Just use the auto-quote feature on the right side of the post

 

Everyone keeps pointing out the trap speed as proof that this car does not make much hp, however, even in the MT article, they claimed the low trap speed is due to a shift to 4th............... which is widely spaced from 3rd. The good 0-60 time has already been explained, as the auto has performance geared 1-3, and economy geared 4-5.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there. I do find it interesting that any post that relates to a Mustang immediately morphs into a "my _______ car is better than that POS Mustang," or "welcome to 10 years ago." The original post was an information only post. Nowhere did anyone state that the Mustang ruled all, or that the Camaro sucks. There was no attack, and no comparison. Basically, I think the original poster was just pleased that the car tested as well as it did............. especially in MT............. and especially in light of all the bashing the auto car had taken before they have even been released. Yet, many of the Camaro guys............ or GM guys........... have to turn it into a pissing match.

We all understand that many of you GM guys wouldn't buy a Mustang GT if it had the performance of the Ford GT, for $25K. Believe me.......... this is not news to anyone. However, why the constant bashing............ and pissing has to continue is beyond me. Be mad at GM for cancelling your car........... not Ford for continueing to make theirs. Be happy at Ford for continueing the success of the Mustang, so that hopefully GM will bring back the Camaro in all of its glory (designed better than to just appeal to the "boy racer" in us enthusiasts.......... unfortunately there are not enough of us to keep anything alive).

Frankly, I'm excited about the new Mustang GT. That test excites me even more. I now see that I won't have to spend a fortune to have a fast, good handling VERT (yes I know they won't be out till spring) auto (a stick is a nice novelty........ but not exactly practicle when you have a 2-year-old) for a good price.

Now, before the bashing starts about me being a "Ford person," do understand............ I currently do not own a Mustang.............. but I do currently own a Camaro ('68 SS L78 car).

Also, currently, GM does not offer me anything that the Mustang GT Vert will offer for me............ at anything close to the price (the Vette is not an option as we are a 3 member family).

Maybe I won't have to pony up for a Cobra Vert after all. That will make my checkbook happy.

 

This is just like politics...no on is going to change there minds when it is over. Everyone is still going to think a mustang is better etc etc.
I hate it when posts turn into this becuase they are a waste of time just as much as they are pointless. But I always get involved

Just like every ford guy tries to say that a mach 1 will beat an 01-02 ls1 when they CONSISTENTLY dyno AT LEAST 20 rwhp less with equal weight and gearing. They even dyno lower than the 98-00 ls1 most every time by about 5-10 horsepower. But this is JUST CLOSE ENOUGH...to start saying they are ls1 killers.

We do the same thing with the new cobra...Ill put some headers and gears in my car and I will be right with one because the magazines say that they only run high 12's at best. When in reality they dyno consistently at least 40 rwhp higher than even the strongest LS1 cars.

So here we have a car trappping 99 mph and for some reason it is an ls1 killer.

 

Thanks for the kind words. You are correct as far as my intentions. I am very excited at the results from MT, but in no way mean to bash anyone or any car. This is good for all muscle car fans. The bar has been raised.

 

It's inflated... as long as we're considering apples vs. apples. "Crate motor" means lots of different things... got an ECM? Throttle body? ALL the sensors? Etc...

I'll examine them and find out...

EDIT: I looked at both... clear as mud and I have no idea. Somebody go buy one of each and let me know....

 

Why do you care about displacement? What about the color of the paint on the engine? It seems to me that the important parameters are:

1. Engine weight and size
2. Fuel efficiency
3. Octane requirement
4. Power

The engine weight and size determines where it will fit. Fuel efficiency, octane requirement, and power are traded off with respect to each other. The Mazda RX8 has a 1.3l engine with 238hp. Who cares? Fuel efficiency and horsepower are both worse than an LS1.

With respect to the Ford 4.6l, the engine weight and size are larger than an LS1, if I'm not mistaken. Fuel efficiency is about the same and power is worse, but it runs on 87 octane whereas the LS1 needs 91 octane. Decide what's important to you, 87 octane or another 30hp (approx).

Two other characteristics that are important to people are cost (the accountants like that) and refinement (smoothness, etc.). My guess is that the Mustang 4.6l is more expensive to build, but also probably more refined, though I'm not sure about that. I do know that neither of my LS1s have a glass-smooth idle. I don't care, but some people do.

 

For what? If you mean build quality for either car then yes but not performance or performance per dollar.

 

very sound post in light of some comments here. A balanced overview of both engines.

 

Also, remember that comparing the new 4.6 with 300hp to the LS1 is pointless since it has been replaced by the LS2. So now you have a 400 hp motor(or 390 in it's lowest rated form) vs the 300hp 4.6. All of the positive aspects of the motor when compared to the 4.6 still apply but now the power gap has increased. I am guessing that it will roughly cost the same as the LS1 to produce.

 

I somewhat think it is senseless to ask, but I will do this anyway: in the plethora of performance cars costing $25,000, which ones run mid-13's? So here is your performance per dollar. As for performance - didn't it run mid-13's on AUTO?

 

Also a very good point. Does Ford have other engines planned soon, other than Cobra and Boss/Mach I in 2006/2007? Something in the 5L+ range?

When is LS4 engine (5.3L) going to be produced, if ever? Do we know it for sure, or some speculation at this point? It appears to me that this 5.3L will be the competitor for 4.6, but even so we are suspecting it will be 320 - 350 HP.

 

There is a flip side to all of the "Mustang Bashing" posts, with posts like the 300hp '05 GT will kill any LS1 F-Body, etc. which mostly brought the "Mustang bashing"posts on. The Mustang guys or Ford guy posts are just as biased as our Camaro guys or GM guys posts.

As for the '05 Mustang GT, we'll just have to wait for it to get out on the track and establish itself. But I don't see it running with the top F-Bodies that ran high 12s, low 13s bone stock.

 

What do you think the average '02 LS1 Fbod runs vs the average Mach1? I say they're dead even around 13.3@105

Killer is too strong. The 4V 4.6 equalized the stang with the LS1 Fbods. I think 3V will propel the '05 stang past LS1 Fbod performance based off the 13.6 the auto ran.

And I KNOW with a reasonable enough amount of certainty that a V8 tuned for 87 octane has 25-35hp left in it due to timing alone. And combined with the reports of tuners posting their results it's a fair certainty.

 

Results on what car. They arent out and woulnt be out until Jan.

 

What's a fair certainty? That the 05 GT will be able to beat an LS1 F-body?
If you get to reflash the 05 GT then you have to allow for the LS1 F-bod to be reflashed as well. That will put the LS1 back on top. Not to mention, how many people (Joe Q. Public) are going to have their cars reflashed?

Your logic makes you look stupid. Either compare both cars bone stock or you are just moving the goal posts while you're playing.