2001 Mustang Bullitt vs. 1994 Z28?
I appreciate the clarification. I doubt this would change the outcome, however. I dont think its a stretch to assume that the car that has a solid 10 mph more of top speed will have better top end. So unless they are racing beyond 100mph (is that where the governer kicks in at?) the fact that the LT1 may have a governer is moot.
The LT1 just like the LS1 does infact have a top speed governor pending what tires came on it from the factory. If they came with Z rate tires then they did not have a limiter. Hypertechs power programmer and other devices allows you to change this.
Not trying to be an ***, just keeping the facts in line.
Not trying to be an ***, just keeping the facts in line.
POINT1: The lt1 was governed at 155 and the GT is governed at 149. Regardless of either the race should never get to those speeds to determine a winner. Someone will have a lead by that point.
POINT2: Although the lt1 does have more torque than either the bullitt or GT, the graph you posted of the lt1 is absolutely wrong. There is no way a stock car is putting down 280rwhp. Even if it was rated at 300bhp and you lost only 18% your sitting at 246rwhp.
POINT3: I can't remember exactly but its in the VIN I don't remember what the code was though.
POINT4: The bullitt stock has a little better curve but it is close enough to the GT to still be a race. It's like Ford's version of the z28 vs. SS argument. People that have the stock 2v upgrade to the bullitt intake but NO intake on a 2v is going to net even 20rwhp by itself, fact. Its only a marginal difference in engine and suspension.
POINT2: Although the lt1 does have more torque than either the bullitt or GT, the graph you posted of the lt1 is absolutely wrong. There is no way a stock car is putting down 280rwhp. Even if it was rated at 300bhp and you lost only 18% your sitting at 246rwhp.
POINT3: I can't remember exactly but its in the VIN I don't remember what the code was though.
POINT4: The bullitt stock has a little better curve but it is close enough to the GT to still be a race. It's like Ford's version of the z28 vs. SS argument. People that have the stock 2v upgrade to the bullitt intake but NO intake on a 2v is going to net even 20rwhp by itself, fact. Its only a marginal difference in engine and suspension.
You didn't just come here and post what a Bullitt was (on an old thread I might add), but you also said that a Bullitt would beat a specific car that everyone here knows is not true. Then you called out anyone in an SS or WS6.
Really? I am unaware of any a governor of 155 mph on an LT1 that came equiped with z-rated tires. They are drag limited at around 155-160 mph though. Where did you get this information from?
http://www.turbo-kits.com/images/sts...aro_dyno_2.jpg
Here is another dyno chart I found for a stock LT1 (ignore the curve for the turbo, obviously) Looks like a higher peak and a much broader torque curve than the Bullitt to me.
http://www.turbo-kits.com/images/sts...aro_dyno_2.jpg
Here is another dyno chart I found for a stock LT1 (ignore the curve for the turbo, obviously) Looks like a higher peak and a much broader torque curve than the Bullitt to me.
POINT1: The lt1 was governed at 155 and the GT is governed at 149. Regardless of either the race should never get to those speeds to determine a winner. Someone will have a lead by that point.
POINT2: Although the lt1 does have more torque than either the bullitt or GT, the graph you posted of the lt1 is absolutely wrong. There is no way a stock car is putting down 280rwhp. Even if it was rated at 300bhp and you lost only 18% your sitting at 246rwhp.
POINT3: I can't remember exactly but its in the VIN I don't remember what the code was though.
POINT4: The bullitt stock has a little better curve but it is close enough to the GT to still be a race. It's like Ford's version of the z28 vs. SS argument. People that have the stock 2v upgrade to the bullitt intake but NO intake on a 2v is going to net even 20rwhp by itself, fact. Its only a marginal difference in engine and suspension.
POINT2: Although the lt1 does have more torque than either the bullitt or GT, the graph you posted of the lt1 is absolutely wrong. There is no way a stock car is putting down 280rwhp. Even if it was rated at 300bhp and you lost only 18% your sitting at 246rwhp.
POINT3: I can't remember exactly but its in the VIN I don't remember what the code was though.
POINT4: The bullitt stock has a little better curve but it is close enough to the GT to still be a race. It's like Ford's version of the z28 vs. SS argument. People that have the stock 2v upgrade to the bullitt intake but NO intake on a 2v is going to net even 20rwhp by itself, fact. Its only a marginal difference in engine and suspension.
Bullitts are close to the LT1's. Its not just a GT. Bullitts are very fast through the slalom due to the engines are lower and further back than any other Stang.
I have a Mach 1
Mach's are low 13 second cars and Bullitt's are low 14 to high 13's
I have a Mach 1

Mach's are low 13 second cars and Bullitt's are low 14 to high 13's
Last edited by 1987IROC350; Jun 22, 2007 at 11:22 PM.
Which is the exact same thing as a GT. The engine in the bullitt is exactly the same as the GT. There is no mounting difference as they use the same K-member, and motor mounts. The long block is identical. The differences on the engine are the underdrives and the intake. The car has springs that lower it 3/4" with different shocks aswell. But as for engine placement they are in the same spot.
If that is the case, with my sportlines I must have my engine inside the drivers compartment and scrapping the ground.
If that is the case, with my sportlines I must have my engine inside the drivers compartment and scrapping the ground.
Here is a great article on all 3 Stangs.
And the Mach is the fastest
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/fea...son/index.html
Last edited by 1987IROC350; Jun 23, 2007 at 07:30 PM.


