An insult to ls1's! Wikipedia being biased!
11-07-2007, 01:34 PM
#143
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a couple of thoughts! okay, i don't think that a car should only be judged by how it is in stock form, it should be equally judged on how well it responds to moderate modifications: As far as stock, the camaro ss will out run a 2001 cobra, with equal drivers. Mod both of the cars equally, and the camaro will beat the 01 cobra by even more! BUT, i have to give props to the terminator cobras. Stock vs Stock, its a drivers race between and 02 Camaro SS with very light modding, and a stock 03/04 cobra, but with equal amount of $ put into both cars, the terminator will KILL the camaro, assuming equal driving abilities.....
11-07-2007, 02:10 PM
#145
11 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brooklyn Center, MN
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait, the 4.6 better than the LS1. Come on. At most you might get 450 hp out of the Mustang's 4.6. And that's pushing it. The LS1 has gone over 550 to 600 hp and that's N/A. The only way a Ford will do that is with forced induction. The LSX give a person sooooo much more potential than the 4.6L Ford.
11-07-2007, 02:13 PM
#146
Despite being smaller in size and lower in compression, the 4.6L DOHC Cobra engine still made similar power to GM's LS1 engine, equipped in the Camaro Z28, SS, and the Pontiac Trans Am. While the SVT engine was of superior design to its' foreign competition, it was still lacking in power output and reasonably priced/easily done power upgrades (such as head and cam swaps) when compared to the GM Third Generation Small Block V8, which includes the LS1.
11-07-2007, 02:19 PM
#147
11 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brooklyn Center, MN
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and this is B.S. I had a friend with an 03 Cobra. We would race on the street and at the track. I'd beat him every time. Both our cars were stock. He had a manual also. I have the time slip to prove also. He ran a 11.94 and I ran a 11.39. Thats 1000 ft keep in mind. Would always beat him by at least a car everytime we raced. Didn't matter if it was from a dig or roll. Oh, and the Mustang can't even match the top end power the LS1 produces.
11-07-2007, 02:20 PM
#148
11 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brooklyn Center, MN
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the SVT engine was of superior design to its' foreign competition, it was still lacking in power output and reasonably priced/easily done power upgrades (such as head and cam swaps) when compared to the GM Third Generation Small Block V8, which includes the LS1.
11-07-2007, 02:27 PM
#150
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Western Kentucky
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I'm coming off as a F-body hater. Which isn't the case, I wanted one but can't get over the ugly dashes and exterior. Plus, the Mustang has a HUGE exterior aftermarket to play with. I'm watching for 2009 and 2014 as far as Camaro's and Stangs are concerned. I used to want a Terminator, but don't know if I want the same interior thats in my 96 GT. For me the real reason people drop LS1's in cars and not Modulars is of two reasons. Modulars probably don't fit in small areas like the LS's and LS's are cheaper to buy and build, while the modulars weigh 80 lbs or so more.
I wanted a 99 Corvette & 94 Viper for some time, but got over paying 25k to 33k for 5 to 8 year old cars.
I wanted a 99 Corvette & 94 Viper for some time, but got over paying 25k to 33k for 5 to 8 year old cars.
11-07-2007, 02:34 PM
#152
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.
11-07-2007, 02:35 PM
#154
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Indianapolis Indiana
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and this is B.S. I had a friend with an 03 Cobra. We would race on the street and at the track. I'd beat him every time. Both our cars were stock. He had a manual also. I have the time slip to prove also. He ran a 11.94 and I ran a 11.39. Thats 1000 ft keep in mind. Would always beat him by at least a car everytime we raced. Didn't matter if it was from a dig or roll. Oh, and the Mustang can't even match the top end power the LS1 produces.
11-07-2007, 03:23 PM
#158
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-07-2007, 03:24 PM
#159
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok let me sum this up:
-Stock LS1 beats out 4.6 in after market form.
-LS6 is further proof Ford should be ashamed it only amassed 320hp at the flywheel.
-Finally, some liberal media wannabes are just going to keep spewing BS to cover up for their insecurities by posting unfounded opinions, and "name call" the competition rather than use a more educated approach.
BTW the full potential of a push rod engine has still not been tapped - what good would it do to move on to a new platform, saving a buck by creating cruder components, and spinning an engine through the roof to get numbers that look good on paper for a daily driver is pure nonsense.
-Stock LS1 beats out 4.6 in after market form.
-LS6 is further proof Ford should be ashamed it only amassed 320hp at the flywheel.
-Finally, some liberal media wannabes are just going to keep spewing BS to cover up for their insecurities by posting unfounded opinions, and "name call" the competition rather than use a more educated approach.
BTW the full potential of a push rod engine has still not been tapped - what good would it do to move on to a new platform, saving a buck by creating cruder components, and spinning an engine through the roof to get numbers that look good on paper for a daily driver is pure nonsense.
11-07-2007, 03:26 PM
#160
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4k in H/C/I < 4k in supercharger....sure...FI is major bang for the buck, but how long will it stay together?
Of course comparing N/A to FI isn't really the same arguement, and it's not even close to comparing apples to apples - So it's a tad irrelevant.
Of course comparing N/A to FI isn't really the same arguement, and it's not even close to comparing apples to apples - So it's a tad irrelevant.