Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 1112131415161718 LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 346

01 ta vs 08 gt

This is a discussion on 01 ta vs 08 gt within the Kill Stories forums, part of the Racing Forums category; you are an absolute trip. you actually want everyone here to believe that your beating on ls1's with an almost ...

  1. #281
    Member 2-bowties&abird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    lancaster,va.
    Age
    38
    Posts
    505

    cam/lt headers
    blue 2000 ws6 m6

    you are an absolute trip. you actually want everyone here to believe that your beating on ls1's with an almost completely stock 4.6 n/a. who are you trying to fool, yourself?

    it's just so far fetched, it's like if i were to try to tell people here that when i was almost completely stock i was beating on cobras mostly on a regular basis with an exception of one here or there. it just does not add up thats why everyone is calling

  2. #282
    Member mogs01gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    37
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by 2-bowties&abird View Post
    i don't know son, why don't i give you a run since your in va. i guess you can find out then.
    LMAO he called Bob son

    Bob, you dont have that 03-04 cobra still do ya?
    Last edited by mogs01gt; 07-03-2008 at 06:13 AM.

  3. #283
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    No, sold it. Just didn't "do it" for me. I'm back to that slow 99.

    Pssst....have you noticed how most of them completely avoid talking about what their own car does, and instead, use others for examples? Take 2birdlovingbowties for example....how many times have I asked him what he runs? And his reply? More stupidity. And then there's little boy squeek and the STS - but wait....he could run 10s! And he could add Meth and make 600 HP! OMG!

    And finally....ignorance is shown through....both N/A Modulars and most especially N/A 5.0s and Windsors went 9's (and 8's) many, many moons ago. One only has to look up names like Charlie Booze, Matt Wirt, Bob Hanlon, Mike Tymenski, Al Papitto, and many, many others.

    But...it is LS1.com...and the LS1 kiddos are allowed to be kiddos. I understand.

    Finisto.

  4. #284
    Member mogs01gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Age
    37
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD View Post
    No, sold it. Just didn't "do it" for me. I'm back to that slow 99.
    Pssst....have you noticed how most of them completely avoid talking about what their own car does, and instead, use others for examples? Take 2birdlovingbowties for example....how many times have I asked him what he runs? And his reply? More stupidity. And then there's little boy squeek and the STS - but wait....he could run 10s! And he could add Meth and make 600 HP! OMG!
    And finally....ignorance is shown through....both N/A Modulars and most especially N/A 5.0s and Windsors went 9's (and 8's) many, many moons ago. One only has to look up names like Charlie Booze, Matt Wirt, Bob Hanlon, Mike Tymenski, Al Papitto, and many, many others.
    But...it is LS1.com...and the LS1 kiddos are allowed to be kiddos. I understand.
    Finisto.
    What you dont know? All F-bodies run 10s on the internet!!

  5. #285
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Va
    Posts
    74

    Mineral Grey
    2005 Mustang GT

    Quote Originally Posted by squee View Post
    THANK YOU! Finally someone who understands that its pathetic that it takes a FI or bottle for a shitstang to keep up with an old N/A LT1.
    Why Pathetic? the 5.7L Lt1 is still a 20th century Engine same as the Mod Motor,
    The 1992 LT1 in the Y-body was factory rated at 300 hp (220 kW) and 330 lbft (447 Nm).
    96 LT1 Y-bodies were rated at 300 hp (220 kW) and 340 lbft (461 Nm).
    The 93-95 F-bodies were rated at 275 hp (202 kW) and 325 ftlbf (439 Nm),
    while the 96-97 cars were rated at 285 hp (210 kW) and 335 ftlbf (452 Nm).
    The 96-97 WS6 F-bodies were rated at 305 hp (227 kW).
    The 94-96 B and D-body version was rated at 260 hp (191 kW) and 330 ftlbf (446 Nm).

    The 4.6L Mod Motor also came about in 1992
    1992-1997 Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis, 4.6L 2V 210 hp (157 kW) and 270 lbft (366 Nm)
    1993-1998 Lincoln Mark VIII, 4.6L 4V 280 hp (209 kW) and 285 lbft (386 Nm)
    1996-1997 Ford Mustang, 4.6L 2V 215 hp (160 kW) and 285 lbft (386 Nm)
    1996-1998 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra, 4.6L 4V 305 hp (227 kW) and 300 lbft (407 Nm)
    1998 Ford Mustang, 4.6L 2V 225 hp (168 kW) and 290 lbft (393 Nm)
    1999-2004 4.6L 2V Ford Mustang, 260 hp (194 kW) and 302 lbft (409 Nm)
    2004 Ford Mustang Mach 1, 4.6L 4V 310 hp (231 kW) and 335 lbft (454 Nm)
    2005–present Ford Mustang, 4.6L 3V, 300 hp (224 kW) and 320 ftlbf (434 Nm)

    these are the same era engines, the only reason GM decided to go with the LS1 was that they were trying to bring up a slumping sales. it did not work, by late 1999 GM decided to cancel the 4th Gen.

    Ford would do better with the mustang power if they were to use the 21st century engines:
    Boss 260 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 349 hp (260 kW) @ 5250 rpm, 369 lbft (500 Nm) @ 4000 rpm
    Boss 290 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 389 hp (290 kW) @ 5500 rpm, 384 lbft (521 Nm) @ 4500 rpm
    Boss 302 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 405 hp (302 kW) @ 6000 rpm, 398 lbft (540 Nm) @ 4750 rpm
    Boss 315 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 422 hp (315 kW) @ 6500 rpm, 406.5 lbft (551 Nm) @ 4750 rpm
    these are N/A numbers. I have read that there are plans on using the 5.4L in the next Gen mustang

    no denying that you Gen 4 FBod guys got a gem of a car, congrats
    Last edited by 2K05GT; 07-03-2008 at 07:46 AM.

  6. #286
    Sarge for AAG Emperor hutch1999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    3,779

    06 HD Softail
    1998 Trans Am m6

    Quote Originally Posted by 2K05GT View Post
    these are the same era engines, the only reason GM decided to go with the LS1 was that they were trying to bring up a slumping sales. it did not work, by late 1999 GM decided to cancel the 4th Gen.
    GM went with the Ls1 because it was a better engine

  7. #287
    Member squee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Age
    27
    Posts
    952

    Navy Blue Metallic
    2000 SS M6

    Quote Originally Posted by Camarofan View Post
    And so you're saying there is absolutely no Stang that can run ya?




    I woudn't say it's pathetic because it's just physics/science. You take a bigger displacement engine with a higher compression ratio and you get an engine that responds better to N/A mods. All it is is how to get the air from the intake into the chamber. Ford guys use Boost because you force air/fuel in the chamber to raise compression. You N/A guys like to make up for your lil penises by bragging about not having a supercharger, so you bore and stroke your LS1's to raise compression. You also do headwork and cams, to get more air in the chamber. Both boosting and Camming are good ways to raise compression=more power. You can get more into a 350 than you can into a 281. Doesn't sound like much difference does it? It is and it does help. What happens if you stroked your 350 to a 383? You Raised your cubes. 408? Raised your cubes. So don't tell me cubic inch displacement doesn't matter. You have a better platform for N/A mods. IT's not that you have more hair on your asses than anyone else, it's cuz GM gave you more room to play with in the compression game. The old school guys do all that shit. They have big blocks that are worked over and boosted.
    Ok, first off you don't bore an LS1, you sleeve it. Second, the LS1 is a 346, third, you can't raise compression by a cam, fourth, your a fucking moron. I didn't say there wasn't any stang that could beat me, but I'd sure as hell like to see it...Your STILL missing the point. The 4.6 is a inferior motor to the LS1, 2, 3, 6, 7, PERIOD. Thats why it takes boost to run with the LS1s.
    Do you really feel all that great about yourself cause you beat a stock heavy GTO with IRS, probably suffering from the dreaded wheelhop? You shouldn't...

    Quote Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD View Post
    No, sold it. Just didn't "do it" for me. I'm back to that slow 99.

    Pssst....have you noticed how most of them completely avoid talking about what their own car does, and instead, use others for examples? Take 2birdlovingbowties for example....how many times have I asked him what he runs? And his reply? More stupidity. And then there's little boy squeek and the STS - but wait....he could run 10s! And he could add Meth and make 600 HP! OMG!

