Street Racing & Kill Stories - LT1 vs SN95 5.0 Cobra

So I was just cruising with my girl and see a 94-95 Mustang that sounded pretty good. Pulled up to a light and heard a little lope coming from it (e/b303) so I throw him a rev and he nods and smiles so I know it's game time. We get on the highway and line up at 60, I'm in 3rd and we honk and I start pulling pretty bad. By 110 rolls around 10+ cars. This happens 4 times, same result. I get off and head home, I had a 150 mile trip back home so I didn't wanna risk breaking something or get in to much trouble. Guy was cool, nodded and gave me a thumbs up. Probably just a GT40 headed and intake'd 5.0 with a b/e303 cam. Still fun.

Come on man......those old 5.slows were fast with just bolt-ons. No way you beat him with a lowly lt1



Right guys



Good kill.

Come on man......those old 5.slows were fast with just bolt-ons. No way you beat him with a lowly lt1



Right guys



Good kill.

Haha, my step brother has a nice 306 in a 89 GT. It runs STRONG for just a 306. Ran a 13.0 @ KCIR with street tires and poopy track prep.

Your sig says 3.8?

Need more of a background on your car and 10 cars seems a bit unreasonable. Maybe your depth perception is quite flawed.

:popcorn: for snake95 to come on here and defend his pride and joy's honor :angel:

Didn't 95s come stock with a b cam?

Your sig says 3.8?That's the beater, i haven't been on in awhile lol. I need to update.

Need more of a background on your car and 10 cars seems a bit unreasonable. Maybe your depth perception is quite flawed.

:popcorn: for snake95 to come on here and defend his pride and joy's honor :angel:I assure you it was 10 cars lol. Two 18 wheelers could've fit in the space. And car is a 94 Z28 M6 just a lil cammed 355.

Didn't 95s come stock with a b cam? No idea, possible I guess? Had a little bit of lope so it was just a guess.

Good kill. Those 94/95 snakes weren't to stout in stock trim, but I've ran across a few modded ones that hauled ass.

Good kill. Those 94/95 snakes weren't to stout in stock trim, but I've ran across a few modded ones that hauled ass.

Thank ya, and sadly they weren't. LT1 cars would beat them lol.

Nice kill!

Didn't 95s come stock with a b cam?
No. '95s had 204 duration, .444 lift. B303 cam is 224 duration, .480 lift

Bcam ftw. Kill makes perfect sense. Those cars just need a set of heads and a vortech, or just a vortech.

A vortech only gets them to the high 13's.

Didn't 95s come stock with a b cam?




Cam Only

Didn't 95s come stock with a b cam?Don't think so and this car wasn't likely a real Cobra either(fewer than 4300 of them made that yr). If it had iron GT40 heads(which 1995 Cobras did come with), it would make more power than a stock GT, so we're looking at a 3450+ lb Mustang(sans driver) making about 190-200rwhp The Cobra was rated at 235-240(depending upon whom you ask) and made about 200 at the asphalt.

Not much of a race for a typically same weight and far more powerful LT1 Camaro. My 95 GT weighed over 3500 lb. It was a convertible with leather, etc., but the point is, that SN95 was heavy compared to the Fox body it replaced. At the track, factory stock, mine ran 15's. I think I got a 15.3 from it, but I raced so much back then(w/ several other cars) that I just can't remember. It was slow and I took it 1 time only.

Bcam ftw. Kill makes perfect sense. Those cars just need a set of heads and a vortech, or just a vortech.Heads are all but 100% necessary. Stock heads lack ... altogether. A good set of aluminum(even GT40 Turbo Swirl) along with a standard 6-8 lb Vortech could typically net at least close to 300rwhp with a decent tune. Stepping up to a 22psi version, it could exceed 500. Of course, the stock A50 block would probably shatter.

A vortech only gets them to the high 13's.Perhaps if that's the ONLY upgrade. There are several versions available, any of which add over 100hp and near 100 lb-ft torque(minimum). There are far too many variables to make such a broad statement as yours. I've seen Vortech supercharged Mustangs running low 8's on the 1/4 mile. I've read of at least 2 in the 7's. Either is several hundred hp above that of a 13 second car.

