Make me smoke LS1s

[01MustangGT]

Hell guys, think about it. LS1's should be a little faster ,I mean they have 1.1 liters more than us and about 40-50 more horsepower. What do you expect out of a 281 vs 350. Besides they're still ****ty. Stangs rule

Hell yeah.
if power is everything, GM wouldn't stop producing the Ls1 camaro.
ask yourself a question why stangs did outsell camaro and pontiac combined by 3 to 1? Sometimes, when u r good at everything is better than just best at one thing.
GM was so wrong when they thought that power will have buyers forgiven their other sins
BTW, get the Kenne Bell. Mine will be shipped tomorrow

 

[mogs01gt]

Actually if you really look at the graphs they are quite different. The torque/hp on the LS1 graph are skewed and yours are not. Here are the differences:
LS1 GT Dif
2500 150 120 30
3000 180 150 30
3500 210 190 20
4000 255 230 25
4500 285 270 15
5000 310 290 20
5500 305 305 0
5800 305 305 0


Due to the scewing of the first graph it looks funky. Look at how the torque drops off ll the way to the bottom of the graph but it is making 275 rwtq at that point. Look at the difference in the increments between the torque and hp on the graph.

are you looking at two different graphs or something??? The torque climbs at almost the same spot(3600) and falls almost at the same spot(5000). Only real thing that looks odd is that the ls1's HP comes on quicker but only be a few 100 rpms.

 

[Modular2v]

mustanglife i would like to see one s-trim Ls1 be driven daily...LOL with compression like that the engine wont last long... Oh and since i had a LS1 i know where im coming from...besides being peices of $hit, they are way over rated. My mustang is a much more solid of a car than any f-body. Oh and Bill putnam used his as a daily driver for a LONG TIME, he even drove the country to national events with a/c i believe. And i think his car has somewhere around 112k miles on it if im not mistaken

 

[04musangGT]

idiots

Ok boys, i raced a 00 Trans Am with cat back exhaust and suspension work. I have an 04 Auto GT. The only mods i had were 40 Series flowmasters, throttle body spacer, k&n filter. He only beat me by ONE car length in a quarter. You guys obviously have NO idea what you are talkin about. NOW i have 3.55 gears, flowmasters, x-pipe, k&n, and the TBS. I can take a LS1 now. And thats only about $600 worth. Im with the guy on the praisin the LS1, it shouldnt be done. If an ls1 and a Gt were runnin the same gears, hp and torque the GT would KILL a ls1. The ls1's weigh alot more. Now the guy that asked the question. If you can get your car runnin 295-305 hp, you will smoke a stock LS1. A stock LS1 is runnin i believe 330 hp, and a stock 04 gt is runnin 260 @ the flywheel on both of those. And with those few mods done to mine i was pretty close to beatin that TA. And dont do nitrous, its just too bad for the motor, but if you decide to atleast go with dry kit for sure. MUCH safer.

 

[Kevin2811]

I have been reading here for quite some time. You guys must be racing some pro GM drivers, because I have been smoking the new gen camaro's with a pretty stock 5.0 and completely stock 4.6. Some of you think you need lot's of add ons to do this, but it's not true. Drive your car like a rental and blast the GM mother ****ers!

 

[JBVobra]

I think a 100 shot, off road pipe, 3.73 gears and some decent tires would smoke alot of stock fbods. That should be good for mid - low 12s at around 112 with a decent 1.7 - 1.8 60ft.

And btw, don't knock all chevy stock suspension systems. I should be yanking high 1.4's this winter with a bonestock irs and 3.90 gears.

 

[parts]

Heads and Cam LS1 cars are running 7.5 to 7.0's in the 1/8 mile or mid 11's high 10's in the 1/4 mile. At least the guys around here that go to the track that i know. Some of them are spraying to and getting mid 6's in the 1/8 mile which is good for well into the 10's.

A centrifugal 4.6 with 500-600 rwhp is about equal to a 400-430 rwhp motor ls1 car.

Good luck

Josh

OK

 

[parts]

Heads and Cam LS1 cars are running 7.5 to 7.0's in the 1/8 mile or mid 11's high 10's in the 1/4 mile. At least the guys around here that go to the track that i know. Some of them are spraying to and getting mid 6's in the 1/8 mile which is good for well into the 10's.

