H/C/I 5.0 makes 507rwhp
03-09-2011, 04:00 AM
#41
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Know it or not, you understand it... You just explained it... 
The point was, the only real notable difference in this series is cubes. Either can reach 500hp... One does it a tad easier, but the mods list will be essentially identical. To match the modular style engine with an LS series, more cubes are simply a requirement, not a bonus. That's part of why OHC designs are looking better overall. The 4.8L would be a prime example. Larger than the 4.6L DOHC internally, it isn't likely anyone will ever try to reach or exceed 2000hp with one. People pass on the 5.3L as well, and even the LS1 itself has little chance, at more than 1 liter larger. Most looking for big power will step up to a 6.0L or more. I think we'll be seeing more antagonism in this area soon, when the 6.2L SOHC(and probably DOHC) start being pump up. There is no denying OHC designs their due.
The point was, the only real notable difference in this series is cubes. Either can reach 500hp... One does it a tad easier, but the mods list will be essentially identical. To match the modular style engine with an LS series, more cubes are simply a requirement, not a bonus. That's part of why OHC designs are looking better overall. The 4.8L would be a prime example. Larger than the 4.6L DOHC internally, it isn't likely anyone will ever try to reach or exceed 2000hp with one. People pass on the 5.3L as well, and even the LS1 itself has little chance, at more than 1 liter larger. Most looking for big power will step up to a 6.0L or more. I think we'll be seeing more antagonism in this area soon, when the 6.2L SOHC(and probably DOHC) start being pump up. There is no denying OHC designs their due.
Several builds have reached over 2000hp with a ls engine... and cubes are an irrelevant point... Sure the LSx has more cubes but it has less valves and less cams and the cost to make the same amount of power as a coyote is thousands of dollars less.. So while 500+whp can be had for around $4000 or less on an ls3 it takes around $6000 or even $8000 to make comparable power out of the coyote while there are several contributing factors for this fact now, it is indeed the truth for the time being. Also if you care to look at a dyno-graph of both engines the lsx makes more power/torque across the rpm range than the coyote because of the cube advantage.
03-09-2011, 11:25 AM
#42
TECH Enthusiast
the first dohc:
Among the early pioneers of DOHC were Isotta Fraschini's Giustino Cattaneo, Austro-Daimler's Ferdinand Porsche Stephen Tomczak (in the Prinz Heinrich), and W. O. Bentley (in 1919); Sunbeam built small numbers of racing models between 1921 and 1923 and introduced one of the world's first production twin cams in 1924.
so the coyote is nearly a 100 year old design... by your logic.
03-09-2011, 04:32 PM
#45
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach 1s got the same transmissions as the Mustang GT...
This. Saying "oh well it's old technology" in reference to the LSx motors is no less ricer-tastic than holding on to the cubic inch thing.
the only thing 50 year old about a LS is the valve arrangement and number of cylinders.
the first dohc:
Among the early pioneers of DOHC were Isotta Fraschini's Giustino Cattaneo, Austro-Daimler's Ferdinand Porsche Stephen Tomczak (in the Prinz Heinrich), and W. O. Bentley (in 1919); Sunbeam built small numbers of racing models between 1921 and 1923 and introduced one of the world's first production twin cams in 1924.
so the coyote is nearly a 100 year old design... by your logic.
the first dohc:
Among the early pioneers of DOHC were Isotta Fraschini's Giustino Cattaneo, Austro-Daimler's Ferdinand Porsche Stephen Tomczak (in the Prinz Heinrich), and W. O. Bentley (in 1919); Sunbeam built small numbers of racing models between 1921 and 1923 and introduced one of the world's first production twin cams in 1924.
so the coyote is nearly a 100 year old design... by your logic.
03-09-2011, 05:31 PM
#47
TECH Senior Member
It might be significant if all else were equal with these engines, but they are not (and almost never are).
What is significant is the fact that the LS engines are lighter, smaller, and cheaper while making as much/more power/torque. Comparing displacement gets you no where, its irrelevant.
