Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 116

Mustang 5.0 vs 4th gen??

This is a discussion on Mustang 5.0 vs 4th gen?? within the Camaro / SS forums, part of the Vehicle Specific category; Originally Posted by kibz28 the mustang still wont make the torque are cars make, just remember guys it's a mustang ...

  1. #81
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by kibz28 View Post
    the mustang still wont make the torque are cars make, just remember guys it's a mustang there HP numbers always lie , just think of how shitty the vintage 5.0's are
    Are you sure about that???

    What was the torque rating of a factory LS1??? Wasn't it around 350ish???
    I'm pretty sure the rating of 390 ft lbs. for the new mustang is far greater than the rating of the LS1.

    And who says mustang HP numbers always lie??? Are you referring to under rated numbers from the manufacture??? Because if that's the case, all the manufactures do it,,,not just ford. Cars have been under rated since the introduction of muscle cars in the 1950's.

    Because I seriously doubt any of these numbers, from any manufacture are OVER inflated.

    And vintage 5.0's shitty??? For the time period they were right up there in performance with anything else on the road. They were only rated at 225 hp.

  2. #82
    Your dealership guy konigandy6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Romeo, MI
    Posts
    6,557

    Velocity Yellow
    2008 Corvette Z06

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    Are you sure about that???

    What was the torque rating of a factory LS1??? Wasn't it around 350ish???
    I'm pretty sure the rating of 390 ft lbs. for the new mustang is far greater than the rating of the LS1.

    And who says mustang HP numbers always lie??? Are you referring to under rated numbers from the manufacture??? Because if that's the case, all the manufactures do it,,,not just ford. Cars have been under rated since the introduction of muscle cars in the 1950's.

    Because I seriously doubt any of these numbers, from any manufacture are OVER inflated.

    And vintage 5.0's shitty??? For the time period they were right up there in performance with anything else on the road. They were only rated at 225 hp.

    Agreed... I've never heard anyone brag about the 3rd gens stock 305...

  3. #83
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by konigandy6 View Post
    Agreed... I've never heard anyone brag about the 3rd gens stock 305...
    Haha, I forgot about that one. Size for size that would be a fair comparison, but the 305's didn't hold a candle to the ford 302 fox bodies. But they would run neck and neck with the 350 tpi Iroc's of the day.
    Didn't take much for those fox bodies to run decent, they were only about 3,000-3,200 lbs. soak and wet

    Anyone here old enough to drive back then can remember those days. I remember when those cars were new, I had an 88 Iroc 350 tpi. I remember the fords and chevys racing all the time around that time frame. I was part of it.

  4. #84
    Senior Member 00z28bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    las vegas, nv
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,390

    white
    2000 Z28

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    Are you sure about that???

    What was the torque rating of a factory LS1??? Wasn't it around 350ish???
    I'm pretty sure the rating of 390 ft lbs. for the new mustang is far greater than the rating of the LS1.

    And who says mustang HP numbers always lie??? Are you referring to under rated numbers from the manufacture??? Because if that's the case, all the manufactures do it,,,not just ford. Cars have been under rated since the introduction of muscle cars in the 1950's.

    Because I seriously doubt any of these numbers, from any manufacture are OVER inflated.

    And vintage 5.0's shitty??? For the time period they were right up there in performance with anything else on the road. They were only rated at 225 hp.
    i thought the ls1 was 350/375

  5. #85
    Your dealership guy konigandy6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Romeo, MI
    Posts
    6,557

    Velocity Yellow
    2008 Corvette Z06

    Quote Originally Posted by 00z28bubba View Post
    i thought the ls1 was 350/375
    The LS1 in Fbodies from the factory was only rated at 315-325hp

  6. #86
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    To help clearify.

    The LS1 in the camaros were rated at 310 HP and 335 ft lbs. of torque
    The SS bumped that a tad to 320 HP and 345 ft lbs. of torque.
    There were some add on options like catbacks and lids for the SS that bumped that number slightly higher. Keep in mind that torque rating came in at 4400 rpms. A bit high strung for a 346 ci engine.

    Now even the vette ratings were only slightly higher with 350 hp and 365 ft lbs. of torque.

