No problem with that, but hate doesn't justify the claim that they are crap. Any reasonable person will be able to see this. As for me, well I REALLY don't get all this Ford vs GM thing. I simply like cars regardless of make, if it's good it good - PERIOD. Yes as I said, ALL GM figures for the Fbody we underated. I personally think it was due to marketing and cost (only had to make one engine for the Vette and Fbody, and just advertise one lower than the other). Not trying to be horrid, but it is laughable that someone beleives the LS1 was only producing 300bhp or less. Take a look around an Fbody site, it is accepted as FACT that the LS1 is underatted. Don't take my word for it, please go and have a look for yourself. www.ls1tech.com www.fbody.com I'll answer this in a bit (PS I won't mention the 320bhp Cobra escapade, if you don't ) Nope. But it would depend on the defination of cam only so my bad. In this respect I am meaning a full bolt on car with a cam swap and accompanying parts (springs, followers, push rods). BUT still running STOCK HEADS. Plus no power adders. No, but a full bolton on one with a massive cam (T-Rex or similar) should see near 450rwhp, so that makes it over 500bhp at the engine. Shed a lbs from the car and 10's are doable. umm?? I think you will find the WHOLE American car industry is guilty of this. Hence you know have the SAE Net rating sytem. It was designed to stop these over zelious claims. SAE Net came inforce in the early 70's hence there appeared to be such a massive drop in power outputs. Show me where I have claimed this? I am an avid defender of OHC engines, so I really don't understand your anger?? Odd comment. BTW I've not heard anything about a 6.2 litre Mustang, got any info links? Are you meaning PEAK torque? Also remember the torque numbers for the Fbody are as wrong as the BHP numbers. In all reality the LS1 makes a PEAK torque of nearer to 370lb ft, and it will make 90% of this by only 1500rpm. Have a look at this dyno chart. NOTE: the scale on the left for torque is different to the scale on the right for BHP, this makes the torque curve look steep, but it isn't See from 1500rpm to it's PEAK torque at 4400rpm there is only a variation of about 40lb ft. VCT doesn't make a car quicker, it allows what would be a comparitily more agressive cam to be used in the higher rpms, but retains better refinment, driveability and fuel efficency in the lower rpms. Honda's VTEC system does basically the same thing, and Rovers Variable Valve Control is slightly different but the same general idea. Plus the new 6.2 Ls unit does have it as standard. And what times for the new s197 Mustang. It is a solid 13.5-13.7 car when well driven, which should be bang on for 300bhp. There are a few claims of lower 13's but these are as rare as Fbody's running high 12's. Also if you look at the really quick times for the s197 they generally have a pretty low trap speed, which means the ET was really due to the 60' and the suspensions ability to hook up. Yes it is impressive, but remember the LS1 red lines at 6000rpm, although it does suffer valve float at 5800rpm once the PCM restrictor is removed. However some after market springs will see 6200-6500 rpm quite safely. Yep been there, had a slight bit of wheel spin @ 40mph in my Z28 (wiith 245's) in kick down, and this was even with the TCS activated. With it off and under the right conditions (whether, temp, tarmac surface) it will roast the tyres upto the red line in 1st which is 54mph. It probably would have continued in 2nd except for the fact that I whimped out and had run out of road nearly. With more valves a DOHC engine will always have a larger operational window than a OHV. But on the street that window is not usually exploited. LS1's will loose no more bottom end than any other OHV push rod V8 including the Ford 302ci.