The point was, the only real notable difference in this series is cubes. Either can reach 500hp... One does it a tad easier, but the mods list will be essentially identical. To match the modular style engine with an LS series, more cubes are simply a requirement, not a bonus.
That's part of why OHC designs are looking better overall.
That's part of why OHC designs are looking better overall.
Street cars are not limited to any displacement regulations (in America at least). Its just the same old butt hurt argument that ricers use, " but if I had more displacement if this if that blah blah blah".
If you are making more power, but its costing you more weight and size then it can be pretty moot.
Whats more impressive a 600lbs, 4L engine making 400hp, or a 6L, 380lbs engine making 400hp?
The 4.8L would be a prime example. Larger than the 4.6L DOHC internally, it isn't likely anyone will ever try to reach or exceed 2000hp with one. People pass on the 5.3L as well, and even the LS1 itself has little chance, at more than 1 liter larger. Most looking for big power will step up to a 6.0L or more. I think we'll be seeing more antagonism in this area soon, when the 6.2L SOHC(and probably DOHC) start being pump up. There is no denying OHC designs their due.
People pass the smaller displaced engines NOT because they are incapable, but because with the larger displaced LS's you get the same weight and size but more cubes - what is a downside to that? Why wouldn't you want to do that?
03-09-2011, 05:48 PM
#48
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This again seriously?
It might be significant if all else were equal with these engines, but they are not (and almost never are).
What is significant is the fact that the LS engines are lighter, smaller, and cheaper while making as much/more power/torque. Comparing displacement gets you no where, its irrelevant.
Maybe looking better on paper, just looking at peak power, but thats about as useless as it gets.
Street cars are not limited to any displacement regulations (in America at least). Its just the same old butt hurt argument that ricers use, " but if I had more displacement if this if that blah blah blah".
If you are making more power, but its costing you more weight and size then it can be pretty moot.
Whats more impressive a 600lbs, 4L engine making 400hp, or a 6L, 380lbs engine making 400hp?
Another skewed argument.
People pass the smaller displaced engines NOT because they are incapable, but because with the larger displaced LS's you get the same weight and size but more cubes - what is a downside to that? Why wouldn't you want to do that?
It might be significant if all else were equal with these engines, but they are not (and almost never are).
What is significant is the fact that the LS engines are lighter, smaller, and cheaper while making as much/more power/torque. Comparing displacement gets you no where, its irrelevant.
Maybe looking better on paper, just looking at peak power, but thats about as useless as it gets.
Street cars are not limited to any displacement regulations (in America at least). Its just the same old butt hurt argument that ricers use, " but if I had more displacement if this if that blah blah blah".
If you are making more power, but its costing you more weight and size then it can be pretty moot.
Whats more impressive a 600lbs, 4L engine making 400hp, or a 6L, 380lbs engine making 400hp?
Another skewed argument.
People pass the smaller displaced engines NOT because they are incapable, but because with the larger displaced LS's you get the same weight and size but more cubes - what is a downside to that? Why wouldn't you want to do that?
Also right on point about the displacement size of ls engines.. let me go spend a few grand on a forged shortblock and give me the smallest displacement possible for the same price. With FI and race fuel there is little that matters when talking PEAK dyno numbers. Just look at a 3.0L supra.... Its not like a 4.8 engine boosted to **** couldnt make a ton of power. There is simply no point to limit yourself to cubes when you dont need to.. like drag racing at half throttle.
03-09-2011, 08:42 PM
#49
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Louisiana, USA
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the haters are still overlooking the one big issue here.......that so many on this site claimed the new 5.0 would be "on the ragged edge" from the factory. This isn't necessarily about trying to insenuate that the Coyote is a helluva lot better than the LSX so much as it's about proving that this motor has impressive potential. Hell, there were even a few people here who claimed it would never see 400rwhp without a blower. Saying that "oh well, who cares?....an LSX can do this blah, blah, blah" doesn't excuse anyone who doubted the motor without ANY facts in hand. Bottom line is that we're seeing a factory production V8 motor from FORD that is capable of making 500rwhp NA. How many of you honestly thought you'd ever see that in your lifetime?