    And finally....ignorance is shown through....both N/A Modulars and most especially N/A 5.0s and Windsors went 9's (and 8's) many, many moons ago. One only has to look up names like Charlie Booze, Matt Wirt, Bob Hanlon, Mike Tymenski, Al Papitto, and many, many others.

    But...it is LS1.com...and the LS1 kiddos are allowed to be kiddos. I understand.

    Finisto.
    Yes, I can very well up the boost and add the methanol injection sitting in my living room and run 10s. Hell, it ran 12.2 with a 2.4 60' (not me driving). You do the math on that one...

    Quote Originally Posted by 2K05GT View Post
    these are the same era engines, the only reason GM decided to go with the LS1 was that they were trying to bring up a slumping sales. it did not work, by late 1999 GM decided to cancel the 4th Gen.
    They didn't just decide out of nowhere to quit making them. It was legality issues with Canada. I believe it had something to do with the name rights or something. Its in a thread around here somewhere.
    Last edited by squee; 07-03-2008 at 08:18 AM.

  8. #288
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Va
    Posts
    74

    Mineral Grey
    2005 Mustang GT

    Quote Originally Posted by SQUEE View Post
    They didn't just decide out of nowhere to quit making them. It was legality issues with Canada. I believe it had something to do with the name rights or something. Its in a thread around here somewhere.
    That was some of it, but over at Camaro5.com Fbodfather explaned in further detail why they canceled the Camaro and sales was the overall factor. The issue you speak of was the plant contract dispite
    Last edited by 2K05GT; 07-03-2008 at 08:49 AM.

  9. #289
    Sarge for AAG Emperor hutch1999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    3,779

    06 HD Softail
    1998 Trans Am m6

    Quote Originally Posted by 2K05GT View Post
    That was some of it, but over at Camaro5.com Fbodfather explaned in further detail why they canceled the Camaro and sales was the overall factor. The issue you speak of was the plant contract dispite
    I appreciate you quoting me but I didnt say that lol squee did

  10. #290
    Sarge for AAG Emperor hutch1999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    3,779

    06 HD Softail
    1998 Trans Am m6

    nm the last post you caught it

  11. #291
    LTX N20LT4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Cali
    Posts
    2,006
    10's N/A

    Quote Originally Posted by 2K05GT View Post
    Why Pathetic? the 5.7L Lt1 is still a 20th century Engine same as the Mod Motor,
    The 1992 LT1 in the Y-body was factory rated at 300 hp (220 kW) and 330 lbft (447 Nm).
    96 LT1 Y-bodies were rated at 300 hp (220 kW) and 340 lbft (461 Nm).
    The 93-95 F-bodies were rated at 275 hp (202 kW) and 325 ftlbf (439 Nm),
    while the 96-97 cars were rated at 285 hp (210 kW) and 335 ftlbf (452 Nm).
    The 96-97 WS6 F-bodies were rated at 305 hp (227 kW).
    The 94-96 B and D-body version was rated at 260 hp (191 kW) and 330 ftlbf (446 Nm).

    The 4.6L Mod Motor also came about in 1992
    1992-1997 Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis, 4.6L 2V 210 hp (157 kW) and 270 lbft (366 Nm)
    1993-1998 Lincoln Mark VIII, 4.6L 4V 280 hp (209 kW) and 285 lbft (386 Nm)
    1996-1997 Ford Mustang, 4.6L 2V 215 hp (160 kW) and 285 lbft (386 Nm)
    1996-1998 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra, 4.6L 4V 305 hp (227 kW) and 300 lbft (407 Nm)
    1998 Ford Mustang, 4.6L 2V 225 hp (168 kW) and 290 lbft (393 Nm)
    1999-2004 4.6L 2V Ford Mustang, 260 hp (194 kW) and 302 lbft (409 Nm)
    2004 Ford Mustang Mach 1, 4.6L 4V 310 hp (231 kW) and 335 lbft (454 Nm)
    2005present Ford Mustang, 4.6L 3V, 300 hp (224 kW) and 320 ftlbf (434 Nm)

    these are the same era engines, the only reason GM decided to go with the LS1 was that they were trying to bring up a slumping sales. it did not work, by late 1999 GM decided to cancel the 4th Gen.