A vortech only gets them to the high 13's.

It isn't a camaro. With gt40 irons and a cobra intake, a stock longblock sn95 cobra with some exhaust and gear could go into the 11's easy.

It isn't a camaro. With gt40 irons and a cobra intake, a stock longblock sn95 cobra with some exhaust and gear could go into the 11's easy.

A sn95 5L? Hell no.

stock 5.0 lol

A sn95 5L? Hell no.

Not the norm, but they will go 11s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRfWNlI7GE

stock 5.0 lol



Not the norm, but they will go 11s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRfWNlI7GE



Any car can go ELEVENS. A caravan turbo and gutted can do that. And who the hell knows if that stang is truly a stock long block because I obviously hear a cam in there.

I mean cams :)

stock 5.0 lol



Not the norm, but they will go 11s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZRfWNlI7GE

That's not with heads, intake and exhaust like someone said. Still impressive if its truly a stock longblock.

I mean cams :)

One camshaft :secret:

One camshaft :secret:

Weren't they dual? Or was that the new edge? Shows what I know about stangs :lol:

1994-1995 GT's and Cobras had the old 5.0 small block. 1996-1998 GT's had the non-PI 2V 4.6 (2 cams), and 1996-1998 Cobras had the 4V 4.6 (4 cams). New edge GT's had the PI 2V 4.6.

It isn't a camaro. With gt40 irons and a cobra intake, a stock longblock sn95 cobra with some exhaust and gear could go into the 11's easy.No way... I question 11's with a Fox body using stock iron heads(excluding TFS or Cleveland) on a stock bottom end. With the mods you listed, the odds are, it's pretty much inconceivable. With a blower on top of all that, probably. Even then, it's iffy. Stock 5L(OHV) heads, even stock GT40 iron heads... SUCK!

1994-1995 GT's and Cobras had the old 5.0 small block. 1996-1998 GT's had the non-PI 2V 4.6 (2 cams), and 1996-1998 Cobras had the 4V 4.6 (4 cams). New edge GT's had the PI 2V 4.6.

Got it! :)

Got it! :)

I figured you just had the years mixed up :cheers:

To anyone who was into these cars back in the mid-90's, what were people expecting from the new motor in 1996 (referring to the GT's, not the Cobras). Were they hoping for big improvements or did it go down as expected? I wasn't into cars back then so I don't remember, lol.

A buddy has a 98 cobra with the 32v 4.6, he thought it was the baddest fucking car around until he turned up at the track and his best run was a 9.80 in the 1/8th I just about pissed myself laughing so hard.:judge:

No way... I question 11's with a Fox body using stock iron heads(excluding TFS or Cleveland) on a stock bottom end. With the mods you listed, the odds are, it's pretty much inconceivable. With a blower on top of all that, probably. Even then, it's iffy. Stock 5L(OHV) heads, even stock GT40 iron heads... SUCK!

gt40's are not good heads, but they work, and they work even better with boost. Plenty of mustangs have made 450 plust with stock gt40 stuff, a cam, and a vortech. I have seen stock long block cars both foxes and sn95's in the 11's. Please don't ever mention the word cleveland again...

Without looking I found this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXT4jPN5Ygk&list=FLSaEVsv7j25DpiDU23DJN-Q&index=51&feature=plpp_video

I remember how depressed I was seeing those 94-95 Cobras run mid 14s stock back in the day which were slower than the 93 Cobras:(
Cars main problems were the cam,ecm,lack of gear and some weight. You can go fast with cast iron GT40s heads and I think they are much better than the Gt40P crap heads.

I have to look for my dynos/runs but I went high 11s at 122-123 MPH on street radials with GT40 stuff with a 11PSI powerjunk blower(433 my tune-479 after a Larocca tune). Not bad for back then.