All the crying and whining all these years about how the LSX has gone all this time without any real competition from the Ford camp.....well, here ya go. Who gives a **** about hp/liter or hp/dollar? All this does is show that the new 5.0 is a legit contender. All the doubting or hating in the world won't change that.
All the crying and whining all these years about how the LSX has gone all this time without any real competition from the Ford camp.....well, here ya go. Who gives a **** about hp/liter or hp/dollar? All this does is show that the new 5.0 is a legit contender. All the doubting or hating in the world won't change that.
03-09-2011, 08:44 PM
#50
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Louisiana, USA
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-09-2011, 09:00 PM
#51
Just an FYI on the cubic inch discussion...it really only flies when comparing two different OHV (2 valve per cylinder) or two different DOHC (4 valve per cylinder) motors.
When the 6.0L/6.2L is limited (at least 'some' might call it a limitation) by one cam and half as many valves as the 4 cam 5.0L then all bets are off.
In certain forms of sanctioned racing where multiple types of engines/valvetrains race together, there were actually penalties (be it extra weight, smaller tire sizes etc.) given to the DOHC/4V cars versus the OHV cars, this was done because there are many obvious benefits to multi cam/multi valve arrangements.
Same goes for forced induction versus NA cars when they've raced together, the NA car got the breaks/had more freedom with the rules.
Now all of that is not quite as relevant in this discussion as the OHV motor does still have more cubic inches which evens the playing field a bit, my only point is don't pull out that "oh but it's a bigger motor" card because "yeah but the 5.0L has 3 extra cams and 16 extra valves" is what you'll get in return.
Personally, I love both motors.
When the 6.0L/6.2L is limited (at least 'some' might call it a limitation) by one cam and half as many valves as the 4 cam 5.0L then all bets are off.
In certain forms of sanctioned racing where multiple types of engines/valvetrains race together, there were actually penalties (be it extra weight, smaller tire sizes etc.) given to the DOHC/4V cars versus the OHV cars, this was done because there are many obvious benefits to multi cam/multi valve arrangements.
Same goes for forced induction versus NA cars when they've raced together, the NA car got the breaks/had more freedom with the rules.
Now all of that is not quite as relevant in this discussion as the OHV motor does still have more cubic inches which evens the playing field a bit, my only point is don't pull out that "oh but it's a bigger motor" card because "yeah but the 5.0L has 3 extra cams and 16 extra valves" is what you'll get in return.
Personally, I love both motors.
03-10-2011, 08:53 PM
#52
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This again seriously?
It might be significant if all else were equal with these engines, but they are not (and almost never are).
What is significant is the fact that the LS engines are lighter, smaller, and cheaper while making as much/more power/torque. Comparing displacement gets you no where, its irrelevant.
Maybe looking better on paper, just looking at peak power, but thats about as useless as it gets.
Street cars are not limited to any displacement regulations (in America at least). Its just the same old butt hurt argument that ricers use, " but if I had more displacement if this if that blah blah blah".
If you are making more power, but its costing you more weight and size then it can be pretty moot.
Whats more impressive a 600lbs, 4L engine making 400hp, or a 6L, 380lbs engine making 400hp?
Another skewed argument.
People pass the smaller displaced engines NOT because they are incapable, but because with the larger displaced LS's you get the same weight and size but more cubes - what is a downside to that? Why wouldn't you want to do that?
It might be significant if all else were equal with these engines, but they are not (and almost never are).
What is significant is the fact that the LS engines are lighter, smaller, and cheaper while making as much/more power/torque. Comparing displacement gets you no where, its irrelevant.
Maybe looking better on paper, just looking at peak power, but thats about as useless as it gets.