    Ford would do better with the mustang power if they were to use the 21st century engines:
    Boss 260 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 349 hp (260 kW) @ 5250 rpm, 369 lbft (500 Nm) @ 4000 rpm
    Boss 290 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 389 hp (290 kW) @ 5500 rpm, 384 lbft (521 Nm) @ 4500 rpm
    Boss 302 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 405 hp (302 kW) @ 6000 rpm, 398 lbft (540 Nm) @ 4750 rpm
    Boss 315 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 422 hp (315 kW) @ 6500 rpm, 406.5 lbft (551 Nm) @ 4750 rpm
    these are N/A numbers. I have read that there are plans on using the 5.4L in the next Gen mustang

    no denying that you Gen 4 FBod guys got a gem of a car, congrats
    What is the point of your LT1 vs. 2-valve comparison? Were talking about the '05 & Up GT's...which are 3-valves, technology that spands roughly 13 years past the introduction of the LTx. Do you even know what you have underneath that bulgy hood of yours?

  12. #292
    Member Ls1_385hp_T/A's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Nor-Cal
    Posts
    543

    Black
    1999 Trans Am Ws6/M6

    Quote Originally Posted by Camarofan View Post
    Well, that's info I didn't want you to know. Sucking dick is my own personal business.


    I suck all mustang guys off too .

    Dude...GTFO.

    We dont need to know your personal business like that.

  13. #293
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Va
    Posts
    74

    Mineral Grey
    2005 Mustang GT

    Quote Originally Posted by N20LT4 View Post
    What is the point of your LT1 vs. 2-valve comparison? Were talking about the '05 & Up GT's...which are 3-valves, technology that spands roughly 13 years past the introduction of the LTx. Do you even know what you have underneath that bulgy hood of yours?
    Point is that the 4.6L 2, 3 and 4v engines were around all throught the 90's
    and have been on par with the LT1 and the early LS1's but have not made any advances since 1998. except for the 3V (one valve less than it's 1996 counterpart and has VCT) this has been the same engine throughout the late 90 to 2004. I for one was disappointed that ford went with this platform in 05 but thats the way it is. So my point was that the 4.6 for what it is, is still an old platform engine that has progressed to it's conclusion making the same power as the 1996 4v engine. that BTW was the same as the LT1 being 1Liter larger.

  14. #294
    Member 98 Stang Killer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Channelview, Tx.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    882

    Black
    1998 Z28

    Quote Originally Posted by 2K05GT View Post
    That was some of it, but over at Camaro5.com Fbodfather explaned in further detail why they canceled the Camaro and sales was the overall factor. The issue you speak of was the plant contract dispite
    yeah sales had alot to do with it because mustang commercials act like there a super muscle car that you can get for cheap price and the camaro is little more expensive and didnt really advertise as much

  15. #295
    I dont even bother reporting GT kills anymore, there pathetic and are not much competition at all. Even there flagship Gt500 is pretty pathetic....

  16. #296
    Sarge for AAG Emperor hutch1999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    3,779

    06 HD Softail
    1998 Trans Am m6

    Quote Originally Posted by 2K05GT View Post
    So my point was that the 4.6 for what it is, is still an old platform engine that has progressed to it's conclusion making the same power as the 1996 4v engine. that BTW was the same as the LT1 being 1Liter larger.
    Lt1 is easier to mod and more reliable, thats why we like is more than a 4.6

  17. #297
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Va
    Posts
    74

    Mineral Grey
    2005 Mustang GT

    this would be a fair argument if both Ford and Chevy had near size engines.
    but you are beating your chests like the 5.7L is such a bad as mofo yet look at the actual numbers
    4.6L 3V is 281 cubic inches producing 300hp 320tq
    LS1 all-aluminum 5.7 L (346 in) pushrod engine and was rated between 305 - 350 hp and 335-375 ftlbf of torque
    thats 67ci or 1.1Liters over the 4.6 motor and thats all it made LOL..