I remember how depressed I was seeing those 94-95 Cobras run mid 14s stock back in the day which were slower than the 93 Cobras:(
Cars main problems were the cam,ecm,lack of gear and some weight. You can go fast with cast iron GT40s heads and I think they are much better than the Gt40P crap heads.

I have to look for my dynos/runs but I went high 11s at 122-123 MPH on street radials with GT40 stuff with a 11PSI powerjunk blower(433 my tune-479 after a Larocca tune). Not bad for back then.

Agree with everything above. Just a few things here and there and they can run. That is flying for a powerdyne blower, especially back in the day!

I love my ls1, but I just love mustangs and I can't help it.

just marking this so i can watch the videos when i get home......

Had a flat so borrowed some skinnies to do a pass. Didn't powershift.

http://www.mk3.us/mike/stang/Mike92Lx117.mpg

Had a flat so borrowed some skinnies to do a pass. Didn't powershift.

http://www.mk3.us/mike/stang/Mike92Lx117.mpg

Clean car and big mph for that combo for sure!

Thanks
I hit 123 that day as well in the heat.
Still have the car too...

Good kill, there is one in my hood that has waxed me a few times, no stock block in that puppy,i had a 94 gt that ran pretty good, think the best i got out of it was high 12s, had alot of mods/boost but it was a fun car, back in the day 12s were rolling lmfao

I think about 80% of us have had mustangs lol, thank god we got something that was worth a damn, i had a 4.6 as well and had a few grand in it and it went no where lol

I was so disappointed when the 4.6 debuted. No parts,no power,OBD2 which we thought was the end of the world,hard to work on and the car got expensive. Mean while the Fbodies got faster....and faster. 98GT vs 98 Z28 was an embarrassment. 99 got a tad more power but still way behind not mention the more powerful and expensive Cobra was slower too. The dark days for sure....from 93 and up

yeah i agree, i had a ton of money into my 4.6 and the damn thing just didnt move, then when i looked at the cost to really get it to fly vs buying a f body, i just went and got a ss , i was happy with my ss for 2 years stock just because of that turd 4.6, one ride i would love to build is a sn95 with a 03 cobra drivetrain, i loved the look of the 94,98 stangs.my ride looked great just ran like a taxi cab

I was so disappointed when the 4.6 debuted. No parts,no power,OBD2 which we thought was the end of the world,hard to work on and the car got expensive. Mean while the Fbodies got faster....and faster. 98GT vs 98 Z28 was an embarrassment. 99 got a tad more power but still way behind not mention the more powerful and expensive Cobra was slower too. The dark days for sure....from 93 and up

I thought the dark days was the mustang 2 era.....lmao.......or was that tbe middle ages :)

I thought the dark days was the mustang 2 era.....lmao.......or was that tbe middle ages :)



The mid 70's was the dark ages for a lot of cars.

I think about 80% of us have had mustangs lol, thank god we got something that was worth a damn, i had a 4.6 as well and had a few grand in it and it went no where lol

I have had plenty of both cars and I will say this, the Mustang is the better car. The build and ride quality were light years ahead of an f body. My 94 GT's odometer broke at 167k and probably has 200k on it now and it still rides tight with zero squeaks and rattles. It doesn't have sub frame connectors on it either. The seats are not ripped or worn out, both power windows still work, the dash and the door panels are not cracked, and I am still on the stock rear with tons of launches with slicks. I have had plenty of f bodies and they were just flimsy and put together with cheap parts from the factory. No bias here, just the facts from someone who has owned both for years. The LS1 is a great platform to say the least and GM hit a homerun when they came out but that is the only place where the f body is better. I think the 98-02 ram air TA's are some of the baddest looking cars to ever roll off of an assembly line. I sold my last Z/28 to concentrate on building my Mustang, it had less than half the miles and was only modded with a few bolt ons by me. Driving both cars was like night and day as far as quality. The f bodies have the older Mustangs beat in power for sure but that can easily be overcome. Aftermarket parts are a lot cheaper for the 5.0. Just my .02. :cheers:

Edit - I had one 4.6 sohc that was built and supercharged that I hated. When they put out the 4.6 it was the worst thing they could have done. There are some fast ones out there but I will never own another one.

