologically behind the times. What they didn't count on was GM's ability to keep extracting more power out of 2V OHV designs. I think the LSx family was a pretty serious shock to Ford.

That being said, due to the dedicated classes running the 4.6 in drag racing (like Bob's), the 4.6 has a bigger aftermarket push in that area. GM, on the other hand, has pushed technology through the LeMans series which has resulted in the C5R engines but not a grass-roots push to keep upping the aftermarket power levels of the LSx into the +1000hp levels where 8's and 7's become commonplace. At that power level, folks resort to the old small block.

Moving forward, GM needs a dedicated racing class devoted to the LSx family of engines to start making up lost ground in the high power level contest.

SO, I would suggest the following to Chevrolet/Pontiac/Cadillac:

1) There needs to be a series of dedicated drag-racing classes that require LSx architecture.

2) The first class should be a "stock internals" class, but you can do anything you want to intake and exhaust (no FI, no nitrous, 91-94 octane gas only) with a spec tire and any rear end you want to run - as long as it isn't a spool or locker. 6.0 liters of displacement (based on stock LS2 internals) is allowed in any car. A specified weight of the car WITH DRIVER and fluids is required (which will result in Camaros and Corvettes ADDING weight but GTOs and CTSv's can remove it), but all safety equipment must remain in place (bumpers, head lights, air bags, etc...). Separate classes for manuals and automatics.

3) Class #2 would again have a specified tire and weight of car, but you can basically do anything you want to the motor (no FI or nitrous)... it just has to remain an LSx with 2 valves. Octane rating cannot go over 93. Same conditions as above for the rear end - anything you want, no spools or lockers. Manual transmission cars get a weight benefit relative to automatics, both run in the same class. Cars are equalized for weight WITH DRIVER (again, Corvettes and Camaros add weight, CTSv's and GTO's get to remove it). Safety equipment must remain in place.

3) Full-bore knock your socks off class. FI and/or nitrous allowed, still has to run on 93 octane, spec tire, any rear end you want. Displacement is up to the owner but must utilize an LS1, LS6 or LS2 block and heads (aftermarket heads like AFR are allowed) - no iron, no C5R's.

I'm not a class-racing expert, so maybe Bob could chime in here, but the keys to success are:

1) GM support. Real support. Meaning money. Every marketing division selling an LSx based car needs to provide engineering support.

2) Aftermarket support. Real support. Meaning money. This includes GM Performance Parts and their reducing their outrageous pricing on certain components by counting on added sales volume.

3) Getting the GM-based performance magazines to buy in and support the classes through content (GMHTP, Chevy Hi-Performance, etc...).


This should eliminate any advantages the 4.6's have ever had.

Never said or implied you took your data out of the net.. just said i didn't...
Ok - sure seemed like it, but I'll take your word for it.

my factual data was the one i posted... it is the one closest to me at the moment.. don't like it.. sorry...
Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. If you are basing your entire arguement on this one case, then ok. Your choice. Not smart, but your choice.

still mod for mod.. the lsx and ltx will be a better choice than the 4.6..
I have no real arguement here, however, this was not the issue you were trying to make. You said the 4.6 didn't respond to mods as well as the 5.0 or the LSx. I am disputing this.

if you defer then its your choice and or opinion, i got mine...
Ok.

Like i said.. if you like the 4.6 so much.. get a camaro and put in a 4.6 ford in it.
Already covered this in more than one reply. Dumb statement.

People defend what is theirs.. so do you... you got a cobra, you don't want it bashed...
Forgive me, but I didn't say you were "bashing" the Cobra. I know what it can and can't do, and have a fair idea of what the LS1 can and can't do. Rather, my intent was to offer evidence to refute your arguements that we have gone over already.

the cobra i like it regarding to power. the rest.. i don't.. i test drove it and i don't like its moves... and that is MY OPINION.
Cool. I have no desire to even attempt to change your opinion. I do have a desire to post realistic, factual information, and to point out the differences between fact and opinion.

Oh and i forgot.. that cobra 03 that had 647rwhp that did 10.7 HERE.. that car broke 4 pistons.... with the kenne bell supercharger... so they are not that indestructible.
Did I not say this? Did I not also say that 550 RWHP was about the realistic, reliable RWHP for an 03/04? Did you just forget to read that part, or conveniently skip over it?

There are plenty of 03/04 Cobra's making 600+ RWHP that have no issues - yet. Some might live a long time, some might die tomorrow. That should be expected when you increase the power on a stock motor by almost a factor of 2.

Pacer....believe it or not, I'm not a big fan of the 4.6 architecture. IMHO, Ford did not design this engine with performance in mind - they did it with $$$$ in mind from a manufactoring standpoint (hence the term "modular", which the engine never really was). If they had, it would have been smaller, lighter, and easier to increase displacement. The 4V heads are wonderful pieces, misunderstood by many. However, they would work much better on a shortblock with better bore to stroke, less heft, and less width.

To hit your points specifically...

1) Agree 150%. Would love to see it. There are a few upstarts here and there, but nothing has gotten serious with it, and without a new F-body, its hard to be confident that anything will.

2) "Stock internals" is neat, but is virtually impossible to tech once folks get serious. Still, something along that spirit is easy to work up. The only caveat is that the racers need to be ready to prove their legality - sort of like THIS (http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/cobra/images/trdown1a.jpg). That was my teardown after winning the NMRA Kansas City race back in late June. We had the motor out of the car, head off, crank and piston out, in less than 2 hours. Fun times - but necessary when you want to have a credible class of racing.

