91 5.0 VS. 96 4.6

[87'GTstang]

bone stock notch lx running 13.8? that sounds VERY farfetch'd, especially when the 04 svt cobras are running 13 flat (13.1 vert). if that is true, props to that friggan driver.

oh yea, a couple pages back but ill still say it - "Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall, torque is how far the wall goes with you." or something like that, anyways...

my dads new DD, an 03 3.8L 5spd will totally kill my 84 5.0 aod. now ive never driven a 5 spd 5.0 but i dont think a 99+ gt would have a problem handing a 5.0 its @$$ on a silver platter

Just so you know, an 84' AOD 5.0 had roughly 165 hp and 245 ft-lbs./tq.

Quite a different beast compared to the later 225/300 5.0's - I bet you'de lose to the 3.8 too! Remember though, even back then with numbers like that, the 5.0 was considered fast and king of it's arena. Technology obviously took its course.............

 

[5spd GT]

Agreed. Check out the weights of the Vette's. Better than a stock Mustang chassis on all counts, and several hundred pounds lighter to boot.

That comes with the price tag...

I agree with RAY III

 

[nmcgrawj]

How heavy are 03/04 cobras and vettes? I didn't realize vettes were that much lighter.

I know trans-ams and z28's are heavier than stangs....so how is it that a base trans am will run with a base vette if the vette is several hundred pounds lighter than a stang? That means the vette is leaps and bounds lighter than a trans am so how do they run the same thing?

Dont believe it, go over to ls1.com and those guy's forums and see if trans ams, z28's, and formulas(trans ams) run with base vettes.

 

[5spd GT]

How heavy are 03/04 cobras and vettes? I didn't realize vettes were that much lighter.

I know trans-ams and z28's are heavier than stangs....so how is it that a base trans am will run with a base vette if the vette is several hundred pounds lighter than a stang? That means the vette is leaps and bounds lighter than a trans am so how do they run the same thing?

Dont believe it, go over to ls1.com and those guy's forums and see if trans ams, z28's, and formulas(trans ams) run with base vettes.

I'm a member of ls1.com so I already know...the vettes usually trap a bit higher but equivalent times...with a very slight E.T. edge to the vette...

03/04 Cobras weigh around 3500-3600lbs, ls1 f-bodies around 3400, and 99+ gt's around 3300...these all being of the equivalent base models...no verts, autos, etc...

The ls1 based vette has a curb weight of around 3100...2seater that comes with the price tag...the above post about the ls1 being SEVERAL hundred pounds lighter is inaccurate...unless comparing to a 500lb more 03/04 Cobra...

 

[stang2841]

aw man this thread is out of hand, the guy who started this is arready banned since making this.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

The ls1 based vette has a curb weight of around 3100...2seater that comes with the price tag...the above post about the ls1 being SEVERAL hundred pounds lighter is inaccurate...unless comparing to a 500lb more 03/04 Cobra...

That's exactly what I was comparing it to.

 

[nmcgrawj]

I'm a member of ls1.com so I already know...the vettes usually trap a bit higher but equivalent times...with a very slight E.T. edge to the vette...

03/04 Cobras weigh around 3500-3600lbs, ls1 f-bodies around 3400, and 99+ gt's around 3300...these all being of the equivalent base models...no verts, autos, etc...

The ls1 based vette has a curb weight of around 3100...2seater that comes with the price tag...the above post about the ls1 being SEVERAL hundred pounds lighter is inaccurate...unless comparing to a 500lb more 03/04 Cobra...

So you are saying that the 99+ models are lighter than 94-95 gt's? What about 96-98? And i thought that f-bodies would have weighed more than 3400 lbs......I beat a z28(lt1) with my 95 5-speed when stock.....i thought it was weight that equaled out the weight differences.

I think for 99+ gt's and f-bodies weigh a little bit more....especially f-bodies since they have more power but are not faster(lt1's atleast)

 

[5spd GT]

So you are saying that the 99+ models are lighter than 94-95 gt's? What about 96-98? And i thought that f-bodies would have weighed more than 3400 lbs......I beat a z28(lt1) with my 95 5-speed when stock.....i thought it was weight that equaled out the weight differences.

I think for 99+ gt's and f-bodies weigh a little bit more....especially f-bodies since they have more power but are not faster(lt1's atleast)

I believe the 99+ weighs every so slightly more than the sn95's...my weight comparisons were for base models...no real options...and are good all around accurate numbers...

96-98 are the equivalent of the 94/95...