I have had plenty of both cars and I will say this, the Mustang is the better car. The build and ride quality were light years ahead of an f body. My 94 GT's odometer broke at 167k and probably has 200k on it now and it still rides tight with zero squeaks and rattles. It doesn't have sub frame connectors on it either. The seats are not ripped or worn out, both power windows still work, the dash and the door panels are not cracked, and I am still on the stock rear with tons of launches with slicks. I have had plenty of f bodies and they were just flimsy and put together with cheap parts from the factory. No bias here, just the facts from someone who has owned both for years. The LS1 is a great platform to say the least and GM hit a homerun when they came out but that is the only place where the f body is better. I think the 98-02 ram air TA's are some of the baddest looking cars to ever roll off of an assembly line. I sold my last Z/28 to concentrate on building my Mustang, it had less than half the miles and was only modded with a few bolt ons by me. Driving both cars was like night and day as far as quality. The f bodies have the older Mustangs beat in power for sure but that can easily be overcome. Aftermarket parts are a lot cheaper for the 5.0. Just my .02. :cheers:

Edit - I had one 4.6 sohc that was built and supercharged that I hated. When they put out the 4.6 it was the worst thing they could have done. There are some fast ones out there but I will never own another one.

If you are into comfort and you Dont like the rattle then you should of bought a corolla. Camaro and trans am's were made to perform, I really doubt they had in mind the plastics and other stuff they put into them. My 90 GTA is at 300k and has minor rattles that can easly be fixed but love the torque on it. The ws6 is at 118 and doesn't rattle much because I try and take care of it when I hear it... But yet! Who the hell is going to care about little rattles here and there when you are hauling ass down the track/street when you have a mustang in the rear view mirror. And I've driver crap load of stangs and I hate the seats and how the shifter sits all the way in the front.

If you are into comfort and you Dont like the rattle then you should of bought a corolla. Camaro and trans am's were made to perform, I really doubt they had in mind the plastics and other stuff they put into them. My 90 GTA is at 300k and has minor rattles that can easly be fixed but love the torque on it. The ws6 is at 118 and doesn't rattle much because I try and take care of it when I hear it... But yet! Who the hell is going to care about little rattles here and there when you are hauling ass down the track/street when you have a mustang in the rear view mirror. And I've driver crap load of stangs and I hate the seats and how the shifter sits all the way in the front.
plastics?

door hinges, leaky t-roofs, hatch struts not holding, rear suspension rattles to name a few.

that said.....i can't believe the guy you quoted has 200k on a sn95 mustang, and doesn't need front end work. their struts go bad, ball joints, tie rod ends........

plastics?

door hinges, leaky t-roofs, hatch struts not holding, rear suspension rattles to name a few.

that said.....i can't believe the guy you quoted has 200k on a sn95 mustang, and doesn't need front end work. their struts go bad, ball joints, tie rod ends........

So far I haven't had that leaking problem.. (knock on wood) but anything can be fixed.....

And these f bodies aren't new. Any car with this age will need lift supports at 10 years plus. You are naming wear and tear parts. In that case everyone would be complaining that their brakes wear down

That's not with heads, intake and exhaust like someone said. Still impressive if its truly a stock longblock.

I fail at reading. To get an sn95 in 11s with gt40s will take lots of work.

If you are into comfort and you Dont like the rattle then you should of bought a corolla. Camaro and trans am's were made to perform, I really doubt they had in mind the plastics and other stuff they put into them. My 90 GTA is at 300k and has minor rattles that can easly be fixed but love the torque on it. The ws6 is at 118 and doesn't rattle much because I try and take care of it when I hear it... But yet! Who the hell is going to care about little rattles here and there when you are hauling ass down the track/street when you have a mustang in the rear view mirror. And I've driver crap load of stangs and I hate the seats and how the shifter sits all the way in the front.