3) Impossible to tech street gas. There are simply too many varieties. The only real option is a "spec fuel" that can be tested at the track, upon request. It's a pain in the ass, but is the only way to keep C44 and the like out of the picture.

People will be breaking rear ends left and right if you don't allow spools or lockers. Been there, done that.

3) (you have two #3s) No problems excepting the pump gas thing, soley for reasons mentioned above.

Second set of points...

1) Absolutely. Ford supports the racers (especially in FFW races), and GM could do the same.

2) Absolutely necessary for success.

3) Ditto.

Something along those lines would most certainly go a long way in improving LSx performance.

I would like to see your results of the 4.6 inside the camaro... pics? oppinions??

and my point with that they respond better to mods is that at the tracks.. the best times are always run by the 5.0L and not the 4.6.

Even still i haven't liked a ford engine till the 5.4L s/c on the GT and one has to :bow: to that car.

I would like to see your results of the 4.6 inside the camaro... pics? oppinions??
Totally irrelevant statement.

and my point with that they respond better to mods is that at the tracks.. the best times are always run by the 5.0L and not the 4.6.
Inaccurate statement. For example, my 99 Cobra went 11.60 with an internally stock engine, no power adder. Bolt-ons, gears, slicks, suspension mods only. It made 315 RWHP with those mods.

My 88 Coupe was probably one of the quickest similiarly-modded 5.0s. It went 12.52 with an internally stock engine, no power adder. Bolt-ons, gears, slicks, suspension mods only. It made 237 RWHP with those mods.

For further comparison, the quickest manual-transmission LS1 with an internally stock engine, no power adder, bolt-ons, gears, slicks, suspension mods only, is an 11.54. That's .06 quicker than my car, even though he made probably 35 RWHP more than I, yet weighed somewhat less. The owners posts as "01-Z" on LS1Tech.com.

Even still i haven't liked a ford engine till the 5.4L s/c on the GT and one has to :bow: to that car.
The 5.4 has the same issues as the 4.6 - in some cases worse (wider).

But in here's the the issue. You are obviously GM-blinded and GM loyal. That's your choice, but an open mind can sometimes help.

Personally, I'm certainly Ford biased, but I am first and foremost an enthusiast.

I would like to see your results of the 4.6 inside the camaro... pics? oppinions??

and my point with that they respond better to mods is that at the tracks.. the best times are always run by the 5.0L and not the 4.6.

Even still i haven't liked a ford engine till the 5.4L s/c on the GT and one has to :bow: to that car.


Are you serious? Show me a Mustang with an LT1/LS1.

I'd rather have an LS7 myself. Or atleast an LS2 or 3. :)

MORE POWER!!!!!!!! :D

Are you serious? Show me a Mustang with an LT1/LS1.
i thought about doing that with an ls2 engine on a new gt...

I actually tossed around the idea of an LS1 in my old 88 Coupe (prior to selling it last November). Wouldn't that be neat?

Then I decided I'd rather not be burned at the stake by my Mustang compadres. ;)

To hit your points specifically...

1) Agree 150%. Would love to see it. There are a few upstarts here and there, but nothing has gotten serious with it, and without a new F-body, its hard to be confident that anything will.

2) "Stock internals" is neat, but is virtually impossible to tech once folks get serious. Still, something along that spirit is easy to work up. The only caveat is that the racers need to be ready to prove their legality - sort of like THIS (http://members.cox.net/bobcosby/cobra/images/trdown1a.jpg). That was my teardown after winning the NMRA Kansas City race back in late June. We had the motor out of the car, head off, crank and piston out, in less than 2 hours. Fun times - but necessary when you want to have a credible class of racing.

3) Impossible to tech street gas. There are simply too many varieties. The only real option is a "spec fuel" that can be tested at the track, upon request. It's a pain in the ass, but is the only way to keep C44 and the like out of the picture.

People will be breaking rear ends left and right if you don't allow spools or lockers. Been there, done that.

3) (you have two #3s) No problems excepting the pump gas thing, soley for reasons mentioned above.

Second set of points...

1) Absolutely. Ford supports the racers (especially in FFW races), and GM could do the same.

2) Absolutely necessary for success.

3) Ditto.

Something along those lines would most certainly go a long way in improving LSx performance.

Hrumph...

Maybe we could write up some rules and forward them on to some marketing folks at GM.

The guys/gals over at LS1Tech have done something like this already (I had a little bit of input). Check out their drag racing section. I'd link it, but it appears the site is down.

Here it is: http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120353

Anybody get any sponsorship from GM?

Anybody get any sponsorship from GM?
I don't think so. Nineball and Pro Stock John were the main organizers, if I remember correctly. Might want to ask them.

Welp Bob, there's one key right there.

Someone in the marketing divisions and GMPP needs to be contacted to make that happen.

Guion knows Hunkins. That's another place we'd have to go.

I know the supply base. There are sponsors possible there (Tremec springs to mind immediatly).

I imagine the other LSx/Camaro/GTO/Corvette sites might be interested also.

Tremec is a big supporter of the NMRA (helped me out in 2002 too). Getting GM involved would be a BIG help. As an FYI...here is a list of the NMRA Sponsors: http://www.nmraracing.com/sponsors/

On the note of LS1's in fords, someone off of my main forum (FordvsChevy) swapped an LS1 into his mark VII not too long ago. It's been done quite a bit, I'd imagine.