Im tired of Ls1 smack talking

Discussion in 'SVT Tech Forum' started by stangsalwayswin, Sep 28, 2007.

  1. Since 1998 where the hell have you been, in a coma? You seemed to not have been around the "other"cars to understand this. LS1's have ran 12.8-13.5 stock. This is a known historical fact. I agree running it is also sad that 450 hp 03 cobras run 14's too. However, I think there are other factors involved.

    Here you go and I should bill you for the lesson. Look at those rear wheel hp numbers. On average those equate to 350+ at the crank.

    314rwhp/338rwtq w/ just a K&N

    309/324 stock

    308/328 stock

    Here is a buddy of mine Wilbur's car. Look at both his dyno numbers and stock 1/4 mile times show you, you are uneducated.
    324/335 bone stock







    This guy ran 13.0's and got a 12.9 bone stock

    13.20 stock ET

    Ya know, I should just post the site because this could take a really long time for me to post all of this

    To add insult to injury, I love how an editor of a mustang magazine can run 2 LS1's that are stock to 12's and a 13.1!! On top of that, the majority of the community are running 13.0-13.4's bone stock. I ran a [email protected] bone stock in summer heat. I have had quite a few personal friends run low 13's bone stock.

    Now you show me your proof that this information is wrong. I don't want people that have sick cars and non drivers running 14's. I want your proof that what I posted is false information.

    Thank you and I will send you my pay pal addy for my money on that lesson:D
  2. 350 from a couple of factory freaks is a little different than 375 from every stock ls1 which is how you made it sound. I've seen stock ls1s that dynod well under 300 rwhp. The 13.4 you personally ran is a mid 13 just like I said... They are fast cars no doubt, I'm just tired of this "touched by the hand of god" bull****. Put a solid rear on 99&01 cobras (see:03-04 mach 1) and they'll probably hold their own even though theres more than 1 liter of difference in engine size.
  3. they don't make the 5.0 anymore... the current engine has too small of a bore.. Ford needs to hurry the hell up and release the new motors... Dodge and GM and toyota are kicking the crap out of us in the the power dept.. I wish they would get rid of the current modular NOW and come out with the new gen motor.( from what I hear it's a larger bore modular)

    If the boss/hurricane or whatever they are going to call it ever comes out it should be a NICE motor.. With the bigger valves the larger bore allows you will not need to go multivalve.. A large valve OHC head might even flow better than LS-1 heads since there is no need for pushrod bosses. This allows you to get more creative with the ports.

    The reason the older 4.0 bore sized motors did not make huge numbers stock was because the **** poor early emmisions era heads,cam and intake that crippled power on these cars.. Ford and gm went in different directions in late 80's Gm continued to work on development of the SBC and ford went with a all new OHC motor.. If ford stayed with the SBF then they two would have developed better heads,cams,intake as emmision controls became more advanced and allowed better designs.

    Your right bore is not everything, but small bore can't be fixed.. Poor heads, cams and intake can swapped out.. you can never fix a small bore..

    Do you know why the 302 ford kicked the crap out of 305 chevys.. The 305 had a smaller bore size 3.736 compared to 4.00 on a 350.. both motors used the 3.48 stroke.. BUT the big difference is the smaller bore of the 305 forced much smaller valves...

    If you look at the best performing SB chevy that was smaller than a 327 look at the 302's in the original Z28 4.00 bore 3.00 stroke..
  4. Ewwww right again...:D You seem like someone I would enjoy hanging out with, You put up a really good fight. One question though before I say anything else. What exactly did you mean by saying the 450hp cobra running 14's I didnt really understand what you mean and where you where going with that. Because I know that the 03-04's run mid 12's stock.

    Also svttech I think we established they dont make the 5.0 anymore, lol. And I only wished that the they followed GM's example by improving piston design, heads, valve, cam, and intake design. But sadly thats not the case. And I know this is off topic, but that Challenger is really going to be kick ass, 6.4L hemi-style V8 with a T56 putting it to the independent rear and the awesome interior and styling, its going to be nice..... lol cant wait till I get some here at the dealer.
  5. :lock:

    You pretty much call BS, then proven wrong, and then give excuses. Typical Mustang owner that can't face the 9 year old facts. Yes I personally ran a 13.4, but many have ran 13.0's and 12's which is not a mid 13!! I ask you, please provide proof that the information I have provided is wrong. Until then just stfu.
  6. I have seen *****ty drivers that couldn't drive them to nothing but 14's
  7. Of course... thats with ****ty drivers. c6 z06s can run 16s with ****ty drivers... who gives a flying ****. You are a typical ls1 owner that acts like they are all "touched by the hand of god." I gave you a perfect example that the 03-04 mach 1 give them a run for their money even though the engine is more than 1 liter smaller. I didn't see a comeback you had from that.. you are just shoving down my throat the fact that there are factory freak ls1s that dyno over 310 and I don't give a crap about them. I have seen ls1s dyno at 280 and I've seen mach 1's dyno over 300. Ok so ls1s are capable of low 13s.. 9 times out of 10 you will see a stock ls1 go mid/high 13s. 5.0 mustang got a stock 03 Mach 1 to run a 13.19 and I'm sure people have gone even faster than that.

    P.S. terminator is KING and you can't deny that so don't even try. 500rwhp with boltons and 800+ on the stock engine. Try that with an f-bod.