No need or want for a Corolla. I don't like the squeaks and rattles in any car I drive. I fly down the track or street in the Mustang just fine in a tighter car that is all. I am 41 and way past brand loyalty. The Mustang is the better built car, the LS1 is the better motor platform.

that said.....i can't believe the guy you quoted has 200k on a sn95 mustang, and doesn't need front end work. their struts go bad, ball joints, tie rod ends........

Never said that wear items last 200k in any car made.

My car is still pretty nice after 13 yrs and 110k. The only thing I've replaced tbat I didn't tear up is the lt window motor and I just recently put a new set of headlights in it. The way I figure its mostly how you take care of a car. With that said be honest about how crappy ford headlights and plastics are that fade, seats that break and lack of handleing until very recently.....not to metion a poopy 4.6.

My car is still pretty nice after 13 yrs and 110k. The only thing I've replaced tbat I didn't tear up is the lt window motor and I just recently put a new set of headlights in it. The way I figure its mostly how you take care of a car. With that said be honest about how crappy ford headlights and plastics are that fade, seats that break and lack of handleing until very recently.....not to metion a poopy 4.6.

I agree totally on the head lights but I have not heard about any breaking seats. Handling was crappy on the foxes but was greatly improved along with braking on the SN95's. The 4.6 to me was a total joke. I had a 2000 GT with a built motor and a Vortech but I hated it and swapped it for a 99 TA. Like I said, I love the LS engines and will own a Corvette before it's over. I don't care what the wife says, lol.

My car is still pretty nice after 13 yrs and 110k. The only thing I've replaced tbat I didn't tear up is the lt window motor and I just recently put a new set of headlights in it. The way I figure its mostly how you take care of a car. With that said be honest about how crappy ford headlights and plastics are that fade, seats that break and lack of handleing until very recently.....not to metion a poopy 4.6.

Handling isn't good for sure, but my fox was light years ahead of my 02 z28. Head lights were clean as hell too. Mine were shot. My window motors are turds as well. Idk, I'm over the brand loyal stuff. That is why I bought my camaro and I love it dearly. I wont hide that I think the fox and sn95 chassis were nicer and the interior is held together a little better. My Z only has 65,000 miles so I'd like to think it's a good comparison.

I have both and agree-my Mustang is a better built car. Then again my fox doesn't have that many miles on it.

Whats sad is my Toyotas from the late 80s are better built than both by a long shot

So far I haven't had that leaking problem.. (knock on wood) but anything can be fixed.....

And these f bodies aren't new. Any car with this age will need lift supports at 10 years plus. You are naming wear and tear parts. In that case everyone would be complaining that their brakes wear down

10 years? i see the lift supports bad in less than 3 years. to be honest though, it's not just chevys......it's nearly anything that uses them. i think it just stands out a bit more on them, due to the size/weight of the rear glass, and the same for the hood.
door hinges aren't wear/tear items either. the most common car i've ever seen with bad door hinges, is the 80's camaro/firebirds. same for leaking t-roofs.

but then........like i said about the ball joints on fords.......it's like "jesus christ!! can't you people put a zerk fitting in these dam things?!". i've done more ball joints and tie rods on fords over the years than anything.
in fact, ford engineers have done such a great job with their "permanently" lubricated ball joints, they actually often require a different test method. and have you ever seen a ford....like a crown vic, or an explorer....that gives this little squeak when the driver turns the wheel? that is either one of the ball joints or a tie rod.

Never said that wear items last 200k in any car made.

just checking........because as much as i like my fords........they seemed to me to need certain front end parts earlier in their lifespans than they should have.

My car is still pretty nice after 13 yrs and 110k. The only thing I've replaced tbat I didn't tear up is the lt window motor and I just recently put a new set of headlights in it. The way I figure its mostly how you take care of a car. With that said be honest about how crappy ford headlights and plastics are that fade, seats that break and lack of handleing until very recently.....not to metion a poopy 4.6.

the headlight issue isn't just ford. in the past month, i've polished the lenses of 2 camrys, a taurus, a rx330, and a buick. they all seem to do it.
in the last few years, the only broken seats i've dealt with, are a dodge ramvan, and a jeep wrangler. fox body mustangs used to have problems with the seats ripping out of the floor.....mostly the police cruisers, as those were generally drivin by bigger guys. i think ford had a tsb on that, and a repair kit. in fact, my 89 had that kit installed......which would lead me to believe that a fat guy owned that before i did. :D

I have both and agree-my Mustang is a better built car. Then again my fox doesn't have that many miles on it.

Whats sad is my Toyotas from the late 80s are better built than both by a long shot

funny you mention toyota. had a camry in the shop last year. 624k on the odometer. 2.2 liter 5sfe engine. i asked him if it was the original engine. he said the original let loose at 330k, and that this one was a junkyard engine....it had about 70k when installed. you'd have never known this car had 600k+ to look at it.
by that same token......another customer has a buick century(91 i think) with 317k. original engine.

My mom owns a 96 2v GT, shes owned it since 2000. Odometer stopped working at 88k maybe 10 years ago. No way in hell would i trade my car for it.

funny you mention toyota. had a camry in the shop last year. 624k on the odometer. 2.2 liter 5sfe engine. i asked him if it was the original engine. he said the original let loose at 330k, and that this one was a junkyard engine....it had about 70k when installed. you'd have never known this car had 600k+ to look at it.
by that same token......another customer has a buick century(91 i think) with 317k. original engine.

My 89 Camry with the 3sfe had 398K on it when it was stolen back in November-great cars

My mom owns a 96 2v GT, shes owned it since 2000. Odometer stopped working at 88k maybe 10 years ago. No way in hell would i trade my car for it.

I would not drive it if it was given to me. The 96-98 GT's were pathetic. The newer 4.6 wasn't much better. The 96-98 4v Cobra's are a fun car to drive though, I have had two if those over the years. They rev like no other factory car I have ever driven. They are even better with 4.11's. The 5.0 was a much better platform even though I always thought Ford should have put the 351 in the GT's to start with.

I would not drive it if it was given to me. The 96-98 GT's were pathetic. The newer 4.6 wasn't much better. The 96-98 4v Cobra's are a fun car to drive though, I have had two if those over the years. They rev like no other factory car I have ever driven. They are even better with 4.11's. The 5.0 was a much better platform even though I always thought Ford should have put the 351 in the GT's to start with.

Cars bullet proof reliable, but as far as interior and all that i feel claustrophobic in it lol. Never been in a 4v cobra though.

To anyone who was into these cars back in the mid-90's, what were people expecting from the new motor in 1996 (referring to the GT's, not the Cobras). Were they hoping for big improvements or did it go down as expected? I wasn't into cars back then so I don't remember, lol.We were expecting pretty much what Ford sold, except 1 little thing. We expected this new 4.6L to be easily modified, like our old 5L was, for much better performance. It simply didn't happen that way.

A buddy has a 98 cobra with the 32v 4.6, he thought it was the baddest fucking car around until he turned up at the track and his best run was a 9.80 in the 1/8th I just about pissed myself laughing so hard.:judge:Could be a poor driver(usually is) or any number of things, such as bad track prep.

gt40's are not good heads, but they work, and they work even better with boost. Plenty of mustangs have made 450 plust with stock gt40 stuff, a cam, and a vortech. I have seen stock long block cars both foxes and sn95's in the 11's. Please don't ever mention the word cleveland again...

Without looking I found this:
C'mon now... Those 2 claim to be stock long block cars? And that just means they unquestionably are? Aside from that, I see Fox body Mustangs there, not SN95's, which are clearly heavier(by like 300 lb).

Iron GT40 heads really aren't good, and they really are bad in many ways. No matter what is done to them, they just can't be stretched into "par" heads when considering available options. As for working better with boost... Well which head doesn't? :huh:

450hp... Using stock iron GT40 heads and intake? Idonno which cam you're thinking of or which Vortech. I do know that much power with those parts on a 302HO is something I'd call "higher than normal" in the Fox 5L world. I never spent much time looking into(or converting) fwhp vs rwhp. I remember seeing a bit over 300rwhp using GT40 TurboSwirl heads with an extrude honed intake along with a Vortech S-trim and supporting build parts. That was considered good DD capable power at the time(2001) with those parts.

You don't like the word Cleveland? Okay then, but Cleveland heads as compared to iron GT40's is like comparing the cylinder heads of a 2011 Mustang GT(as the Cleveland) to a 1998 Mustang GT(as the GT40). Cleveland heads are far superior to the almost halfway worthy iron GT40. I'll put it this way. I don't think the iron GT40 can flow as well on the intake side as the "C" head can on exhaust.

I remember how depressed I was seeing those 94-95 Cobras run mid 14s stock back in the day which were slower than the 93 Cobras:(
Cars main problems were the cam,ecm,lack of gear and some weight. You can go fast with cast iron GT40s heads and I think they are much better than the Gt40P crap heads.Heh... plenty of problems! :lol:

I have to look for my dynos/runs but I went high 11s at 122-123 MPH on street radials with GT40 stuff with a 11PSI powerjunk blower(433 my tune-479 after a Larocca tune). Not bad for back then.That pretty much seals what I said... I can see a supercharged version of the Fox running 11's with GT40 stuff... not an SN95 though, without the S/C.

I was so disappointed when the 4.6 debuted. No parts,no power,OBD2 which we thought was the end of the world,hard to work on and the car got expensive.Eh... No parts for the LS1 in 98. F-bodies had OBDII since 1996, just like every other American sold vehicle. Remember a time before LS1 edit? I do. :eek2: Pricing generally favored the Mustang till June, 2002. :angel:

We were expecting pretty much what Ford sold, except 1 little thing. We expected this new 4.6L to be easily modified, like our old 5L was, for much better performance. It simply didn't happen that way.

Could be a poor driver(usually is) or any number of things, such as bad track prep.


C'mon now... Those 2 claim to be stock long block cars? And that just means they unquestionably are? Aside from that, I see Fox body Mustangs there, not SN95's, which are clearly heavier(by like 300 lb).

Iron GT40 heads really aren't good, and they really are bad in many ways. No matter what is done to them, they just can't be stretched into "par" heads when considering available options. As for working better with boost... Well which head doesn't? :huh:

450hp... Using stock iron GT40 heads and intake? Idonno which cam you're thinking of or which Vortech. I do know that much power with those parts on a 302HO is something I'd call "higher than normal" in the Fox 5L world. I never spent much time looking into(or converting) fwhp vs rwhp. I remember seeing a bit over 300rwhp using GT40 TurboSwirl heads with an extrude honed intake along with a Vortech S-trim and supporting build parts. That was considered good DD capable power at the time(2001) with those parts.

You don't like the word Cleveland? Okay then, but Cleveland heads as compared to iron GT40's is like comparing the cylinder heads of a 2011 Mustang GT(as the Cleveland) to a 1998 Mustang GT(as the GT40). Cleveland heads are far superior to the almost halfway worthy iron GT40. I'll put it this way. I don't think the iron GT40 can flow as well on the intake side as the "C" head can on exhaust.

Heh... plenty of problems! :lol:

That pretty much seals what I said... I can see a supercharged version of the Fox running 11's with GT40 stuff... not an SN95 though, without the S/C.

Eh... No parts for the LS1 in 98. F-bodies had OBDII since 1996, just like every other American sold vehicle. Remember a time before LS1 edit? I do. :eek2: Pricing generally favored the Mustang till June, 2002. :angel:

Excellent post!! :nod:

Lol, this is why the Mustang I'm currently looking to get has Trick Flow twisted wedge heads.

That are ported and polished! As well as the Edelbrock RPM upper and lower intakes lol

Remember a time before LS1 edit? I do. :eek2

I remember the time before chassis dynos. We did it the hard way, at the track, lol. :drive:

[QUOTE=It'llrun;16150336]C'mon now... Those 2 claim to be stock long block cars? And that just means they unquestionably are? Aside from that, I see Fox body Mustangs there, not SN95's, which are clearly heavier(by like 300 lb).