    As far as the LSx being superior, not according to Wards 10 best engines.
    Fords 4.6L v8 won this award in 2005 (5th), 2006 (5th) 2005 (6th) 2008 (4th)
    Fords 5.7L took 4th in 1997 (2nd) 1998 (3rd) 2000 (5th), 2001 (5th) 2002 (4th)
    yet the LS1 only won in 1998 and 1999 and the LT1 and LS2 never made it on the list.

    the LSx is a Large cubic inch engine making good hp, yet ford has 5.4L making nearly the same N/A hp as the new 6.0L LS3 and it's still short a few cubes

    Boss 315 4-valve DOHC 5.4 L V8, 422 hp @ 6500 rpm, 406.5 lbft @ 4750 rpm

    Then we can have a serious argument.
    Last edited by 2K05GT; 07-03-2008 at 02:16 PM.

  18. #298
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Va
    Posts
    74

    Mineral Grey
    2005 Mustang GT

    Quote Originally Posted by hutch1999 View Post
    Lt1 is easier to mod and more reliable, thats why we like is more than a 4.6
    any engine with more cubes is easier to mod and more reliable thats physics.
    A friend of mine dumped his 4.0 V6 turgo charged 10.91@122 daily driver
    for a 5.4L triton motor, and man the mods are nasty of this platform.
    it's making serious HP with just minor mods, he building a 9 second DD out of this one that will go 1000 passes and 100,000 miles.

  19. #299
    LTX N20LT4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Cali
    Posts
    2,006
    10's N/A

    Quote Originally Posted by 2K05GT View Post
    Point is that the 4.6L 2, 3 and 4v engines were around all throught the 90's
    and have been on par with the LT1 and the early LS1's but have not made any advances since 1998. except for the 3V (one valve less than it's 1996 counterpart and has VCT) this has been the same engine throughout the late 90 to 2004. I for one was disappointed that ford went with this platform in 05 but thats the way it is. So my point was that the 4.6 for what it is, is still an old platform engine that has progressed to it's conclusion making the same power as the 1996 4v engine.
    Uhh...the 3 valve just made it's way into production in the 2005 Mustang. I don't recall any three-valve-per-cylinder layout in Ford's lineup in the 1990's, so it is, infact, new technology. As far as being on par with the LT1's, I wouldn't jump to conclusions if I were you. The '96-97 Cobra WAS NOT on par with the '96-'97 Camaro SS. Here's a vintage Car & Driver comparison just for kicks in which your beloved 4.6 Cobra ran it's usual 14.0 quarter-mile time to the LT1's 13.6/106.

    http://www.stangbangers.com/96_Cobra...rd_Article.htm

    I literally pounced on several '96-98 Cobra's in my old Sebring Silver '97 SS when it was stock, 2 on the left and all, and even had my fun with a brand new at the time '01 Cobra in which I took by 2 cars. So no they were not on par with all LT1 cars. As far as being on par with the LS1's -Wrong Again Jack! Not even the '99 & '01's were a match for the '98-02 LS1 M6 cars.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2K05GT View Post
    that BTW was the same as the LT1 being 1Liter larger.
    Your forgetting the 4.6L Cobra is a dual-cam motor. The four-valve-per-cylinder layout allows it to breath much more efficiently than a comparable pushrod engine of the same size. That's why virtually every single high-output, small displacement engine uses a mult-cam setup, i.e the Ferrari 3-liter V-8's, Lotus, Cadillac Northstar, etc. For example, look at the 1990-1995 GM 5.7L DOHC V-8 out of the ZR-1's. Those cars can make in excess of 550rwhp naturally aspirated with less effort compared to even an LS1. A 4-valve is not your typical V-8.

  20. #300
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Va
    Posts
    74

    Mineral Grey
    2005 Mustang GT

    Quote Originally Posted by 98 Stang Killer View Post
    yeah sales had alot to do with it because mustang commercials act like there a super muscle car that you can get for cheap price and the camaro is little more expensive and didnt really advertise as much
    what for 8 years.... in late 99 GM made the decision to pull the plug
    it had nothing to do with marketing, the 4th Gen was BUTT UGLY... Simple as that
    I am posting this chart again...
    Last edited by 2K05GT; 07-03-2008 at 02:26 PM.

Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 1112131415161718 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •