'93 Motor Trend Cobra Vs Z28

Discussion in '1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-' started by 90lxwhite, Feb 7, 2014.

  1. So personally, I feel a comparison of a new platform "4th generation Camaro" v.s. the last "3rd generation platform mustang" is at odds to start with. So the mustangs run from '79-'93 3rd generation v.s. camaro '82-'92 3rd generation is more accurate. But for the sake of an article about cars in production in the same year, we'll look at a couple key points, for me anyways. From the magazine stats, the camero up'd the compression 10.25:1 v.s. mustangs 9.0:1, then they added aluminum heads v.s. cast iron mustang heads, then added a 6spd tranny with 3.23 gears v.s. the 5spd tranny 3.08 geared mustang and only beat our 3rd generation mustang in the quater mile with a sec/mph time of 14.0/98.8 camaro v.s. 14.4/97.4 mustang time. Which we all know a change of drivers can easily, possibly challenge that difference of separation of numbers on any given track. So from ALL they added and didn't wax our butt's, isn't really bragging rights, it's really a compliment we did it right from our 302 to start with on our 3rd generation run and we damn near smacked there 4th generation up side the damn head :chair:
    #21 Grabbin' Asphalt, Feb 9, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2014
  2. You make a great point about the gear ratios in the Fox cars. These cars were just so hamstrung by that 3.08 "performance" gear set. That car would have run so much better with a 3.55 gear from the factory. A stroker crank and 331 CI would have been really nice.
  3. I agree on most points above, but it should be noted regarding the "swap" packages.

    The LS family of engines has been around for 18-years now and it seems like GM stuffed them in anything with a steering wheel at one time or another. The Ford Coyote has only dipped it's toes in the pool thus far with it's current 4-year (and counting) run.....and even then they can only be found in the Mustangs and F150's.

    The main reason before anything else that the LS swap has become so popular is market saturation. The wrecking yards are literally littered with them. You can bet if there was as many Coyote's out there as there were LSX's the used engine prices on them would come way down (supply and demand) and the swap kits would be flying off the shelves.

    Remember....the first LS1's came out of the box making 350hp with 5.7L of displacement when stuffed into GM's flagship Corvette. Fast forward 15-years and the Coyote shoots right out of the gate besting those figures by over 60hp and did so with only 5.0L of displacement and clocking in at nearly 70lbs less mass.....all while matching GM's earlier fuel economy. Within two short years, Ford has jacked up those numbers again another 35hp to an impressive 444hp with the Boss variant. Now, I wouldn't begin to speculate how far Ford will attempt to stretch these power figures with the current platform in the future, but that's surpassed anything GM has accomplished with the LS series thus far? At least from a power to cubic inch ratio? So yeah, something tells me that the popularity of the Coyote swap is just getting started.

    Regarding fit.....I've come to realize that if someone wants to put a certain engine in their vehicle, they'll find a way to make it work, regardless of their dimensional incompatibility. Gear-heads are funny like that?
    #24 Gearbanger 101, Feb 10, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2014
  4. I agree on the fact that the LS is more common, but I really just think it speaks more to the versatility of the engine than anything else. While the Coyote is still a new design, the modular motor has been around since 1991 and it has never enjoyed the popularity of the LS.

    It should be noted that the 7.0L LS7 in the Z06 has a 505 HP rating.

    Incidentally, I have never liked the argument of HP/Liter. While it is a measure of efficiency, in the real world we don't really measure it that way. We measure it by power output and fuel economy. The fact that the LS has a displacement advantage is irrelevant if it can deliver the same fuel economy and power as a smaller OHC engine. It is a testament to the design that it can be run as a 5.3L everyday engine in a run of the mill blazer or a 7.0L Torque Monster in a Z06 Corvette.

    Last thing - With regards to the Coyote's growth potential, I agree that it has a bright future ahead of it. However, much like the article that started this thread, we are comparing the brand new Ford design to the now "old" GM design. As someone stated above, the new LT Series engines are already slated to replace the LS series.

    One thing I think we can definitely agree on is that with the current powerplants being offered it is a great time to be a gearhead.
  5. So to summarize, Ford has finally put a worthy engine in the Mustang and taken away the advantage that was had by Chevy for nearly two decades.

    Camaros/Firebirds were always faster than their Mustang counterparts once they put a worthy engine between the fenders. And in the interest of honesty, no one ever cared about our "yeah, but, you have more displacement..." excuses which were offered heretofore. The good news is that we no longer have to offer excuses; Ford finally has the upper hand. All they need is time to prove the worthiness of the new 5.0 platform. It's not going anywhere anytime soon; and with a new Mustang very soon on the horizon, all eyes will be on Ford and their engines.
  6. At some point GM will have to bite the bullet and put the LS engines out to pasture. A pushrod engine by it's very nature is not efficient. With ever tightening emissions and CAFE standards, the life of the LS is doomed. Ford saw the writing on the wall back in the 20th century and switched to more efficient overhead cam design engines. GM and Dodge are the only car manufactures still grasping at that last straw trying to make what they have last. The mod motors are only more complex because it is not the same old same old. I put cams in my 08' Bullitt in 3 hrs. with no power tools. Did not have to remove the intake manifold or timing cover, just v/c's and air box and battery. Did not even have to drain the coolant. Yes that 4.6 is so complicated..lol. (BTW I bought the "special tools" off of E-bay for $70.) Everyone said the sky was falling when EFI came out......OHC technology is just scratching the surface, pushrods died in the 20th century for the rest of the world, GM and Dodge just have not figured that out yet.,
  7. I would have to argue that the ohc engines will be the demise of push rod technology. The very fact that gm and dmc have kept it alive are points to the contrary. I have nothing against either engine but butter your bread side up or down both engine models are doing superbly well and aftermarket companies are benefiting from this. Both have their advantages and advantages and that's up to the consumer to decide what their poison is. Would I love to see a push rod engine back on the mustang? Meh. Would i care If gm went an ohc engine? not really. As long as both offer viable performance options that trickle down to the consumer levels life is good. When I flat foot the loud pedal and that smile lights my face its because demand from the aftermarket community has brought performance to us at affordable prices due to advances from each competitor and what they have brought to the table. To each their own and the sky is the limit.
  8. Well, your bullitt has two less cams than the Coyote. It isn't the same thing, exactly. How much did you spend on two cams? An LS only needs one. A Coyote needs four. You cannot debate the simplicity of the LS engine in terms of cost, maintenance, and reliability.

    As far as push rod engines being dead... whatever, we've been hearing it for 30 years now. Need more power? Add even more displacement. I can't wait until the Corvette comes out with an 8.0L Pushrod V8 with 700 HP and still knocks out 30 mpg on the highway.

    BTW, OHC engines aren't some new technology. They've been around since the 1930's, and that goes for DOHC as well. Again, unless it is making more power with better mileage then the efficiency argument goes out the window. People have been brought up to think OHC=good and OHV=Junk, and it just isn't true.
    stykthyn likes this.