Lt1's run low 14's on average and there has been couple 6spd lt1's getting 101-102...

Base models...

Lt1's will beat a stock sn 95...and 96-98 GT's but not the PI headed 4.6...ls1's own both...

 

[nmcgrawj]

I dont want to start a long arguement like what has been going on but LT1 autos will get beat by a 5-speed 5.0 coupe....i did it. Give the stang 3.73's in the back and its lights out.

LT1's are jokes for what "power" they have stock....

 

[5spd GT]

I dont want to start a long arguement like what has been going on but LT1 autos will get beat by a 5-speed 5.0 coupe....i did it. Give the stang 3.73's in the back and its lights out.

LT1's are jokes for what "power" they have stock....

Your referring to a driver's race...straight from the showroom a 6spd lt1 will beat a 5spd sn95...

373's aren't stock...

235-240rwhp...run high 13's with the 6spds...good driver of course and in tune...

 

[Ray III]

Agreed. Check out the weights of the Vette's. Better than a stock Mustang chassis on all counts, and several hundred pounds lighter to boot.

Corvettes have an all-aluminum engine, aluminum frame and some kind of fiber body panels. Good luck trying to sell that to Ford who is trying to build these things cheaply.

Strength is not the ONLY reason these cars should be heavier. Any rear wheel drive car that weighs less than 3500-4000 pounds has an extremely difficult time hanging on to the ground in low traction conditions.

 

[nmcgrawj]

Your referring to a driver's race...straight from the showroom a 6spd lt1 will beat a 5spd sn95...

373's aren't stock...

235-240rwhp...run high 13's with the 6spds...good driver of course and in tune...

LOL, comedy, i see why this arguement went on for so long. Where did i say 3.73's are stock? Anybody knows that genius.

When do you run perfect drivers, perfect cars, same exact trans? NEVER. You beat it, well theres not much else to say than you beat it. Auto, bad driver, i dont care. How much can you mess up with an auto?

You wanna compare straight from the showroom? Thats no fair cause obviously the lt1 costs MORE so it has more in it. 6-speed vs 5-speed? More power? Throw out the piece of crap heads on a 5.0 and then what happeneds? $500 in gears doesn't even begin to make the prices closer.

This showroom stuff is funny...compare cars that cost the same if you are going to do that. Whats the point if you compare a $30k car to a $24k car? I HOPE the $30k car wins....how about you compare how much money is in each car? Ya know...theres a reason Ford played down the stangs with the Foxes and 94-95's....it left the door wide open for the aftermarket and thats why it is what it is today. Did GM do that? NO. They did their cars decently engine wise out of the factory.

Anyway, enough jibber jabber.

 

[Ray III]

I'm going to have to ask you this one plain and simple, what kind of vehicle do you THINK you are driving in the first place?

Compact car, why?

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Corvettes have an all-aluminum engine, aluminum frame and some kind of fiber body panels. Good luck trying to sell that to Ford who is trying to build these things cheaply.

You make a good point Ray, but Ford could still do a better job at controlling weigh than they do. Getting rid of the bean counter K-members would be a good start. It would still be just as cost effective for Ford to produce these cars with a light weight tubular K-member to knock the weight down some. And although the switch to the iron block ensured durability when gear heads started getting carried away with power levels, there are plenty of blown ’96-’98 Snakes running around with well over 500hp and their blocks haven’t gone south yet. It was just a matter of Ford being overkill to ensure there were minimal warranty claims. But it came with a weight penalty regardless.

Strength is not the ONLY reason these cars should be heavier. Any rear wheel drive car that weighs less than 3500-4000 pounds has an extremely difficult time hanging on to the ground in low traction conditions.

You kind of contradict your own point here. A lighter car handles better than a heavier car. I’d rather take a Vette to 170mph than a Mustang and they weight well under 3400lbs. I do see what you’re trying to get at, but knocking off a few hundred pounds won’t turn these cars into ditch bangers. Having a little weight at high speed helps, but with the right exterior enhancements, the right amount of down force would assure that they’re getting more than enough weight over the wheels to keep them stable.

 

[5spd GT]

LOL, comedy, i see why this arguement went on for so long. Where did i say 3.73's are stock? Anybody knows that genius.

When do you run perfect drivers, perfect cars, same exact trans? NEVER. You beat it, well theres not much else to say than you beat it. Auto, bad driver, i dont care. How much can you mess up with an auto?

