danimal95

iTrader: (2)

]Wrong, iron headed small cammed 347 will not put out same rwhp as modded LS1. Not even close,you better look around here awhile before you come out with statements like that. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Right,I work on these cars for a living and have built more than 1 347 combo that would be right next to a modded ls-1 You'd better know who your talking to before you make statments like that.

DailyAluminumBlock

Ls1s with rods hanging out, more so then fords. Maybe you should talk to some of my mustang buddies and tell them what they are doing wrong. I personally have never seen an NA 302 based motor (including stokers) that has performed impressively that runs on pump gas. That doesn't mean they are not out there but just that I haven't seen one and that includes some 2800 pound cars.

LS1derfull

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by danimal95:
<strong> ]Wrong, iron headed small cammed 347 will not put out same rwhp as modded LS1. Not even close,you better look around here awhile before you come out with statements like that. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Right,I work on these cars for a living and have built more than 1 347 combo that would be right next to a modded ls-1 You'd better know who your talking to before you make statments like that. [/QB][/QUOTE]


You are saying 331"to 347" 5.0 based motor with slug iron heads and emission cam is making 370 to 420 rwhp? You are a professional glue sniffer! <img border="0" alt="[bullshit]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_bs.gif" />

<small>[ February 16, 2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: LS1derfull ]</small>

LS1derfull

Iron heads, even GT40's flow around 190cfm and 125cfm on exhaust, do you care to tell us what emission cam and iron head your talking about that makes 370+ rwhp? Stock 5.0 put out about 180 rwhp! B <img border="0" alt="[worship]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_hail.gif" /> oy a stroker crank must be magical in one of these motors!

LS1derfull

Oh and ill take my prozac and relax when you stop telling us that its ludicrous to think your shitty 347" Ford cant keep up with our FASTER THAN A MACH1 Fbodys! HA! <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" />

SScam68

iTrader: (20)

This is definitely the wrong place to post something like that. I saw the shiat flying before anybody posted.

To begin with I believe the poster was comparing pushrod engines, not overhead cammed engines.

From what I have seen the OHC/DOHC aftermarket is not very big at all and its developing slowly. Stock vs Stock the LS1 heads outflow Fords pushrod or OHC/DOHC heads. As a result you can see pretty significant gains from just a cam swap as compared to a 281 or 5.0 stock heads. You really can't compare modified to modified heads because they can be manipulated to suit different needs. You can see this in compeition heads where constraints limit lift, i.e. 300+cfm @ .5" and thats a figure from a Ford head.

As far as displacment and power, well a 281 can be setup to closely match a stock LS1 power curves BUT when it comes to pushing the envelope of both engines on a street setup, your gonna see how those 65 extra cubes are going keep you ahead of the game.

If you want to compare apples to apples, LT5 Vs Modular. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

GeorgeC

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DailyAluminumBlock:
<strong>I personally have never seen an NA 302 based motor (including stokers) that has performed impressively that runs on pump gas. That doesn't mean they are not out there but just that I haven't seen one and that includes some 2800 pound cars. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What's your definition of "impressive?"

Fenris Ulf

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by danimal95:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> The LS1 stuff will just continue to get better and better. Ford only seems to have any chance on the street with power adders. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Apparently you have'nt meet up with any well thought out and well built 347 combos <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bring it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

There must be a whole bunch of stock cube mustangs running mid 10s in daily driven cars huh?

DailyAluminumBlock

Impressive equals low 12s to high elevens.

Jonezy

I don't really want in this war, but I saw a bone stock 02 Z bust a 00 Ford Lightning by at least 3 cars so don't come on here saying that the highly overated Ligtning motor is worth a crap.