Street cars are not limited to any displacement regulations (in America at least). Its just the same old butt hurt argument that ricers use, " but if I had more displacement if this if that blah blah blah".
If you are making more power, but its costing you more weight and size then it can be pretty moot.
Whats more impressive a 600lbs, 4L engine making 400hp, or a 6L, 380lbs engine making 400hp?
Another skewed argument.
People pass the smaller displaced engines NOT because they are incapable, but because with the larger displaced LS's you get the same weight and size but more cubes - what is a downside to that? Why wouldn't you want to do that?
The LS series used and needs less space. It is more compact than many DOHC V6's, and I suspect nearly all DOHC V8's. It's a great engine too, but it's no high end 4V DOHC and it never will be. Obviously, GM knows this, or they wouldn't bother with their own DOHC performance engine, which they did/do.
All said, this 5L is excellent. And by the way, several LS series engines are actually heavier than the 5L, although the mantra is that the LS is simply the lighter engine. I think the LS1 and LS3 may both weigh less than the 5L... Not so sure on the rest. Plus, the quickest "LS" engined car I'm aware of actually used an LQ, and that's certainly heavier than the aluminum versions of the modular family(including the 5L which I think they're not calling a modular).
That quickest LQ car, as far as I know, is still more than .5 seconds slower on the 1/4 than the quickest 2 modulars, one of which utilizes factory crank, block and heads. So the "more power" thing is possibly just another myth. As I read it, that car had twin turbos and nitrous. The 2 quickest 4.6's supposedly don't use two power adders even though they are notably quicker on the track.
No ricer math there.
Finally, the use of a 4.8L could save money... That's a reason to go with it, but as we all know, it simply cannot compete with these engines in the performance arena. I don't care how it's built, it's not ever going to be in that league. If it were, everybody would opt for it, even if only for bragging rights.
As for the 600 vs 380 lb matching hp engines, too many factors are involved to simply toss out an answer... For example: What if the heavier engine is in a lighter overall vehicle? Ultimately, the version that lasts longer is more impressive.
I'm not here to defend the very impressive 5L engine. Nor am I here to worship the also very impressive LS series.
03-10-2011, 09:17 PM
#53
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: HOU - yeah, you know the rest.
Posts: 2,959
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just an FYI on the cubic inch discussion...it really only flies when comparing two different OHV (2 valve per cylinder) or two different DOHC (4 valve per cylinder) motors.
When the 6.0L/6.2L is limited (at least 'some' might call it a limitation) by one cam and half as many valves as the 4 cam 5.0L then all bets are off.
In certain forms of sanctioned racing where multiple types of engines/valvetrains race together, there were actually penalties (be it extra weight, smaller tire sizes etc.) given to the DOHC/4V cars versus the OHV cars, this was done because there are many obvious benefits to multi cam/multi valve arrangements.
Same goes for forced induction versus NA cars when they've raced together, the NA car got the breaks/had more freedom with the rules.
Now all of that is not quite as relevant in this discussion as the OHV motor does still have more cubic inches which evens the playing field a bit, my only point is don't pull out that "oh but it's a bigger motor" card because "yeah but the 5.0L has 3 extra cams and 16 extra valves" is what you'll get in return.
Personally, I love both motors.
When the 6.0L/6.2L is limited (at least 'some' might call it a limitation) by one cam and half as many valves as the 4 cam 5.0L then all bets are off.
In certain forms of sanctioned racing where multiple types of engines/valvetrains race together, there were actually penalties (be it extra weight, smaller tire sizes etc.) given to the DOHC/4V cars versus the OHV cars, this was done because there are many obvious benefits to multi cam/multi valve arrangements.
Same goes for forced induction versus NA cars when they've raced together, the NA car got the breaks/had more freedom with the rules.
Now all of that is not quite as relevant in this discussion as the OHV motor does still have more cubic inches which evens the playing field a bit, my only point is don't pull out that "oh but it's a bigger motor" card because "yeah but the 5.0L has 3 extra cams and 16 extra valves" is what you'll get in return.
Personally, I love both motors.
When you have two engines of equal displacement, the DOHC motor will be more powerful then the OHV motor, thus the DOHC motors are penalized when racing OHV. 
03-11-2011, 01:42 AM
#55
Or buy a ford gt the exotic supercharged version and make it twin turbo and pretty much own the road, blah blah blah! this is a stupid argument.The new 5.0 is a worthy contender to various ls motors, but in the end all that matters is how deep your pockets are lol! I like um both and the 5.0 and ls motors are impressive to me.
Last edited by kennyxg; 03-11-2011 at 01:47 AM.
03-11-2011, 02:52 PM
#56
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-11-2011, 05:03 PM
#57
TECH Senior Member
HP/weight is ricer math now?
Couldn't tell you as I really couldn't care any less. Who ever dumped more money into their car is most likely who is going to be faster in a strait line.
Im not really sure what your getting at here...
As far as I know all the "LS" branded engine (1,2,3,4,6,7) are under 440lbs. The LS based "non-LS" engines like the LQ you mentioned is an iron block, so its roughly 80-90lbs heavier then the al. version - but still lighter than Ford's modular iron block engines 
Got any legitimate links/proof of any of this? There is so much BS spewed in the drag world, and so many lies you can't trust anyone anymore. I don't see it being unbelievable but I like to see proof of whats "stock" and whats modded.
How so? Are 4.8L parts cheaper? Any proof?
Oh jesus...
Just compare the engines as if you were building a kit car, and both of them are reliable. The whole point obviously is that hp/l is a useless comparison.
Then why did the LT5 make the same amount of power as the LS6?
The LS series used and needs less space. It is more compact than many DOHC V6's, and I suspect nearly all DOHC V8's. It's a great engine too, but it's no high end 4V DOHC and it never will be. Obviously, GM knows this, or they wouldn't bother with their own DOHC performance engine, which they did/do.
All said, this 5L is excellent. And by the way, several LS series engines are actually heavier than the 5L, although the mantra is that the LS is simply the lighter engine. I think the LS1 and LS3 may both weigh less than the 5L... Not so sure on the rest. Plus, the quickest "LS" engined car I'm aware of actually used an LQ, and that's certainly heavier than the aluminum versions of the modular family(including the 5L which I think they're not calling a modular).
That quickest LQ car, as far as I know, is still more than .5 seconds slower on the 1/4 than the quickest 2 modulars, one of which utilizes factory crank, block and heads. So the "more power" thing is possibly just another myth. As I read it, that car had twin turbos and nitrous. The 2 quickest 4.6's supposedly don't use two power adders even though they are notably quicker on the track.
No ricer math there.
No ricer math there.
Finally, the use of a 4.8L could save money...
As for the 600 vs 380 lb matching hp engines, too many factors are involved to simply toss out an answer... For example: What if the heavier engine is in a lighter overall vehicle? Ultimately, the version that lasts longer is more impressive.
Just compare the engines as if you were building a kit car, and both of them are reliable. The whole point obviously is that hp/l is a useless comparison.
Then why did the LT5 make the same amount of power as the LS6?
03-11-2011, 09:40 PM
#58
TECH Addict
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: HOU - yeah, you know the rest.
Posts: 2,959
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
LT5 was made in 1990-1995, the LS6 in 2001, IIRC. I believe the LS6 has improved cylinder head design and possibly a better intake. Try comparing the LT1 to the LT5 of the same model years, that is a more accurate comparison, the LT1 made 300hp versus the LT5's 405 hp with the same cubic inches. Thanks for playing, I win again.
03-11-2011, 10:24 PM
#59
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not the only thing you brought up... COST, anyone?
If you couldn't care less, why argue which makes more power?