A centrifugal 4.6 with 500-600 rwhp is about equal to a 400-430 rwhp motor ls1 car.

Good luck

Josh

500-600 RWHP 2V MUSTANG = 10'S

 

[parts]

My car with 256 rwhp and 302 rwtq with 4.10's, nitto dr's, upper and lower control arms, rear seat delete, lakewood 90/10 struts, fox body 4cyl front springs on the street from a low kick vs. a bone stock 00 trans am. Was a good race. I pulled ahead the 1st 2 gears by 2 cars. Once I went into 3rd gear the ls1 pulled ahead by about car and up to 120 mph was the same with the ls1 ahead a car. We did this about 5 times all the same. And from a high kick like 25 or so which is with me in 2nd gear and him in 1st. Was dead even until i went into 3rd and pulled away a car or 2.

A bone stock ls1 car with a good driver can run high 12's to low 13's straight out fo the box vs. us straight out of the box is about a second slower. Remember these ls1 cars have a ****ty geared t-56. So 1st gear for them is like us having a 2.73 gear in our cars.

Josh

 

[mogs01gt]

Whats with all the name calling??

 

[MediocrGenerica]

As an outsider, and newbie to this forum, it is clear to me what is going on here. There are the Mustang guys who give credit where credit is due, and there are those who don't.

When comparing the Mustang and the F-body, there are a number of factors that must be taken into consideration that are not being taken by many of those who are posting in this thread.

1) It is a fact that the LS1 is a motor that was designed to make power, and lots of it. It is rather severly underrated from the factory, has an awesome powerband, and responds extremely well to simple bolt-on modifications. With the exception of being ridiculously difficult to work on at times, it is a v8 tuner's dream. The modular 4.6 was too, designed to make power, but it was also designed to be a multi-duty engine meant to see service in police cruisers along with your beloved 'stangs. Take solace in the fact that your 4.6's will 9 times out of 10 last twice as long as the LS1's will.

2) As much as price is a silly thing to consider when having a technical discussion, it must be considered in this case. Flat out, the F-body was/is more powerful, more expensive to produce vehicle. Its price reflected this. The Mustang, with clever packaging of the powertrain and an old design, was/is not nearly as costly to manufacture, and thats why some people got brand new GT's under 20k.

The 4.6L 2v, from a performance and tuning standpoint, is an inferior powerplant. The LS1 will make more power, period. It will, however, cost more in the first place and probably cost more in the long run to upgrade and maintain. Therefore, from the standpoint of practicality, the 4.6L is the superior motor.

This is just my opinion, but I feel that some people are getting too emotional/"into it," and aren't making sense.

 

[mogs01gt]

ohh no, he said its superior to the ls1. Dont let the Gm boys see that one

 

[LeadSled1]

mogs, the scaling on the LS1 graph is scewed. You will notice the numbers on the right side of the chart do not match the left side. This is done if the torque is much greater than the horsepower or vice versa. I hate when dyno shops to that. I like to see exactly what is happening with the powerband.

 

[mogs01gt]

left top down right blah blah doesnt matter. Look where mine and that ls1's torque graph and HP peak and drop at. Almost the same RPM.

 

[Bob Cosby]

When it come to getting maximum acceleration out of a car, you can ignore the torque curve. HP and torque are inseperably mathematically related. You can figure one from the other. Always. However, HP is much easier to work with when trying to figure how fast (or quick) a car will be (unless you like working with the number 5252).

Some of the information used to support various claims in this post is not a good account of what some cars are capable of. For example, the 96 Cobra making 560 RWHP and going 7.20s in the 1/8th. Please. I have 356 RWHP, weigh a validated 3335 lbs, and have gone 7.26 in the 1/8th - on DRs, not slicks. No tubular front K-member. No battery in the back. No A/C or heater delete (I have them both, thanks), etc. I have stock cams, .020 block, flattop pistons, unported heads, unported intake, etc, etc. It will go quicker this fall with 75 lbs of ballast out of it, on slicks, and in sea level air (the 7.26 was in Kansas City two weeks ago).