LS1derfull

Well i just dont want this new guy thinking its safe for him to come on here and tell us how fast n/a mustangs are, this aint the right place!
He thinks i dont know anything about Fords he is dead wrong, and i noticed he has no response to my questions.

hondakiller

iTrader: (3)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jonezy:
<strong> I don't really want in this war, but I saw a bone stock 02 Z bust a 00 Ford Lightning by at least 3 cars so don't come on here saying that the highly overated Ligtning motor is worth a crap. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the fact that the lightning is a truck weighing nearly 4800lbs has NOTHING to do with it losing either.

niphilli

This thread is <img border="0" alt="[bullshit]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_bs.gif" />

<img border="0" alt="[punch]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_punch.gif" /> It out over at LS1.com

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

I know danimal95 and I he's clicked off low 11's with his 347 T5 setup, very very stout.

Mustangs have like a billion options when it comes to intakes and cylinder heads, I think we'd all pick up big power if there were intakes out there that worked for our cars.

jleews6

iTrader: (2)

niphilli I guess alot of these guys havnt seen one of my "slap together" mustangs have they. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

danimal95

iTrader: (2)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by danimal95:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Fenris Ulf:
<strong> The LS1 stuff will just continue to get better and better. Ford only seems to have any chance on the street with power adders. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Apparently you have'nt meet up with any well thought out and well built 347 combos <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bring it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

There must be a whole bunch of stock cube mustangs running mid 10s in daily driven cars huh? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As soon as it gets warm out we'll line em up!And yes there are a bunch of mid 10 sec mustangs running on pump gas,whens the last time you flipped through a mustang mag?

LS1derfull

Well what iron heads and emission cam making 370 to 420 rwhp? Im waiting? I knew you were full of ****! <img border="0" alt="[bang head]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_banghead.gif" />

DONAIMIAN

iTrader: (18)

I dont mean to throw more **** into the fan but the lil comment that you said about numerous 302 based engines running 8's then driving home and then about 2 LS1's running 8's and not driving home. Look at the time thats been available. The LS1 has only been out since 97, and nobody really cared till 98 when they could get it in a cheaper car (f-body) so in short you could really say the LS1 came out in 98. Then look how long that 302 has been out. The ford guys had more than 20 years to tinker with theyre lil motor before the LS1 came out, and now that it is out, theyre about at the same bar or higher than the 302 research development and advancement wise. And then when you think about it the 302 in no way can even compare to the LS1. Again apples and oranges. The 302 compares to the SBC, and the LS1 compares to the modular engins. Why are the 302's still a big thing, because the 4.6L motors cant compare, and from the look of it the 5.0 is too. Im in no way picking sides, but I am pointing out the facts. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="gr_images/icons/mad.gif" />

Malicious

iTrader: (1)

Local gentleman has a 93 cobra, no weight reduction, had a 347 stroker with a t5 and went low 11's on motor and 10.40's on a lil juice... that car held together bette rthan anything I've seen. He's since gone to an auto and a bigger stroker motor, but the arguement that fords can't do that with a heavy 5.0 block is stupid. Plus another gentleman here has a 93 lx coupe with a 306 and went 11.70's with a VERY mild cam and head work. It's there, trust me <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

GeorgeC

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DailyAluminumBlock:
<strong> Impressive equals low 12s to high elevens. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A local friend of mine has a '92 hatchback car with a mild 347cid stroker, 10:1, TFS heads, hyd. roller cam, GT40 intake, basic stuff (big throttle body, MAF, headers), T5 tranny, and 4.10 gears. The PCM is totally 100% stock, and the car is most definately not tuned to it's full potential. It's had some weight removed, but is by no means gutted.

Two weeks ago I personally drove the car to an 11.51 @ 117mph the first time I'd ever been behind the wheel. I was pretty impressed, considering his entire motor probably cost less than my heads/cam. For what he paid for the complete assembled shortblock, I could buy an LS1 stroker crank and a Happy Meal at McDonalds. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

I love my car, I think it's pretty dang quick, but LS1's aren't the only game in town. Personally, I was quite impressed with that mid-11 second ride. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />