Ke^in

The Fox bodies are still the fox bodies of 2010. You still can't put together a 4th gen for as cheap as a Fox body.

Ke^in

And Darksol, do yourself a favor and ignore that outdated, and full of wrong information list. In most car forums, anytime anyone brings up that list, they usually get made fun of.

For example

1999 Ford Mustang GT 5.5 14.1
1999 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 13.9

They are saying a 4.6 4v DOHC Cobra is only .2 seconds faster than a 4.6 2v SOHC.

Really?

The 99 Cobras were as fast as most LS1 fbodies. The both ran mid 13s stock.

assasinator

all of the windsor/cleveland small blocks were dropped because of emissions or fuel economy. if everyone recalls a 351C,BOSS 351, 351 CJ made far more power than most big blocks of its day. an underrated 330-370. good head flow and power.


its not like Ford had NO idea what to do. the company went in a direction that was the cheapest overall design to include emissions, economy, power, manufacturing costs, NVH, etc.

the decision to part with pushrods and go with OHC clean sheet was a good one indeed. lets see if GM sticks to two valves forever.

remember, the intake port volume is KEY to LS power.as cubic inches shrink, so will port volume. as port volume drops a point of negative returns is reached. try running a 261cc L92 on a 335inch motor. a good portion of the current 326cfm flow is port volume.


revving a 200cc port , 2 valve 5.5 liter engine to the moon for 440hp with reliability is gonna be hard. change it to 4 valves and it will rule.

Darksol

Considering the number of years as a member on here (5) and as a owner of a LS1 for 8 plus years I feel I have a good handle on it. You can build a LS pretty damn cheap. Plenty of 6.0s out there are running around with very little dumped into them. And those numbers were used as the only unbiased way of getting the point across that the 5.0 did indeed have faster contemporaries. And as far as times in a quarter go try te-reading what I posted. No two cars even built on the same day will not necessarily be the same. Some are factory freaks, some are built to higher tolerances. But I guess you don't believe that some Cobras would be faster than others or that sometimes you end up with a car built first thing Monday morning. Its no secret you are Ford fan. Don't be surprised that not everyone has the same view of Mustangs as you. I used it as a reference not the Gospel. I'm sure Mustangs and fast Fords would have provided unbiased numbers for my comparison.

Irunelevens

That's actually the first Ford he's owned...

Ke^in

Not only that, there was nothing "unbiased" about his post. That was a horrible, horrible excuse for posting crap numbers. That 1/4 list has been known to be a lame duck. You'd think after posting here for 5 years he'd have known that.

Darksol

Who's first Ford?



If the numbers are bias then they are bias across the board. How are they so slighted against Mustangs but not any other car? Irunelevens and I seem to have found some middle ground. I respect his point of view. The Cobra was never a topic. So other than trying to start something do you have a point about to make about the newest 5.0 or the old 5.0? As far as numbers go I've seen a magazine that pulled 12's out of a stock 4th gen but I wouldn't call it consistent. So other than the fact that some don't agree with the numbers from that site where would you get good info on stock vehicles for the purpose of comparison?

Irunelevens

Kevin's first car... I said that in answer to this.
See?

Darksol

Oh gotcha.

Ke^in

They are. Last time I checked it they had a few LS1 fbodies listed in the 14s.
I don't remember saying that at all. As a matter of fact, I didn't.
A stock one? Where have you seen that?

First car? HARDLY! I'm 37. First Ford? Yes.

Irunelevens

Sorry, that's what I meant

Darksol

Even if it did, not all cars built on the same line, same day, from the same parts bin are equal. Not all ls1's are 300whp cars stock. Some are 280whp some are more. Mine was 291whp stock. Small differences from part to part can make a big difference on the whole car. And that would be why I listed all Fox bodies and all 3rd gen fodies not hand picked ones from that site. The large sample even shows the differences. So if all of the numbers are slower than "common knowledge" then the cars I compared should all be faster right? Where is the issue?