That said, there is no doubt the LS1 is an awesome motor (superior in most respects to the 4.6 - including the DOHC). It is not, however, the end all/be all of performance. Find me a stock-cammed, unported head LS1 with a manual tranny that has come anywhere near my times. Then find one that did it on DRs. At my weight.

 

[JBVobra]

great times, but 4.88 gears??

whats the first gear in that T5? how many input/output shafts have you sheared off of the tranny?

there's a definitive line between having a nice street car that performs well and behaves well as compared to transforming a nice street car into an all out 1/4 mile car with ridiculous gearing and drag suspension. Sure, your motor is "stock", but what kind of person wants to cruise around town with 4.88 gears?

Not knocking the times cosby, they're impressive. That nice little 99 cobra has just turned into a 1/4 slave for most peoples taste. You could get very near performance out of a sanely geared F-Bod with a nice cam package. For pretty cheap, too.

 

[parts]

As an outsider, and newbie to this forum, it is clear to me what is going on here. There are the Mustang guys who give credit where credit is due, and there are those who don't.

When comparing the Mustang and the F-body, there are a number of factors that must be taken into consideration that are not being taken by many of those who are posting in this thread.

1) It is a fact that the LS1 is a motor that was designed to make power, and lots of it. It is rather severly underrated from the factory, has an awesome powerband, and responds extremely well to simple bolt-on modifications. With the exception of being ridiculously difficult to work on at times, it is a v8 tuner's dream. The modular 4.6 was too, designed to make power, but it was also designed to be a multi-duty engine meant to see service in police cruisers along with your beloved 'stangs. Take solace in the fact that your 4.6's will 9 times out of 10 last twice as long as the LS1's will.

2) As much as price is a silly thing to consider when having a technical discussion, it must be considered in this case. Flat out, the F-body was/is more powerful, more expensive to produce vehicle. Its price reflected this. The Mustang, with clever packaging of the powertrain and an old design, was/is not nearly as costly to manufacture, and thats why some people got brand new GT's under 20k.

The 4.6L 2v, from a performance and tuning standpoint, is an inferior powerplant. The LS1 will make more power, period. It will, however, cost more in the first place and probably cost more in the long run to upgrade and maintain. Therefore, from the standpoint of practicality, the 4.6L is the superior motor.

This is just my opinion, but I feel that some people are getting too emotional/"into it," and aren't making sense.

YES! I AGREE LS1 HAVE MORE POWER - AND THEY LOOK GREAT TOO- IN MY REAR VIEW MIRROR

 

[Bob Cosby]

great times, but 4.88 gears??

No, 4.56s. 2400 rpm @ 70 mph. 28 mpg on the highway.

whats the first gear in that T5?

Was 2.95 (similar to your Z06), now 2.92.

how many input/output shafts have you sheared off of the tranny?

None (that was a T45 problem). FYI, I now have G-Force components in my T5, which includes a 26 spline, GM-Style input shaft.

there's a definitive line between having a nice street car that performs well and behaves well as compared to transforming a nice street car into an all out 1/4 mile car with ridiculous gearing and drag suspension.

We all have our opinion of what "ridiculous" is and what a "drag suspension" is, but I'll list my stuff and let you and everybody else decide for themselves.

My 'ridiculous gearing' returns 20-21 mpg going back and forth to work, up to 28 mpg on the highway, can cruise from 25 to 50 mph in 4th (little need to shift), or from 35 to whatever mph in 5th (little need to shift). If I want, I can easily start from a dead stop in 2nd, skip 3rd, and go right to 5th if I feel the need (which is rare).

I don't see the "ridicuous" part here.

My "drag suspension" consists of a set of X2C Boxer ST control arms with urethane bushings (nothing solid), adjustable shocks and struts (adjust from very loose to very tight), stock rear springs, soft front springs, and an air bag in each rear coil. That's it. What is "drag suspension" about that? I think you'll find those mods to be quite common on many, many F-bodies and Mustangs alike.

Sure, your motor is "stock", but what kind of person wants to cruise around town with 4.88 gears?

1) We've already covered the gearing
2) I covered the "cruise around town" part above
3) It wasn't bad on 4.88s either when I did have them.

Not knocking the times cosby, they're impressive.

Thank you, as are yours.

That nice little 99 cobra has just turned into a 1/4 slave for most peoples taste.

