An insult to ls1's! Wikipedia being biased!
11-07-2007, 01:43 AM
#102
i am not mad, i can't stop smiling actually. this editing thing is kinda funny
under 4.6
"The Modular DOHC was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 1996, while the SOHC was on the list for 2005 and again for 2006. But it still does not compare to GM's superior LS1, nor will it ever."
lol
SN-95 2 Modular (1999-2001*)
A rear bumper that reads "COBRA", instead of "MUSTANG", as the 1999 Cobra had. But no one has ever seen the rear bumper
under 4.6
"The Modular DOHC was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 1996, while the SOHC was on the list for 2005 and again for 2006. But it still does not compare to GM's superior LS1, nor will it ever."
lol
SN-95 2 Modular (1999-2001*)
A rear bumper that reads "COBRA", instead of "MUSTANG", as the 1999 Cobra had. But no one has ever seen the rear bumper
.+1 this is all in the point of good humor and pointing out the obvious.
11-07-2007, 07:30 AM
#104
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't even begin to compare a F/I setup and a N/A setup. Mustang or Camaro guys who do that are just beating a dead horse...no pun intended. N/A for N/A though with the 4.6 and there is no contest. Let's just stick to that until the LS9 is on the streets and then we can prove to them with concrete numbers that they are mistaken.
11-07-2007, 07:53 AM
#106
TECH Senior Member
I love pushrods but don't get me wrong. DOHC > Pushrod 2v
2000 Cobra R 5.4L DOHC = 385 hp
LS1 5.7L Push Rod = 310 hp
But to make you happy I'm sure the 2002 LS1 Camaro's had 325 hp easy and underrated.
Per cubic inch the DOHC setup will give you more hp over a pushrod, because hp is a measure of efficiency. Torq on the other hand is measured in cubic inches. Though as we can see with the 2004 Mach 1 4.6 L 4v with 330 lbs of torq. It sure isn't hurting it either.
2000 Cobra R 5.4L DOHC = 385 hp
LS1 5.7L Push Rod = 310 hp
But to make you happy I'm sure the 2002 LS1 Camaro's had 325 hp easy and underrated.
Per cubic inch the DOHC setup will give you more hp over a pushrod, because hp is a measure of efficiency. Torq on the other hand is measured in cubic inches. Though as we can see with the 2004 Mach 1 4.6 L 4v with 330 lbs of torq. It sure isn't hurting it either.
Well back to the real world, the LS1 makes 310-320 to the wheels, and has 350hp/375ft.lbs to the fly.
Again in the real world, peak hp and displacement are really meaningless, try comparing figures that matter like weight, physical size, and the torque curve. The LS1 is physically smaller, lighter and has a higher torque curve than the ford 4.6L. Tell me, if the 4.6L is so mighty, why the hell are guys swapping LSx's into fox body mustangs? What about Miatas, RX7s, WRX, EVOs, Skylines, 240SXs, BMWs, kit cars, and old school muscle? Yep thats right, all LS1 swaps... Why not 4.6L swaps? Could have something to do with the fact that the 4.6L is a friggen huge boat anchor...
Last edited by JD_AMG; 11-07-2007 at 08:01 AM.
11-07-2007, 08:20 AM
#107
On The Tree
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoken like a true fanboy...
Well back to the real world, the LS1 makes 310-320 to the wheels, and has 350hp/375ft.lbs to the fly.
Again in the real world, peak hp and displacement are really meaningless, try comparing figures that matter like weight, physical size, and the torque curve. The LS1 is physically smaller, lighter and has a higher torque curve than the ford 4.6L. Tell me, if the 4.6L is so mighty, why the hell are guys swapping LSx's into fox body mustangs? What about Miatas, RX7s, WRX, EVOs, Skylines, 240SXs, BMWs, kit cars, and old school muscle? Yep thats right, all LS1 swaps... Why not 4.6L swaps? Could have something to do with the fact that the 4.6L is a friggen huge boat anchor...
Well back to the real world, the LS1 makes 310-320 to the wheels, and has 350hp/375ft.lbs to the fly.
Again in the real world, peak hp and displacement are really meaningless, try comparing figures that matter like weight, physical size, and the torque curve. The LS1 is physically smaller, lighter and has a higher torque curve than the ford 4.6L. Tell me, if the 4.6L is so mighty, why the hell are guys swapping LSx's into fox body mustangs? What about Miatas, RX7s, WRX, EVOs, Skylines, 240SXs, BMWs, kit cars, and old school muscle? Yep thats right, all LS1 swaps... Why not 4.6L swaps? Could have something to do with the fact that the 4.6L is a friggen huge boat anchor...
11-07-2007, 08:25 AM
#108
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Western Kentucky
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummmm you do know that the SLP Z28 (aka SS) has the same motor as the Z28 depending on year with or without the LS6 intake.
2003/2004 Cobra with 3 extra cams 16 extra valves AND a blower to finally over come a pushrod 346 small block. Oh and can't forget that mustangs usually come with more aggressive rear end gears as well.
The one thing that irks me with GM is that the Fbodies were not their flagship cars unlike Ford with their Mustang (excluding Ford GT), the Vette is. The Vette gets all the attention while the Fbods get restricted.
2003/2004 Cobra with 3 extra cams 16 extra valves AND a blower to finally over come a pushrod 346 small block. Oh and can't forget that mustangs usually come with more aggressive rear end gears as well.
The one thing that irks me with GM is that the Fbodies were not their flagship cars unlike Ford with their Mustang (excluding Ford GT), the Vette is. The Vette gets all the attention while the Fbods get restricted.
I wanted a 2002 z28 for a while. But got over it when the 2005 GT's rolled around. I'm waiting on 2014 when its the 50th Anniv. of the Stang. You know they will have a nice ride out that year. So I'm saving.
11-07-2007, 08:26 AM
#109
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Western Kentucky
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-07-2007, 08:57 AM
#113
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Western Kentucky
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoken like a true fanboy...
Well back to the real world, the LS1 makes 310-320 to the wheels, and has 350hp/375ft.lbs to the fly.
Again in the real world, peak hp and displacement are really meaningless, try comparing figures that matter like weight, physical size, and the torque curve. The LS1 is physically smaller, lighter and has a higher torque curve than the ford 4.6L. Tell me, if the 4.6L is so mighty, why the hell are guys swapping LSx's into fox body mustangs? What about Miatas, RX7s, WRX, EVOs, Skylines, 240SXs, BMWs, kit cars, and old school muscle? Yep thats right, all LS1 swaps... Why not 4.6L swaps? Could have something to do with the fact that the 4.6L is a friggen huge boat anchor...
Well back to the real world, the LS1 makes 310-320 to the wheels, and has 350hp/375ft.lbs to the fly.
Again in the real world, peak hp and displacement are really meaningless, try comparing figures that matter like weight, physical size, and the torque curve. The LS1 is physically smaller, lighter and has a higher torque curve than the ford 4.6L. Tell me, if the 4.6L is so mighty, why the hell are guys swapping LSx's into fox body mustangs? What about Miatas, RX7s, WRX, EVOs, Skylines, 240SXs, BMWs, kit cars, and old school muscle? Yep thats right, all LS1 swaps... Why not 4.6L swaps? Could have something to do with the fact that the 4.6L is a friggen huge boat anchor...
Here's one of millions of articles of why the Mustang killed the Camaro off.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...01/pageId=5979
"So the Camaro has the muscle, but the Mustang typically has more grace. So what happens when the road gets twisty? To find out, we took these cars to Willow Springs Raceway along with the other sport coupes. The Vegas betting line (you can bet on anything in Vegas, right?) favored the Mustang. Because of its lowered suspension, Tokico shocks and subframe connectors, the Bullitt is arguably the best handling Mustang for 2001. And yes, we're including the SVT Cobra."
"Now things get tricky. When asked which car they liked better on the track, our editors favored the Mustang. Why? It's certainly more fun to drive. It is more controlled, and it feels better connected to the pavement through its steering and suspension. The Camaro certainly has the ability to handle; it's just that it doesn't communicate well and therefore the driver has to just trust that the big 245/50R16 tires are doing their job properly."
"Taken off the racetrack and placed on public roads, the Mustang continues to hold the advantage in ride quality and stability (though neither car is able to match the nimble feel provided by the Celica or the RSX). The Camaro, in particular, feels like a ham-fisted lout when asked to thread its way over tight canyon roads. The Mustang is more maneuverable."
"In terms of refinement, the Mustang is clearly better than the Camaro. It's interior, while still no match against cars like the RSX or GTI, isn't so obviously low-grade like the Camaro's."
"Looking at the final rankings reveals a landslide victory for the Mustang Bullitt GT. Despite being slower and more expensive (two adjectives that no sport coupe will ever want to be associated with), our editors unanimously picked the Mustang over the Camaro for what they would personally buy and what they would recommend to consumers. The Chevy is fun to punt around in for a few days, and Lord knows it's fast. But it's too unwieldy, too boisterous and not something you want to make a long-term commitment to. Wondering why the Mustang outsells the Camaro (and its Firebird sibling) almost three to one? Now you know."
....
But I know we are talking about the motors. Yea, the motor in the z28 was a detuned version of what was in the Corvette. Yea, it weighed less then the Modular engines. So what. The 2002 Camaro z28 out weighs every Mustang GT every modular Mustang ever built. So there is no point in that agrument.
Having a bit of trouble this morning finding graphics to compare since I'm in a hurry. If you find a graphic of the 2005 GT vs 2002 z28 or vs 2004 mach 1. The torq curve reaches higher rpm's. Which to me equals just a better built motor. I can't remember it maybe something like z28 at max torq at 4k while the mach 1 is maxed at 4.5k. I'm not sure.
11-07-2007, 08:59 AM
#114
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Western Kentucky
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-07-2007, 09:09 AM
#115
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Indianapolis Indiana
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well i wasn't awake for the vette comment.. deleted. As far as comparing F-bod to mustang... sure the mustang has a better looking interior... its smaller. Sure the mustang GT coupe weighs a smidgen less at around 3300 lbs compared to average f-bod at 3500... the GT itself is severely underpowered i've driven several of them. I've driven a 2001 cobra... that was a PIG compared to an f-bod. I can't compare it to my car since mine is not stock however my cousin's SS is pretty much bone stock and it would absolutely rape that 2001 cobra as well as the SEVERAL 2003-2004 GT's i drove.
