300bhp/ton
New Member
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.billfisher said:sorry abouthte controversial comments. i like fords, not chevy's. my blood is blue. i hate chevy's. always have always will. i like putting them on the trailor.
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).billfisher said:my bad. the ls-1 in a 2000 camaro was rated at 305hp/325tq. how do you figure it has more power than 300hp/365tq?
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 )billfisher said:you claim it was underrated. really? chevy has a history of the opposite. maybe the ford is underrated, or they only spun it to 5000 for a reason.
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.billfisher said:cam only ls running 10's. that's bull.
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.billfisher said:so you are saying it can make 550 hp with just cam?
umm??billfisher said:that's crap. a 250 hp increase with a cam. must have 360 degrees duration and 1" lift. only a chevy can keep the valves open that long and that high. must rev 10,000 rpms'. i wonder how they get it to do that with 240 cfm. some kind of miracle. my heads flow as well, and my intake flows as well. cam only? wow.
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.billfisher said:they started overrating them in 1962 starting with the 425 hp 409. and it just snowballed from there.
Show me where I have claimed this? I am an avid defender of OHC engines, so I really don't understand your anger??billfisher said:they seem to be advertisinga radical lift rate cam. the lift rates that require low ratios also need rev kits. do they recommend a rev kit? what makes you think i can't put that (similar)in my 3v. those heads don't out flow mine. raelly, i have been trying to get you chevy trolls to admit that equal head flow, equal cams, equal exhaust, equal ignition, equals equal power.
Odd comment. BTW I've not heard anything about a 6.2 litre Mustang, got any info links?billfisher said:you seem to be unable to face the facts that 3v and 4v can hang with the love of your life..... chevy LS. get used to being second fiddle when the 5.4 or 6.2 3v or 4v is available standard.
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.billfisher said:all hail teh mighty LS. also i make WAY more torque than equal chevy. 365 vs 325.
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.billfisher said:plus i have variable valve timing. that equal faster acceleration. ever wonder why the 4.6 3v run such good 1/4 times? VCT dude.
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.billfisher said:365lb-ft @ 2900rpm = 201 hp
300 hp @4900 = 321lb-ft
not bad for a truck motor... just imagine what it can do in the hands of a real ford boy. it doesn't just die at 4900. it can rev safely to 5200. so a little extra cam phasing and WELLAH... 320 hp without adding ANYTHING. plus all that torque OFF IDLE.
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.billfisher said:i know i own one. my 245's spin like they are on butter from a roll. my 4.6 would not really do that from 15 roll. this one tries to snap spin a 180. hmmmm.
billfisher said:BIG torque off idle,
big torque at 2900 rpm
big torque at 5200. jeez i am only good valves from phasing the cam for 5500 rpm BIG torque.
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.billfisher said:if i maintain just 321 lb-ft at 5500 that is 336hp.
i wonder what it will do with a few select mods.
these are real numbers. just cam phasing torque. no need to lose bottom end like chevy's
LS1's will loose no more bottom end than any other OHV push rod V8 including the Ford 302ci.