    If you step up to the famed Z06 of 2001 you had 385 hp and 385 ft lbs. The following year some cam changes were made that bumped that to 405 hp and 400 ft lbs.


    Now the new mustang on the other hand is going to be rated at 412 hp at 6500 rpms. Torque comes in at 390 ft lbs. at a lower 4200 rpms. Compare that to those specs above.

    Notice you have 390 ft lbs. 200 rpms lower out of 302 cubes compared to the LS1 with 346 cubes. So looking on paper this little 302 is going to feel alot stronger for sure, even in the lower rpm ranges.
    Should be a great little package, can't wait to see them at the track.

  7. #87
    Senior Member snaggeltooth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    alabama
    Posts
    7,203

    Gray
    2012 Challenger R/T

    the thing you have to look at is the driver is a big part of this .. If your in low 13 high 12 cars one little wrong move and BAMM you lose ...

  8. #88
    Junior Member SPDYGON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    GEORGIA
    Posts
    78

    RED
    2001 CAMARO ss

    my car stock came in at 310rwh so if you add 17% to that total of 362.7 on motor.
    stock motors on a engine dyno, dyno at 400hp with just a water pump on.

  9. #89
    Your dealership guy konigandy6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Romeo, MI
    Posts
    6,557

    Velocity Yellow
    2008 Corvette Z06

    Quote Originally Posted by SPDYGON View Post
    my car stock came in at 310rwh so if you add 17% to that total of 362.7 on motor.
    stock motors on a engine dyno, dyno at 400hp with just a water pump on.
    Are you speaking of an LS1?

  10. #90
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by SPDYGON View Post
    my car stock came in at 310rwh so if you add 17% to that total of 362.7 on motor.
    stock motors on a engine dyno, dyno at 400hp with just a water pump on.
    Quote Originally Posted by konigandy6 View Post
    Are you speaking of an LS1?
    Yes, he is....Several reputable dyno facilities have documented that.

  11. #91
    Four Seat Vette 10spokess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    pasadena md
    Posts
    2,034
    Blog Entries
    2

    Black
    2002 SS Camaro

    really???

  12. #92
    Member 98Z28CamaroJG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Altoona and Downingtown, PA
    Posts
    271

    Black
    1998 Z28 and 67 Firebird

    i'm very much doubting that...something must be on those engines that wasn't included when mated to a 4th gen

  13. #93
    Senior Member 00z28bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    las vegas, nv
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,390

    white
    2000 Z28

    Quote Originally Posted by 98Z28CamaroJG View Post
    i'm very much doubting that...something must be on those engines that wasn't included when mated to a 4th gen
    01 and 02 f bodies seem to be stock dyno queens on occasion. m6's only. a4's take a bit of power. it would be nice to see a dyno sheet if possible.

  14. #94
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by 10spokess View Post
    really???
    Quote Originally Posted by 98Z28CamaroJG View Post
    i'm very much doubting that...something must be on those engines that wasn't included when mated to a 4th gen
    Quote Originally Posted by 00z28bubba View Post
    01 and 02 f bodies seem to be stock dyno queens on occasion. m6's only. a4's take a bit of power. it would be nice to see a dyno sheet if possible.
    This is old news guys. This was done back when GM first started offering the LS1 engine in crate form. It's been several years.

    What people don't realize on most engine dyno's is the only thing the engine is turning might be the water pump. And even that is not always the case. Airflow is also controlled with a carb hat in most cases.
    Then if headers are used they are usually specially made dyno headers to clear the water break. Which extend out from the cylinder heads 6 inches or more before making a bend in the tube. These are worth as much as 20 HP or more compared to the chassis headers that would be run when the engine is installed in the car.

    Many many variables. These engines may produce 300 HP at the rear wheels, and the 15-20% correction for flywheel HP is somewhat accurate, you have to keep in mind that includes turning all the accessories.......

    Water pump
    Power steering pump
    Alternator
    A/C compressor
    A full exhaust system (a 3 inch single system at that)
    A restricted air intake system

    On an engine dyno,,,none of these are a factor. It's the difference between Gross and Net. All the manufactures played that game starting in 1971.

