99 Z28 v.s. 06 Mustang GT?

**kamikaZeLS1** · 05-12-2006, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Camarofan

Well, your friend is wrong about that if you both are close to stock. I know that. You have an SS. My thing is to the z28 boyz. They aren't all that they say they are. I've driven one.They are acting like the 05/06's are no comp.

SS = Z28

Performance is the same. Can't make that argument.

**kamikaZeLS1** · 05-12-2006, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by QKRDTA3

get your facts streight, who made you an expert on LS1s, there are bolt on LS1s running low 12's high11's and you say they dont respond well to mods.
Just because car and driver says the 06 mustang runs a 13.5 doesnt mean it really consistantly turns that. Opening day at the strip here was this past weekend and if none of them could break out of 13.8 on a 50 degree day at sea level it aint going to happen buddy. oh yeah and I ran a 12.68 on LTs and a stall.

I was pulling 12.0X's on LT's and a stall in my old Z, what's your point?

**GottaHaveLS1** · 05-12-2006, 08:19 AM

I believe the 4.6 came out in 96

Originally Posted by s197

The 4.6 has come a long way since 94. I had a 90 Thunderbird and I loved it for the car, it wasn't a drag racer. WAAY too heavy. The new stangs have VVT and a pretty good A5.

**Fedge** · 05-12-2006, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by GottaHaveLS1

I believe the 4.6 came out in 96

4.6 debuted in 93 with the 32v Mark VIII LSC , the 2v was put in the Thunderbird a year later and the Mustang in 96 with a 32v version for the Cobra the same year.

**kamikaZeLS1** · 05-12-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by John Dixon

...The new 3-valve is something I can't give you any info on, but the older 2 and 4 valve (lesser extent) 4.6's had power only in the higher rpms, not like the older 5.0's. Low rpm's did not make good power and that is directly related to the modular design. The LS1 is balanced with good power throughout the rpm's and that's n/a. SHM, for one, has done impressive things with the 4.6, but you will see that most everybody goes forced induction to make up for the lack of lower rpm grunt. Problem is, you now have gear ratios - in general - that do not use the power as effectively as it could be utilized
.....
Ford's 4r70w AT is the standard for the 94+ T-bird's, Vics, and Stangs, and the ratio between first and second does NOT match up with the powerband of a somewhat "stock" 4.6 too well. They are useable for tooling down the road, but not the 1/4 mile. When you go forced induction, then the gears are better, but the engine now doesn't need that stock first gear. Very streetable, but a dog in a race. Good to great launch, but then it's over. The manual in the 'Stangs seems to have the same problem in third and up. Just like the earlier remarks; it can get a jump, but when the higher gears take over, the 4.6 engine just does not have the wide rpm range to get the best acceleration.

About the older 2 valves only having power up top, I really have to disagree with that. If you look at the power curves of a stock 2V, it's more of a midrange motor than anything. It makes pretty strong torque the whole way through, especially at 3K RPM and up, usually peaking around 4000-4200 RPM, so I wouldn't say it really 'lacks' down low, it just isn't abundant. It's torque is all midrange. As far as horespower, it peaks at 5500 RPM, which really isn't all that high, and from there it drops pretty steadily. If you want to compare it to an LS1 with peaks of 4400RPM (torque) and 6200RPM (horsepower) with a much less dramatic power loss top end, and call the LS1 a 'top end' motor, then it doesn't seem as if the 2 valve really shines up top. It's a midrange motor mainly...the 4V is a different story altogether.

**jad628** · 05-12-2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by kamikaZeLS1

About the older 2 valves only having power up top, I really have to disagree with that. If you look at the power curves of a stock 2V, it's more of a midrange motor than anything. It makes pretty strong torque the whole way through, especially at 3K RPM and up, usually peaking around 4000-4200 RPM, so I wouldn't say it really 'lacks' down low, it just isn't abundant. It's torque is all midrange. As far as horespower, it peaks at 5500 RPM, which really isn't all that high, and from there it drops pretty steadily. If you want to compare it to an LS1 with peaks of 4400RPM (torque) and 6200RPM (horsepower) with a much less dramatic power loss top end, and call the LS1 a 'top end' motor, then it doesn't seem as if the 2 valve really shines up top. It's a midrange motor mainly...the 4V is a different story altogether.

I'm not sure we are disagreeing here. Maybe I wasn't very clear in what I meant, but I typed its "power is in the HIGHER rpm's compared to the older 5.0".

My main experience with the 4.6 2V was in a 94 T-bird for four years. Some tweaks and bolt on's with a 3.08 gear. My '89 Mustang 5.0 had a stock 2.73 gear (solid axle)with AT, and would break the Gatorbacks loose with little effort. The T-bird (granted a newer 4r70w and the best Ford rear axle) had to really be forced to break the tires loose from a stop. The 5.0 as I recall made maximum torque (stock) at 3400 rpm. The 4.6 by your own comment is 600-800 rpm higher before it peaks. That's pretty substantial, and the 3.08 ratio rear end didn't even seem to help. Now I guess it is more accurate to say it is a decent mid-range powerband, but compared to a 5.0, those rpm's are much higher in a 4.6. The 4V is better, I agree, but that was a whole lot of change for a nominal gain. In '99, the P.I. heads/intake narrowed the gap with the previous 4V, and proved the 4.6 needed to breath a lot more than was previous thought.

My comparison is based more on stock configurations. SHM seemed to have a lot of success with the modular, but you didn't see many stock cracked-rod bottom ends on those engines. Boost goes well with the modular, I doubt anybody here thinks otherwise. In my opinion, it begs for it. Problem is that the lower end isn't capable of supporting substantial boost in aftermarket forced induction, at least not for long. The Cobra 4V came FORGED as I recall. Little different deal there. I remember the old school arguments about long and short stroke advantages/disadvantages. Some rev up faster, others give you low end grunt like a tiller with a fifty pound flywheel. In my opinion, the 4.6 lacks the lower end. It has some obviously, but it does its best in mid to upper rpm's. Keeping it spooled up isn't the problem, GETTING it spooled up is.

I'm no expert on the 4.6, but I did recognize it's weaknesses. The LS1 - which admittedly I'm very new to - trumps it with a much broader and consistent powerband. I have no illusions of going over 6000 rpms with the LS1. I'll leave that to those who know more than me.

In a nutshell concerning basic engine design: 4.6 (pre-3V) is good, the LS1 is better. The 4.6 3V remains to be proven to me, although it looks like it is heading in the right direction.

John

**Black GT** · 05-12-2006, 09:44 PM

Wow, after reading through all these posts, there seems to be a lot of bad blood between Camaros and Mustangs.

I thought we'd be more on the same side vs. stupid Ricers.

**TwistedSS** · 05-12-2006, 10:50 PM

Back to the video

Didn't really have time to read every post, but scanning the thread, I did not see anyone mention the length of the 1-2 shift in that Z28...I know that time. 2.73 gears. Ya think that might have something to do with it? My 1999 Z28 ran 13.96 in the 1/4 and put down 290/314 with a Magnaflow cat back. If that Z28 was lightly modded, with 2.73's and ran that close to a stang with headers, cat back, pulleys, and gears, theres something wrong...imho.

**Camarofan** · 05-13-2006, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by Black GT

Wow, after reading through all these posts, there seems to be a lot of bad blood between Camaros and Mustangs.

I thought we'd be more on the same side vs. stupid Ricers.

That's how I thought it was.