An insult to ls1's! Wikipedia being biased!
11-07-2007, 09:27 AM
#121
On The Tree
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know I love Mustangs but can see my self buying a new Camaro if they do it right.
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.
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.
As for the Mach 1 having a better tq curve? I won't argue, but I doubt it. From 2k to 5.7k RPM's I'm putting down over 280wtq. That's a pretty nice power band.
For the Mustang fans that think the LS1 is outdated..well, the initial design itself IS outdated...but certainly not the parts and engineering. I see it this way...The Euro's couldn't figure it out, the Asians were initially just in over their head about this design..and the traitor American companies such as Ford just gave up, too. Seems the General is the only one that had the know how to advance the pushrod beyond the OHC designs. Everyone else took the easy way out, going to the head, valves, and of course adding RPM's and reducing stroke, as always. To me this is inferior, but not because the OHC motor is in any way less of a motor, but because the motor companies went from a great platform for the cars w/ those pushrod motors to a less tq platform requiring higher RPM's..and installing that newly designed motor into the same heavy vehicles which demanded the pushrod motor's tq. (Ford is guilty of this) Just imagine after GM has been reigning for 20 years straight on top of the WORLD of automotive performance(Already 9-10 years into it w/ the LS1, LS6, LS2, LS7, and now the LS3)..and then decides to combine the flow of the OHC design with the superior bottom end and small block performance of the LS series. The world will never be the same..
On another note..you never see F-Bodies and Y-Bodies swapping out their LS1's w/ Modular 4.6L..
yeah right..However.. you do see Mustang's doing LS swaps all the time. There's some food for thought. 
11-07-2007, 09:34 AM
#123
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...
Basically. Somebody put that on Wikipedia. As for the cobra R making more power, keep in mind that's a 5.4 (Ford has been on Enzyte, Lord knows they need it), and that motor is hardly comparable to an LS1 car considering the race-ready state of the car it came in. Cobra R motor is a better comparison to the LS6, and we know what wins that. Furthermore, as far as the Cobra motor being swapped into cars, it's FAR less common than LS1 swaps, and LS1Tech generally agrees the Cobra motor is well-built.
GM is NOT experimenting with DOHC V8s, thats BULLSHIT. We did that in the 90s with the ZR1, it's done now. The Northstar line is the OHC line, and the LS line is cam-in-block, and they're both staying seperate. We're experimenting with displacement on demand, variable valve timing, and direct injection V8s, however. Mod motors only have VVT. You'd think a OHC motor would be more 'high-tech,' but we've got the gadgets!
Also, if all else fails, y'all can contact wiki and tell them that LS1s aren't relevant to mod motors and that the ford fanboys need to remove the LS1 talk from their page. Wiki'll ban whoever is changing it back to say it's 'better' than the LS1. And before someone pulls that butthurt BS on me, I'm chuckling 'bout this whole thing, and everything I just typed represents my point of view regarding the facts and nothing more.
Oh, and furthermore, Ford must've finally realized the ladies weren't happy with their small size because they're doing this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Boss_engine
Last edited by IFRYRCE; 11-07-2007 at 09:50 AM.
11-07-2007, 09:46 AM
#125
Launching!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: upstate ny
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a really dumb comparison, oh and the ls1 makes more like 350hp and lets not forget about the ls6, which was also a 5.7L push rod that made 405hp.
I love this thread 
11-07-2007, 11:28 AM
#131
Launching!
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am gettin a good laugh out of caseypayne. i knew he was going to go into "protect the godly name of ford" mode, why i told him not to get butt hurt 2 pages ago.
11-07-2007, 11:47 AM
#132
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seem to be many angry replies here. Why bother? It's Wikipedia, for cryin' out loud.
And about the engines... The 4.6L is STILL on Ward's 10best and where's the LS1? Worse, both Ford AND Dodge have 2 "10 best" engines and GM has 0 on the list.
What's so dumb about it? The 2000 Cobra R was an animal, making roughly the same HP/TRQ as the 2000 ZO6 and was smaller in displacement. "Just the facts, ma'am!" 
Otherwise, this thread is cracking me up! I rarely post anymore(real busy), but this one is worth it without question!!!
And about the engines... The 4.6L is STILL on Ward's 10best and where's the LS1? Worse, both Ford AND Dodge have 2 "10 best" engines and GM has 0 on the list.
Originally Posted by 99RebelZ28
Thats a really dumb comparison, oh and the ls1 makes more like 350hp and lets not forget about the ls6, which was also a 5.7L push rod that made 405hp.
Otherwise, this thread is cracking me up! I rarely post anymore(real busy), but this one is worth it without question!!!
11-07-2007, 11:53 AM
#133
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Key West, FL / Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm under the impression that someone on Wikipedia has an editing bot that monitors that article. Anyway, Wikipedia isn't a credible source. It's robust and has merit when its backed with citations, but nothing can completely prevent subjectivity in their articles. Anybody with more than a braincell in their head should know this.
And anyone who makes their "Cobra or LS1" decision based on a Wikipedia article probably deserves to remain misinformed.
And anyone who makes their "Cobra or LS1" decision based on a Wikipedia article probably deserves to remain misinformed.
11-07-2007, 12:03 PM
#134
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Key West, FL / Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A cam swap for the LS1 would level the playing field, if not dominate it. I know we're comparing stock engines, but the Cobra R is an extremely limited production car.
11-07-2007, 12:08 PM
#135
TECH Senior Member
You know I love Mustangs but can see my self buying a new Camaro if they do it right.
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."
....
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.
http://www.ericohlsen.com/FBODY/CamaroDyno.jpg
Note its a '98, with the more restrictive intake...
If you search this forum you will see people dynoing as high as 320+hp bone stock to the wheels.
11-07-2007, 12:12 PM
#136
TECH Senior Member
For the Mustang fans that think the LS1 is outdated..well, the initial design itself IS outdated...but certainly not the parts and engineering. I see it this way...The Euro's couldn't figure it out, the Asians were initially just in over their head about this design..and the traitor American companies such as Ford just gave up, too. Seems the General is the only one that had the know how to advance the pushrod beyond the OHC designs. Everyone else took the easy way out, going to the head, valves, and of course adding RPM's and reducing stroke, as always. To me this is inferior, but not because the OHC motor is in any way less of a motor, but because the motor companies went from a great platform for the cars w/ those pushrod motors to a less tq platform requiring higher RPM's..and installing that newly designed motor into the same heavy vehicles which demanded the pushrod motor's tq. (Ford is guilty of this) Just imagine after GM has been reigning for 20 years straight on top of the WORLD of automotive performance(Already 9-10 years into it w/ the LS1, LS6, LS2, LS7, and now the LS3)..and then decides to combine the flow of the OHC design with the superior bottom end and small block performance of the LS series. The world will never be the same..
A lot of European and Japanese companies use OHC design because in their countries displacement is (moronically) taxed.
11-07-2007, 12:13 PM
#137
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it deserves the credit too, considering it is very heavy(about 3600 dry) and not very aerodynamic at all, not to overstress the 330c.i. N/A output creating near 385rwhp while stock. It too, was underrated, as evidenced by 12's at that weight.
11-07-2007, 12:43 PM
#138
TECH Senior Member
What's so dumb about it? The 2000 Cobra R was an animal, making roughly the same HP/TRQ as the 2000 ZO6 and was smaller in displacement. "Just the facts, ma'am!"
Otherwise, this thread is cracking me up! I rarely post anymore(real busy), but this one is worth it without question!!!
Otherwise, this thread is cracking me up! I rarely post anymore(real busy), but this one is worth it without question!!!
Still wanna play the stupid numbers game? Ok lets run a scenario.
You're building a kit car for racing, you have two engine choices.
1.) '01 LS6 (385hp/385ft.lbs) <400lbs, physically smaller
2.) '00 5.4L (385hp/385ft.lbs) 500lbs, physically bigger
For simplicity the engines are staying stock, which would you put in your kit car? Can you see now displacement does NOT matter? Its pure ricer math, if you want to compare hp/l, do it with an RC car. Its engine must be very much superior with all that hp/l, but why don't they power cars?
11-07-2007, 12:50 PM
#140
Staging Lane
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is too funny. I understand the whole opinion/wikipedia is BS. For God's sake though, who F*** is really stock anymore? I mean, this may have some credibility if I were to go to the used car lot to pick out my race car for the evening...
I am a fan of ALL domestic muscle cars. I love Mustang's, F, and Y- Bodies! Now, let's all hold hands, F'in give each other some hugs, and go egg some fartcan-toasterbox's house. It's all in the healing process....
I am a fan of ALL domestic muscle cars. I love Mustang's, F, and Y- Bodies! Now, let's all hold hands, F'in give each other some hugs, and go egg some fartcan-toasterbox's house. It's all in the healing process....