You wanna compare straight from the showroom? Thats no fair cause obviously the lt1 costs MORE so it has more in it. 6-speed vs 5-speed? More power? Throw out the piece of crap heads on a 5.0 and then what happeneds? $500 in gears doesn't even begin to make the prices closer.

This showroom stuff is funny...compare cars that cost the same if you are going to do that. Whats the point if you compare a $30k car to a $24k car? I HOPE the $30k car wins....how about you compare how much money is in each car? Ya know...theres a reason Ford played down the stangs with the Foxes and 94-95's....it left the door wide open for the aftermarket and thats why it is what it is today. Did GM do that? NO. They did their cars decently engine wise out of the factory.

Anyway, enough jibber jabber.

Because you put 373's that will make the lt1 see the mustangs taillights....THERE NOT STOCK...

Were comparing stock for stock...when are you ever going to have those conditions...NEVER...but you said a 5spd sn95 will beat a lt1...now you see where I replied from? The lt1 will win...sorry...with everything equal...to show you the comparison...I've beat a zo6 with my 00 GT at the track...but I know if it had a good drive in there...it would have killed me...

Price is not neccesarily relative to performance...it could cost more because of extra options...leather, dvd system, pool in the trunk...etc...etc...

So your saying GM didn't leave the door open for mods...sounds like you need to spend a little more time on ls1.com, ls1tech.com, f-bodyhideout.com, camaroz28.com, etc...etc...I guess they don't make power with heads

Go search around those forums and see what little mods they have and how much power there putting out...are you mustang bias?

 

[5spd GT]

You kind of contradict your own point here. A lighter car handles better than a heavier car. I’d rather take a Vette to 170mph than a Mustang and they weight well under 3400lbs. I do see what you’re trying to get at, but knocking off a few hundred pounds won’t turn these cars into ditch bangers. Having a little weight at high speed helps, but with the right exterior enhancements, the right amount of down force would assure that they’re getting more than enough weight over the wheels to keep them stable.

Yep...

 

[nmcgrawj]

Compared to Ford? No they didn't. I didn't say stock they are top performers that they can ever be, but they perform much better than stangs did. And you act like the extra money didn't go into their engine but just all their extras.......

Ford downplayed stangs for a LONG time...they finally started stepping up to the plate in the late 90's. Who has the bigger aftermarket? Im not sayin you are wrong or that they dont have one....im just saying stangs sucked out the factory for a reason. People buy them cause they KNOW they have something to work with.

Like i said, there is no knowledge to be gained so i dont want to argue. Its stupid...someone lock this thread up.

 

[super302]

i thought this was a 5.0 vs 4.6 question, not a 5.0 vs 5.7 or 4.6 vs. 5.7

 

[5spd GT]

Compared to Ford? No they didn't. I didn't say stock they are top performers that they can ever be, but they perform much better than stangs did. And you act like the extra money didn't go into their engine but just all their extras.......

Ford downplayed stangs for a LONG time...they finally started stepping up to the plate in the late 90's. Who has the bigger aftermarket? Im not sayin you are wrong or that they dont have one....im just saying stangs sucked out the factory for a reason. People buy them cause they KNOW they have something to work with.

Like i said, there is no knowledge to be gained so i dont want to argue. Its stupid...someone lock this thread up.

Take a mustang (from any year 87+)...and you will see that mustang consistently cost less and (to most looks better)...so therefore that contributes to why the mustangs outsold the f-bodies of the equivalent year...what do you say about all the "moms and dads" and older ladies and even some younger "folks" when they buy a mustang because it looks cool...you think everybody that buys a mustang has plans on modding them? (Referring to the above quote)...

If knowledge equals knowing where your car lays on the "food chain" then this thread has enough in it...

 

[nmcgrawj]

Take a mustang (from any year 87+)...and you will see that mustang consistently cost less and (to most looks better)...so therefore that contributes to why the mustangs outsold the f-bodies of the equivalent year...what do you say about all the "moms and dads" and older ladies and even some younger "folks" when they buy a mustang because it looks cool...you think everybody that buys a mustang has plans on modding them? (Referring to the above quote)...

If knowledge equals knowing where your car lays on the "food chain" then this thread has enough in it...

I will agree...but what i was getting at was Fords thinking. Put less into the cars so that the aftermarket has more to work with. By doing this, the mustang COST less so it grabs the attention of every single potential buyer. It does not cost money to make a better looking car...just better designers. So by costing less...more people want to buy and the after market has more htings to play with so the other half who modify buy it TOO. I think we are on the same page just are really bored and feel like being difficult to argue