I'll toss this out there, "defending the Mustang power plants" is kinda easy here... Mustangs ran as good as 6.65 ET's in 2001, using the old 351 and a single turbo. I know of no LS powered F-body to reach that time even in 2011. Today, 4.6L's have run low 6's... It's not ricer math. It's blazing fast. NOTHING against the LS series... Really, I believe it's an AWESOME engine. My point is, we bash Ford at every turn around here and it's way past time we recognize they're not the junk some people say they are. While the LS is outstanding, it's not necessarily the greatest thing ever. It's nice to see great performance, but at this point, DOHC's are more than proven and I'd like to see GM follow the lead of, well, most other manufacturers.
GM built a 440+ 4.4L DOHC Northstar. I think the highest rated version was 469hp. Not bad for a small V8.
As far as I know, the 1,2 and 3 should all be 440 or less. The 7 is apparently about 450. I include the 6 with the 1. The 4 was apparently heavier, at nearly 480(and I bothered to look it up, only to find that).
The 4.6L iron block SOHC was about 500 lb, but the aluminum DOHC is more like 425. The current 5L is about 440. Weight will vary depending on listings, including or excluding fluids, w/ w/o accessories, etc. The 5.4 was over 500, but in aluminum form, it's obviously much lighter. Ford said recently that they removed over 100 lb from the old version in the current GT500, which gets an aluminum engine.
We've probably seen them in this very thread... Otherwise, I am pretty much certain the quickest examples have been shown on this site, in video. The worlds quickest "LS" car is a Camaro.. Mike Moran. 6.86 @ 205mph. You can find it on planetlsx, among other places. I know it's TT setup, and it's said to have nitrous, but that's debatable. The next 2 quickest have also dipped 6's. From there, the rest of the top 20 range from 7.11 to 7.95. None claim to use an LS1 and most use either iron or aftermarket. Morans car has an LQ4 block.
The quickest 4.6L I've heard of has supposedly run a best of 6.19 at over 220mph... Using a factory production Ford block, crank and heads. I think you may find the inside info at accufab... Here's a link from an article about the car (a Cougar). http://50mustangsuperfords.automotiv...rid/index.html
Mind you, that's merely informational... This current 5L is looking far superior to that 4.6 and that's the only reason I'd bring up the 4.6L as any sort of benchmark. Sure, it's an excellent platform due ONLY(impo) to excellent longevity... But it's not my favorite by any means and I own one, though not in a Mustang. I actually intend to take it to the track soon, just to see what it runs. I'm hoping for 15's.
My interest was peaked by a wannabe street racer a few days ago.
The overall engine costs less. You can easily find a new, complete 4.8L for about $2,600.00... That won't include the accessories, but should include fuel injection, plugs, wires, TB, WP, crank and WP pulleys... It's basically ready to drop in. Can you find the others for that priice? Even the 5.3L will likely cost a couple hundred more. A 6L will probably be $1,000 more.
I'm not arguing hp/l. It has NOTHING to do with weight.
There are several possible/probable reasons. The advancement of the DOHC has come a long way since the LT5, which was basically adapted to be a DOHC rather than being a clean sheet purpose built DOHC. Yes, it was different, but it was based on the SBC from the start and I'd say what they learned from it played a huge role in the design of the LS series.
That said, LT5's were seemingly nearing the 500rwhp mark back in the mid-90's and that can only be attributed to the 4v heads as far as I'm concerned. The mods list was relatively short, though I don't remember much about it anymore. We weren't talking about total rebuilds for most, put it that way. Good cams could take it a long way.
Much has been printed over the yrs, but I recall racing against a 199x ZR1 more than a couple times and seeing them in the 12's. I'm talking about back then, of course. The ZR1 then was a 3450+ lb car too, and I think the LS6 car is a tad lighter. Also, it's not likely the LT5 was pushed hard then... 7,500rpm? I don't think so. However, as long as the engine stays together(and I think it would), that rpm is attainable and it would make for a major help on the track. The ZR1 had 1 major drawback... Price.
