Printable View
MMFF ran 12.72@112.49 mph and switched to a shorter diameter drag radial (lowering gearing) and ran 12.3 @ 110.7.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLK2KSS
I think Ford did the car right. It has a 3.55 and 3.73 option on the rear end. The car they ran had the 3.73 option.
But I also think the Camaro looks a little meaner, and I like the bigger engine. Just because I had a 5.0 back in the day doesn't mean I will run out and get it. I am more interested in how nice the car is.
Well I can tell you the new 5.0 and the old 5.0 shouldnt even be compared other than to see the advancements made in streetable performance. The new stang is pretty solid all the way around. I get what your saying about wanting a 6.2 over a 5.0 because of potential but as far as nice goes there pretty close.Quote:
Originally Posted by NaviDyn
I know they have nothing in common, including displacement. The old engine is 4942 cc, or 4.9 litres. You can call it a 5 litre, but you can't call it a 5.0. A 3rd grade math student should be able to tell Ford why.
I do like both. I don't care for the Challenger as much. But that is based on looks alone. The picutres are hideous, but in person it is much better. But I still like the new Camaro and 2010+ Mustang better.
the rounding rule..plus marketing 5.0 >4.9Quote:
Originally Posted by NaviDyn
you know the ls1 which is referred to as a 5.7 or for some of the less educated people on gen IIIs a csb 350
even though we are a 346 which is 5.67 ...so i guess that 3rd grade student should stop by GM after he is done with ford :lol:
Did you know, according to some, you can bore any small block Chevy out to 400 CI? That includes the 305.
Nah, doesn't work that way. If you round to the first decimal place, like EVERYBODY who builds an engine does, 4.94 rounds down to 4.9 and 5.67 rounds up to 5.7. That is what he meant about third grade math. It's nice to see a true 5.0 in a Mustang badged 5.0; personally I think the old cars should have been badged with a 302 anyway, but oh well. The real 5.0 engine in the 80s actually came in GM cars (305ci actually does round to 5.0 :))Quote:
Originally Posted by shady milkman
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by NaviDyn
I wanna see somebody running one of those :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by NaviDyn
Actually, GM produced a 400ci small block V8 from 1970 to 1980. It wasn't much of a performance engine, and was generally found in trucks, and cars like the Caprice and Olds 98. As far as I know, that was the largest of the original Chevy small blocks that started out in the mid 1950's as a little 265ci "mouse motor." The LT1 350 was the end of the line, since the LSx motors are a completely different casting.Quote:
Originally Posted by RJWZ28
I was making fun of people that know just enough to be dangerous. I want to see that 305 TPI get overbored to hit 400 cubic inches.Quote:
Originally Posted by TRMach1
The 400 small blocks were their own little animal with siamese bores that measured 4.125 inches stock. Going even more than about .040 over on these is considered the limit without sonic checking. They also had a 3.75 inch stroke crank to reach that cubic inch of 400.Quote:
Originally Posted by NaviDyn
You absolutely cannot bore the other gen 1 small blocks of 350 or smaller up to a 4.125 inch bore. The largest of which were 4 inch bores stock,,,that would require a .125 overbore,,,,not going to happen on a stock production gen 1 small block.
For this reason is what has made the 400 blocks so desirable to aquire. With stroker cranks available now you can take that 400 block out to 434 cubes if you want. Can't do that with a 350 block.
Which is why companies such as Merlin or World have come out with 4.125 inch bore blocks now, because the supply of factory blocks have dried up. You can now purchase these aftermarket 4.125 bore blocks with even more meat than the factory blocks had, and build 454 cubed small blocks easily.
Just for info purposes....
The little 302, 327, and 350's were the only other gen 1 engines that came with what is considered the performace standard 4 inch bore. Usually .060 over and these blocks are done. Only the strokes made the cubic inch differences of........ 3 inch, 3.25 inch, and 3.48 inch respectively.
To get a 307 you had the bore of 3.875 inches (same as the 283) but the 307 had the 3.25 inch stroke crank (same as the 327) So even the little 307's had some performance potential.
The little 283's had the same bore of 3.875 inches but had a 3 inch stroke crank. These can also be made to be little screamers.
The 305 however is a performance slug as far as potential goes. The bore was even smaller at 3.740 inches and arrived at 305 cubes with the 350 stroke crank of 3.48 inches. Horrible combo with alot of piston speed and not enough bore to make any real HP. Simply put they were gas mileage engines with more stroke to try and boost torque levels.
Sorry for the history lesson, but I felt compelled to explain that.
Ya, to reach a 4.125 bore with a 305 bore of 3.740 you would have to go,,,,,,get this,,,,,, .385 overbore :umm:Quote:
Originally Posted by NaviDyn
such as ?Quote:
Originally Posted by NaviDyn
I know that. I was just saying that I wanna see a jackass with a "400ci" overbored 305 at the track. 305s didn't use the same block as a 400, and even if somebody managed to find a freak 305 block that was willing to accept the bore necessary to make it a 400ci, I can't imagine it would last one all-out pass at the track.Quote:
Originally Posted by TRMach1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJWZ28
That's not going to happen, even filling with hardblock won't get it done. There just isn't enough meat in a 305 to go that far.
Just no way around it without a 400 block. Which is why the aftermarket saw the need to produce them again.
That's what I thoughtQuote:
Originally Posted by Firebirdjones
Damn nice car for the money :usa:
:cheers: Even tho I don't agree with the hype, as long as it is American made I don't mind it! I don't mind a challenge :firedevil:Quote:
Originally Posted by LS1What
Fords not telling the whole truth car really has around 435 H P !!!! Couple mags have already put the new 2011 on the machine to find out !!!!! Looks like GM beter dig a lot deeper for some power for their Camaro !!!!!!!!!
??? why alot deeper ?Quote:
Originally Posted by trans am man 99