You're the one who came in here insulting me about the source info. And getting defensive for Mustang. If the numbers are slower across the board on that site for all cars the comparison is still valid. Again I didn't just grab the worse Fox body 5.0 I could find and the best of any comparison car.

Think it was a issue of G.M. high tech, a couple years ago. I no longer have the issue and would never claim that ls1 fbodies are 12 second cars. One occurrence or even a couple of freaks would NOT be enough for me to call them 12 second cars.

Irunelevens

I've seen more dyno/track discrepancies in LS1s than in almost any other car. Most other cars I've seen, there is hardly ever more than a 10-15rwhp difference in stock cars.

Ke^in

It did.
So when they have ONE 2001 LS1 Camaro listed as 14.1 for the 1/4 mile, guess what most people are going to think that run high 13s? Those lists are pretty much for newbies. People that don't already know what runs what. I have a problem with feeding them misinformation. You should always know what the car is CAPABLE of. These lists don't give us this. And most of the discrepancies were driver related. Even a 280whp LS1 fbody should be out of the 14s with a driver that knows what they are doing.
Read above. The problem is, they aren't giving multiple numbers for that specific car year. Just one car per year.
I actually had problem with the info. As I pointed above.
Getting defensive? You are saying you've seen people pull 12s out of a stock 4th gen. They usually don't go that fast. How is me questioning that me getting defensive? Had you said it went SLOWER.. then your comment would have been relevant. But that's not the case.
See well there's the problem. You went from talking about Mustangs, to GMs without saying as much. A 4th gen Mustang is the 94-2002 Mustang. When you said you've seen a 4th gen do 12s stock, I was seriously doubting it.

Irunelevens

94-04

Ke^in

Yeah.. don't know why I said 02. Other than I have an 02. Must have been that.

Darksol

My understanding is that lt1's had a large range too. Maybe its a quality control issue at G.M. plants? Seems like the lowest numbers are from the automatics understandably. Some of the 97-98 head castings were less than terrific too. Not sure how much of a difference those would make from one to the next. Almost every year the LS1 was in the F cars it got a new cam, and a couple of injector changes and a intake manifold change, and a exhaust manifold change, the removal of EGR all could make some differences. So they did change a lot in 5 years.

Darksol

I don't know that I would agree with that. I think its more realistic to know that a car you own may not be as fast or faster than one tested by a magazine, their driver and their test track. A "ringer" would not give fair expectations of what should be expected. I asked you where you would go for fair, unbiased test data for stock vehicles?

Were there differences EVERY year the 5.0 was made? Other a few major changes (speed density to MAF for instance) where they that different from year to year?

I know they don't therefore I would not say that they are 12 sec cars. Why argue something I already said and you seem to agree? I did say that they are slower than 12's stock.

Sorry. You're right I did not state 4th gen F-body in a thread about Mustangs. Mea culpa. And I while one or two may have gotten into 12's (check the forum) I would not ever say that a 98-02 f car is a 12 sec car.

Oh and I found this....
https://ls1tech.com/forums/12017777-post6.html

https://ls1tech.com/forums/attachmen...f-body-ws6.jpg

A FORD magazine pulled a 12 sec time out of one. News to me.

Irunelevens

I watched somebody (JamRWS6) run a 12.99 @ 110mph with just a whisper lid and subframe connectors. 2.15 60' time too (~40 degrees outside), so in warmer weather it might have hit 12s bone stock.

Ke^in

Most people don't go there to see what THEIR car runs. They go to see what their buddy in such and such car runs. I know this because I used to do it. I thought "DAMN 14.1? I thought Camaros were supposed to be fast.." Then said kid comes in here bragging about being able to take LS1 fbodies with his stock 2v.
What I finally did was go into said car's respected forums and check the time of the regulars. It gave me a more honest number to go by.
Yes, the 5.0 has been out a long long time. mid 80s 5.0 run differently than low 90s models.
Not that that matters. Someone looking for a "91" mustang because that's what his friends have, and it has it listed as 15.0s .. you see what I am saying?

As far as 12s Camaros, THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND that the LS1 fbody can hit 12s. I've seen it myself. Does it happen all the time? No. But it has happened.