Again, we all have our opinions, but what makes it a "1/4 slave"? It has a very compliant suspension, A/C, nice seats, a nice stereo, stock idle and driving manners, gets good mileage, etc, etc.

You could get very near performance out of a sanely geared F-Bod with a nice cam package. For pretty cheap, too.

No doubt abou that. My only point of disagreement here is your "sanely geared" implication. An LS1 simply doesn't have the rpm potential to take advantage of more gear, or they'd use it. Of course, it doesn't need it either. In the end, the result is very near the same.

FYI...please take no offense to my use of quotes - it simply helps me organize thoughts/responses better.

 

[JBVobra]

I'll try to respond to the highlights:

-if you can start the car from a dead stop comfortably in second gear, that seems to meet the criteria of "ridiculous" in my book. That pretty much seals the deal on ever going WOT in the first two gears on the street, even with DR's. And it "wasn't bad" with 4.88s??

-you're mileage at seventy is at least 3 mpg better than I ever had with my 98 when it was bonestock with a 3.27 rear. Are you sure this wasn't a trip with a significant drop in elevation (serious question)? Or is that T5 5th a steeper gear than the T45 5th?

-we'll agree to disagree on the question of suspension change.

-an LS1 certainly needs some gearing help. The fbod T56 has a horrendous 2.66 1st gear, so it does need some multiplication to yank a 60ft. Are you trying to say a 3.42 fbod would not run a faster 1/4 with 3.90s?

 

[Bob Cosby]

-if you can start the car from a dead stop comfortably in second gear, that seems to meet the criteria of "ridiculous" in my book.

LOL. Let me assure you that I could comfortably start YOUR car in 2nd gear. Or a stock 03 Cobra. Or a stock 03 Mach. It's not a big deal. At all.

On the flip side, I can run first gear out to 35 mph. That's not earth shattering, but its not instantaneous, either.

That pretty much seals the deal on ever going WOT in the first two gears on the street, even with DR's.

I can't help but laugh at this - no, it doesn't, though I wouldn't really care if it did (I don't street race). Depending upon the road, and how I hit it, I can certainly light the tires in 1st from a slow roll, and sometimes in second. But DOHC motors simply don't make big power down low. You know that. Except from a dead stop, it is not hard at all to control/prevent wheelspin.

Winding it up and dumping the clutch is another matter.

And it "wasn't bad" with 4.88s??

Correct - it wasn't bad. I've done it. Have you?

you're mileage at seventy is at least 3 mpg better than I ever had with my 98 when it was bonestock with a 3.27 rear.

Yup, I had a bone stock 98 too, and never got better than 25-26 mpg highway. But with my 99, damn near everything I've done to improve power in the motor has also improved efficiency and thus gas mileage. Weight, exhaust, pullies, etc - even the internal engine mods - the only way to get more power with stock cams and unported heads is to make the engine more efficient. Think about it.

Are you sure this wasn't a trip with a significant drop in elevation (serious question)?

LOL. Ya. I went both ways (there and back). Besides, there ain't much elevation change between Washington DC and Virginia Beach. Check your handy-dandy road atlas.

Or is that T5 5th a steeper gear than the T45 5th?

Yup - I have a .59 5th gear (stock is .68). There's more to it, too. I have 26.7" tall rear street tires. That's how I get 2400 rpm @ 70 mph. Of note, I still got ~25 with the T45 and 4.56s running near 2800 rpm @ 70 mph.

-we'll agree to disagree on the question of suspension change.

Ok. But if what I have is what you consider a "drag suspension", then I suggest going out and getting in a real drag car, then one like mine, and comparing them. In short - there is no comparison.

-an LS1 certainly needs some gearing help. The fbod T56 has a horrendous 2.66 1st gear, so it does need some multiplication to yank a 60ft. Are you trying to say a 3.42 fbod would not run a faster 1/4 with 3.90s?

Nope, don't think I said or implied any such thing. I am saying that I have more rpm potential than most LS1s (certainly those with stock cams), and can take advantage of the extra torque multiplication of steeper gears.

That 2.66 1st gear is a big disadvantage for a nearly-stock LS1. You don't have the rpm range to use really big gears needed to get you moving smartly, so 60 ft times suffer. That is the main reason I have always been able to do reasonably well against similarly-modded F-bodies.