    You should probably get off mustang forums too. You're not gunna convince any of us to want a mulletmobile by talking **** so stop trying. Nobody cares about what crapmaros dyno at around here either. Go back to ls1tech. Theres a reason why they don't make them anymore... PEOPLE WERE TOO BUSY BUYING MUSTANGS!
  8. Hey, if you haven't ready that past few pages this is not about the Terminator, Not about a Mach 1, or whatever it was about the 96-98. Stop bringing other cars up being you can't debate and win the argument that has been given.You simply shown you were uninformed by saying LS1's don't make that kind of power, I proved what they can do. So now stop crying because you didn't know and were proven wrong with facts. I am not here to praise the LS1. I will correct anyone of my fellow Mustang bretheren if they are wrong though, just like I do the LS1 guys as well. Since I been around here longer than your 10 posts and have offered valuable tech for a 4V, I think I will stay.
  9. 290-295 is the average true dyno for LS1 cars (stock). My buddy ran a shop and I have seen many of them on the dyno. Anything over 300 has been modded in one way or another or is like he said...A factory freak. If you think about it an advertised 345HP is usually over advertised. That is what the engine is rated with perfect temps and conditions. Many magazines have taken LS1's and shown that they are closer to 335-340 in the shop. If you do the math 345 losing the usual 15% through the driveline is a loss in 51-52 HP. Thats going by their 345 advertised and not the 335-340 true HP. Not hating here or taking sides, but to get near 320 RWHP on a stock LS1 is very rare. Usually they make just under 300 with good conditions and run mid 13's. Comparing the GT model mustang to the Z28 is like apples and oranges. More than a liter displacement from the factory is why the huge power difference. What they should have done is made the mustang lighter by far to offset the power issue. The GT is only roughly 300-400 lbs lighter than the camaro Z28. Its still funny though how most test drivers choose the GT, even with the power disadvantage. I do really like both cars, I just prefer the sound and styling of the mustang compared to the camaros.
  10. Yes the 98-00 models can dyno 285-295 as well but that is not always the case. I have seen bone stock 99 LS1's put down 299 through an auto and that certainly wasn't on a great day. There are a lot more dynoing higher numbers than those low numbers so it can't be a factory freak unless the entire fleet of LS1 are.

    Also I did not know a GT was 3000 lbs. Because a 98+ F-body is around 34xx-35xx pounds. Not seeing the 3-400 lbs difference here either. Maybe you have your numbers wrong.

    Ya know, if some of you want to believe what you want that is fine. I have been around them a long time and know what they dyno stock and modded. A buddy of mine who runs a Mustang shop that has a dyno thought the same thing until he saw several stock LS1's making over 300+ rwhp in bone stock form.

    I am done in this thread and any other thread where someone wants to know about an LS1 or what it takes to beat one. It seems many of you already have the answers and don't really need any insight.

    Edit** Ok I know why vroom-vroom is clueless. When the 98 LS1 came out, he was freaking 9 years old.

  11. Nice comeback... you basically just admitted the chevy product is equal to the ford even though the ford is more than 1 liter smaller. Thank you. If they put a solid rear in the 99&01 cobra it would be competitive also, but ford chose to go the HANDLING route. Why would it be about the 96-98? In 96-97 chevy was making lt1s and those are even with or even get beat a little by 96-98 cobras. I was not uninformed about anything. Like I said before... a couple of factory freaks making possibly 350(depending on EXACTLY what the drivetrain loss was) when most of them dyno around 300 is a little different than all ls1s making 360-375 like you said. I've been around forums for a long time... I just don't come here often and with people like you here I don't plan on staying.
  12. Not to throw myself into the line of fire or anything but there was nothing in that statement he made that you quoted that said anything about the chevy product being equal to ford even though ford is about a liter smaller.:shrug:

    oh ok now I get where you where going with that.

    I think there is one thing I think we can all agree on....


    Hondas are like tampons, every ****** has one:D
  13. No, but I did when I was talking about the mach 1 which is basically a 99or01 cobra with a solid rear end and he never argued against it.

    I am a fan of fast cars. I like trans ams, evos, stis, anything thats fast and well done. I will even give props to most camaro guys as long as they aren't dicks. I just dont like it when people grope the balls of the ls1 and talk about it like its the end all be all of performance cars and that ford is crap and can never compare. Anyone that thinks this is just plain wrong.

    And +1 on the honda part... lol.
  14. From what I understand the Mach 1 has small but effective changes within the motor including different heads,etc. On paper the 99 Cobra looks pretty well matched for a Mach motor but the Mach motor with its different heads/cams makes more hp in lower rpms and dynos more to the wheels.
  15. This was all pretty exciting. But in answer to the original question, again, you will have a hard time out running an LS1 with with an n/a 4.6 for much less than 10 grand in go fast goodies.

    My memory is that the F body and Mustang, 96+, weigh about the same. The F body may even be a little lighter.

    It doesn't really matter that it's a 5.7 vs a 4.6. They have been competing with each other (off and on) since 1967. Same class of car. It's a run what you brung kind of deal and if you brought an n/a 4.6 to run an LS1, you brought a knife to a gun fight.

    The mod motor is not a good starting point for a high performance engine. The architecture is mostly wrong. Ford figured out that they could make it run if they put a blower on it and that worked pretty well. But that's what it took. Ford knows how to build a good high performance engine. The mistake they made was trying to compete in this segment with an engine designed to power front wheel drive family cars.

    I like my Mustang fine, but I'm not delusional enough to believe that I'm going to take a properly driven stock LS1, much less a modded one. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
  16. Agreed, the F Bodys look like crap but have amazing factory performance.