Couldn't tell you as I really couldn't care any less. Who ever dumped more money into their car is most likely who is going to be faster in a strait line.
I'll toss this out there, "defending the Mustang power plants" is kinda easy here... Mustangs ran as good as 6.65 ET's in 2001, using the old 351 and a single turbo. I know of no LS powered F-body to reach that time even in 2011. Today, 4.6L's have run low 6's... It's not ricer math. It's blazing fast. NOTHING against the LS series... Really, I believe it's an AWESOME engine. My point is, we bash Ford at every turn around here and it's way past time we recognize they're not the junk some people say they are. While the LS is outstanding, it's not necessarily the greatest thing ever. It's nice to see great performance, but at this point, DOHC's are more than proven and I'd like to see GM follow the lead of, well, most other manufacturers.
Im not really sure what your getting at here...
As far as I know all the "LS" branded engine (1,2,3,4,6,7) are under 440lbs. The LS based "non-LS" engines like the LQ you mentioned is an iron block, so its roughly 80-90lbs heavier then the al. version - but still lighter than Ford's modular iron block engines
The 4.6L iron block SOHC was about 500 lb, but the aluminum DOHC is more like 425. The current 5L is about 440. Weight will vary depending on listings, including or excluding fluids, w/ w/o accessories, etc. The 5.4 was over 500, but in aluminum form, it's obviously much lighter. Ford said recently that they removed over 100 lb from the old version in the current GT500, which gets an aluminum engine.
Got any legitimate links/proof of any of this? There is so much BS spewed in the drag world, and so many lies you can't trust anyone anymore. I don't see it being unbelievable but I like to see proof of whats "stock" and whats modded.
The quickest 4.6L I've heard of has supposedly run a best of 6.19 at over 220mph... Using a factory production Ford block, crank and heads. I think you may find the inside info at accufab... Here's a link from an article about the car (a Cougar). http://50mustangsuperfords.automotiv...rid/index.html
Mind you, that's merely informational... This current 5L is looking far superior to that 4.6 and that's the only reason I'd bring up the 4.6L as any sort of benchmark. Sure, it's an excellent platform due ONLY(impo) to excellent longevity... But it's not my favorite by any means and I own one, though not in a Mustang. I actually intend to take it to the track soon, just to see what it runs. I'm hoping for 15's.
My interest was peaked by a wannabe street racer a few days ago.
How so? Are 4.8L parts cheaper? Any proof?
Oh jesus...
Just compare the engines as if you were building a kit car, and both of them are reliable. The whole point obviously is that hp/l is a useless comparison.
Just compare the engines as if you were building a kit car, and both of them are reliable. The whole point obviously is that hp/l is a useless comparison.
Then why did the LT5 make the same amount of power as the LS6?
That said, LT5's were seemingly nearing the 500rwhp mark back in the mid-90's and that can only be attributed to the 4v heads as far as I'm concerned. The mods list was relatively short, though I don't remember much about it anymore. We weren't talking about total rebuilds for most, put it that way. Good cams could take it a long way.
Much has been printed over the yrs, but I recall racing against a 199x ZR1 more than a couple times and seeing them in the 12's. I'm talking about back then, of course. The ZR1 then was a 3450+ lb car too, and I think the LS6 car is a tad lighter. Also, it's not likely the LT5 was pushed hard then... 7,500rpm? I don't think so. However, as long as the engine stays together(and I think it would), that rpm is attainable and it would make for a major help on the track. The ZR1 had 1 major drawback... Price.
03-12-2011, 08:37 AM
#60
TECH Senior Member
LT5 was made in 1990-1995, the LS6 in 2001, IIRC. I believe the LS6 has improved cylinder head design and possibly a better intake. Try comparing the LT1 to the LT5 of the same model years, that is a more accurate comparison, the LT1 made 300hp versus the LT5's 405 hp with the same cubic inches. Thanks for playing, I win again.
No thank you for playing, this is exactly what I wanted you to admit