Iron GT40 heads really aren't good, and they really are bad in many ways. No matter what is done to them, they just can't be stretched into "par" heads when considering available options. As for working better with boost... Well which head doesn't? :huh:

450hp... Using stock iron GT40 heads and intake? Idonno which cam you're thinking of or which Vortech. I do know that much power with those parts on a 302HO is something I'd call "higher than normal" in the Fox 5L world. I never spent much time looking into(or converting) fwhp vs rwhp. I remember seeing a bit over 300rwhp using GT40 TurboSwirl heads with an extrude honed intake along with a Vortech S-trim and supporting build parts. That was considered good DD capable power at the time(2001) with those parts.

You don't like the word Cleveland? Okay then, but Cleveland heads as compared to iron GT40's is like comparing the cylinder heads of a 2011 Mustang GT(as the Cleveland) to a 1998 Mustang GT(as the GT40). Cleveland heads are far superior to the almost halfway worthy iron GT40. I'll put it this way. I don't think the iron GT40 can flow as well on the intake side as the "C" head can on exhaust.
QUOTE]

So no matter what I show you, you don't want to see it, because you wont beleive it lol.

I wasn't even mentioning turbo swirl aluminums. I ment pheads. I made 389rwhp and 430 rwtq at 4900 rpms on a md at sniper in sanford fl. Pull ended at 4900 because the stock explorer valvesprings wouldn't let me go anymore. Had a fcam and a v2. I don't know how turbo swirls wouldn't make more power. I surely would have made 400 plus making a pull to 5500.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWmYswMO1ho

Very similar combo. I know it's not a stock long block or an sn95, but this subject was brought up.

And I still feel like it was stupid on your behalf mentioning cleaveland heads.

mine did pretty well with gt40 aluminum heads, intakes, and an "X" cam. my dyno was the track.

I had ported GT40X heads for a while-not bad! Went with AFR185s when I went with some cubes...

I had ported GT40X heads for a while-not bad! Went with AFR185s when I went with some cubes...

ya know? it's been so long, i don't remember which gt40's they were. i think there was a couple of possibilities with the aluminum heads......i do remember i made sure i wouldn't have to notch my pistons though....

I had cast iron ported GT40s than moved up to the Xs. What I should have done was use the standard y head done up. Made so many mistakes with that car back then....

Need more of a background on your car and 10 cars seems a bit unreasonable. Maybe your depth perception is quite flawed.

:popcorn: for snake95 to come on here and defend his pride and joy's honor :angel:

You fucked up another emoticon on here :) and if you want, I can send you pictures of my block and heads off the block so you can see what it's like to tear into a motor :) I have my new head gaskets and she will start being put back together tomorrow. If you still had the LT1 I would drive to Iowa just for you, sweetheart.

I wasn't even mentioning turbo swirl aluminums. I ment pheads. I made 389rwhp and 430 rwtq at 4900 rpms on a md at sniper in sanford fl. Pull ended at 4900 because the stock explorer valvesprings wouldn't let me go anymore. Had a fcam and a v2. I don't know how turbo swirls wouldn't make more power. I surely would have made 400 plus making a pull to 5500.Thanks... You've just proven my point. With a good set of heads, you'd have made more power, period. Slap on a set like my old TFS R's and you'd probably have cracked the block! :devil:

And I still feel like it was stupid on your behalf mentioning cleaveland heads.That's only because you have no idea what Cleveland heads really do. Look into EVERY Pro5.0 car from the yr 2001 and see how many you find NOT using Cleveland heads... Then see how many used GT40's. One will be a vast majority and there will be NONE using GT40's. The reason isn't that GT40 heads are great. ;)

You'll simply never get an engine to make as much power or torque using GT40's(iron or aluminum) as you could with Cleveland's, or nearly any other aluminum head available for 5L OHV engines, for that matter.