    I can give you examples of my own cars, as well as my fathers, that have been both on a chassis dyno, after the engine was ran seperately on a DTS engine dyno. The difference is rather large.

  15. #95
    Senior Member 00z28bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    las vegas, nv
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,390

    white
    2000 Z28

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    This is old news guys. This was done back when GM first started offering the LS1 engine in crate form. It's been several years.

    What people don't realize on most engine dyno's is the only thing the engine is turning might be the water pump. And even that is not always the case. Airflow is also controlled with a carb hat in most cases.
    Then if headers are used they are usually specially made dyno headers to clear the water break. Which extend out from the cylinder heads 6 inches or more before making a bend in the tube. These are worth as much as 20 HP or more compared to the chassis headers that would be run when the engine is installed in the car.

    Many many variables. These engines may produce 300 HP at the rear wheels, and the 15-20% correction for flywheel HP is somewhat accurate, you have to keep in mind that includes turning all the accessories.......

    Water pump
    Power steering pump
    Alternator
    A/C compressor
    A full exhaust system (a 3 inch single system at that)
    A restricted air intake system

    On an engine dyno,,,none of these are a factor. It's the difference between Gross and Net. All the manufactures played that game starting in 1971.

    I can give you examples of my own cars, as well as my fathers, that have been both on a chassis dyno, after the engine was ran seperately on a DTS engine dyno. The difference is rather large.
    didnt see the engine dyno part. but now seeing it 310 should be easily passed.

  16. #96
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    ohio
    Age
    27
    Posts
    85

    pewter
    2000 ss slp

    ford circled their problem!!!

  17. #97
    King 0f n00bz shady milkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Shepherd, Michigan
    Age
    29
    Posts
    11,775

    blacker than wesleysnipes
    98' trans am

    Quote Originally Posted by sscharged View Post
    ford circled their problem!!!
    this makes no sense to this conversation

  18. #98
    Senior Member redbird555's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    pompano beach florida
    Age
    27
    Posts
    1,008
    2002 Camaro Z/28 Pewter

    heres a baseline sheet from gmhightech magazine ls1 base line was 400.4 hp.
    http://www.gmhightechperformance.com.../photo_05.html

  19. #99
    Member camaroluvr447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Steubenville, Ohio
    Age
    27
    Posts
    234

    Pewter
    2000 Pewter Z28 M6

    sweet!

  20. #100
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Bridgeport, WV
    Posts
    3
    99 Chevy Tracker

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    "Whatever spins your crankshaft" is what I always say. I've owned cars from all 3 american makers from a 72 roadrunner, to a 69 corvair with a sbc 400 in the back seat, to a 23 ford t-bucket, to a 86 mustang, and many others - including non-american, and I've enjoyed all of them. It didn't really matter what other's thought - I liked them. So I'm always interested in what the car manufacturers are putting out. And I'm interested in what people do with the cars that I may not care for as much, too. Variety is the spice of life, right?

    I completely agree. I'm not into the specs comparing/arguing. If everyone drove the same shit the hobby would be boring as hell. Any car can be made to go fast, so none of it makes a difference. I personally have driven a ford, a couple chevys, and a couple hondas and I know I would never drive a honda or a ford ever again. I don't care how badass the car is, I would still have that uneasy feeling in my stomach knowing its a ford/honda. To each his own. As said in one of the first posts in this thread, it should make things fun. A little competition is a good thing. I don't care if I had an ls1 running 14's in a group of whatever make/model running 10's, I would personally still stick with the ls1...simply because its still badass.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Mustang gt's??
    By Transamws6 in forum Domestics and Foreigns
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 01-16-2010, 06:28 AM
  2. 05 Red Mustang GT
    By Z06-Goose in forum Showcar and Detailing
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 09:39 PM
  3. ls1 vs mustang gt
    By midnightnavyz28 in forum Kill Stories
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-05-2009, 05:56 PM
  4. here's my mustang...
    By sit_back in forum Member's Rides
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-07-2006, 08:42 PM
  5. 06 Mustang GT vs. 99 z28
    By raybroussard in forum Kill Stories
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-10-2006, 01:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •