What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development?
02-17-2003, 04:30 PM
#41
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? My point is that the 347/gt40 intaked motor was no where putting out any thing close to 400rwhp.
These intakes shut down at 5500 on a 302 and even earlier on a 347 because of long runner length.
The point is there are not many 331-347 based strokers putting out the 400rwtq+ which shows the high efficiency of the combo, and a great majority are well under 400rwhp.
The mustangs turn good times because they are usually very lightweight.
These intakes shut down at 5500 on a 302 and even earlier on a 347 because of long runner length.
The point is there are not many 331-347 based strokers putting out the 400rwtq+ which shows the high efficiency of the combo, and a great majority are well under 400rwhp.
The mustangs turn good times because they are usually very lightweight.
02-17-2003, 05:46 PM
#42
TECH Addict
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by HP-GURU:
<strong> My point is that the 347/gt40 intaked motor was no where putting out any thing close to 400rwhp.
These intakes shut down at 5500 on a 302 and even earlier on a 347 because of long runner length.
The point is there are not many 331-347 based strokers putting out the 400rwtq+ which shows the high efficiency of the combo, and a great majority are well under 400rwhp.
The mustangs turn good times because they are usually very lightweight. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very well put, i know Fords are fast in many instances. I am sorry to get down to a name calling level, i am not usually a jerk.
I have been brought up around Ford vs. Chevy vs. Mopar battle my whole life and I am very passionate and emotional about my favorite. I know im not the only one out there like this. I forget there are a lot of "recovering mustang" owners on this board who have switched to F-bodys and Vettes. I am not one of them. I am extremely competitive and i study the competition, someone comes on here and claims stroker 5.0 with iron factory heads and emission cam makes same power as modded LS1 with similar mods and i jump all over this. I have built Fords and been involved in projects. I dont believe this statement to be true, so i call b.s. I want to know more facts about his claim, with no response from him.
I respect most fast cars that are no adder because they take the most expertise and directly reflect the planning and execution of the engine builder. I also have trouble with this guy knocking GM engineering for not using OHC or DOHC
on Fbodys. I think it shows there engineering strength, no blowers and highest output with in block cam. Lower cost, easier maintenance and mod friendly, LS1 runs cleaner too, thats why they dont have to run 4 cats. like ford does too!
<strong> My point is that the 347/gt40 intaked motor was no where putting out any thing close to 400rwhp.
These intakes shut down at 5500 on a 302 and even earlier on a 347 because of long runner length.
The point is there are not many 331-347 based strokers putting out the 400rwtq+ which shows the high efficiency of the combo, and a great majority are well under 400rwhp.
The mustangs turn good times because they are usually very lightweight. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very well put, i know Fords are fast in many instances. I am sorry to get down to a name calling level, i am not usually a jerk.
I have been brought up around Ford vs. Chevy vs. Mopar battle my whole life and I am very passionate and emotional about my favorite. I know im not the only one out there like this. I forget there are a lot of "recovering mustang" owners on this board who have switched to F-bodys and Vettes. I am not one of them. I am extremely competitive and i study the competition, someone comes on here and claims stroker 5.0 with iron factory heads and emission cam makes same power as modded LS1 with similar mods and i jump all over this. I have built Fords and been involved in projects. I dont believe this statement to be true, so i call b.s. I want to know more facts about his claim, with no response from him.
I respect most fast cars that are no adder because they take the most expertise and directly reflect the planning and execution of the engine builder. I also have trouble with this guy knocking GM engineering for not using OHC or DOHC
on Fbodys. I think it shows there engineering strength, no blowers and highest output with in block cam. Lower cost, easier maintenance and mod friendly, LS1 runs cleaner too, thats why they dont have to run 4 cats. like ford does too!
02-17-2003, 06:35 PM
#43
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? LS1derful, wonderfully put. I am not in the middle of the ford/mopar/chevy debate.
I love the technology. You have to appreciate what the general has done with the LS1.
I am just pointing out the fact, that N/A ford development is quite far behind. It is not like someone cannot put the combo's together, because I am very sure that LS1-like N/A numbers can come from the ford.
With the LS1 it is harder to get it wrong. You have the heads from the start, and the good porters/programs are pulling high low lift flow and 280-300cfm@.500". You have the LS6 intake which seems to do well up to around the 450-500rwhp mark N/A. The work is done and most of the combinations are well known.
There are not as many examples on the Ford side and I would like to see Ford guys not having to rely on blowers to take on the LS1.
I love the technology. You have to appreciate what the general has done with the LS1.
I am just pointing out the fact, that N/A ford development is quite far behind. It is not like someone cannot put the combo's together, because I am very sure that LS1-like N/A numbers can come from the ford.
With the LS1 it is harder to get it wrong. You have the heads from the start, and the good porters/programs are pulling high low lift flow and 280-300cfm@.500". You have the LS6 intake which seems to do well up to around the 450-500rwhp mark N/A. The work is done and most of the combinations are well known.
There are not as many examples on the Ford side and I would like to see Ford guys not having to rely on blowers to take on the LS1.
02-17-2003, 07:38 PM
#44
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: northern illinios
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by LS1derfull:
<strong> 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" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">By a modded ls-1 I ment cam headers ect.not a fully ported head job.I never dyno'd my car with the mods I am about to list but I assume that the weight of my car 3550 and the mph it ran 118.7 on a nitto it would have been right around the hp listed,347 out of the box canfields,don't remember the cam specs,but it was an emissions legal cam,followed by all the other bolt ons.and no tuning.As far as me being full of **** because I did'nt resopnd to your post as soon as you would have liked,we all don't have time to stair at a computer screen 24\7.just to prove my point my car last year driven every day 100 mile round trip to work(weather permitting)dyno'd 415hp and 422 ft/lbs on pump gas and after a cam & intake change this winter should be in the 440-460 hp range as far as being full of **** ,the only thing full of that around here is that toilet you call a mouth.
<small>[ February 17, 2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: danimal95 ]</small>
<strong> 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" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">By a modded ls-1 I ment cam headers ect.not a fully ported head job.I never dyno'd my car with the mods I am about to list but I assume that the weight of my car 3550 and the mph it ran 118.7 on a nitto it would have been right around the hp listed,347 out of the box canfields,don't remember the cam specs,but it was an emissions legal cam,followed by all the other bolt ons.and no tuning.As far as me being full of **** because I did'nt resopnd to your post as soon as you would have liked,we all don't have time to stair at a computer screen 24\7.just to prove my point my car last year driven every day 100 mile round trip to work(weather permitting)dyno'd 415hp and 422 ft/lbs on pump gas and after a cam & intake change this winter should be in the 440-460 hp range as far as being full of **** ,the only thing full of that around here is that toilet you call a mouth.
<small>[ February 17, 2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: danimal95 ]</small>
02-17-2003, 07:43 PM
#45
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: northern illinios
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by LS1derfull:
<strong> 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" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also I have seen several iron dart,or windsor sr.headed 347 make these #'s.And how from the original post does it go from 340-370 hp to 370-420?I don't ever remember saying An iron headed emission cammed 347 would make 420 hp
<strong> 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" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also I have seen several iron dart,or windsor sr.headed 347 make these #'s.And how from the original post does it go from 340-370 hp to 370-420?I don't ever remember saying An iron headed emission cammed 347 would make 420 hp
02-17-2003, 08:00 PM
#46
TECH Addict
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? Aluminum Canfields are not iron oem type heads and you know it, you said similar power to ls1 with better heads that sounds like both motors are modded with head work. I said 370 to 420 rwhp because thats what power modded LS1 is making these days. You cant remember your smog legal cam specs? Your car weighs 3500+ lbs? Come on i still call B.S.
02-17-2003, 08:12 PM
#47
TECH Addict
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by LS1derfull:
<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 HP-GURU:
<strong> My point is that the 347/gt40 intaked motor was no where putting out any thing close to 400rwhp.
These intakes shut down at 5500 on a 302 and even earlier on a 347 because of long runner length.
The point is there are not many 331-347 based strokers putting out the 400rwtq+ which shows the high efficiency of the combo, and a great majority are well under 400rwhp.
The mustangs turn good times because they are usually very lightweight. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very well put, i know Fords are fast in many instances. I am sorry to get down to a name calling level, i am not usually a jerk.
I have been brought up around Ford vs. Chevy vs. Mopar battle my whole life and I am very passionate and emotional about my favorite. I know im not the only one out there like this. I forget there are a lot of "recovering mustang" owners on this board who have switched to F-bodys and Vettes. I am not one of them. I am extremely competitive and i study the competition, someone comes on here and claims stroker 5.0 with iron factory heads and emission cam makes same power as modded LS1 with similar mods and i jump all over this. I have built Fords and been involved in projects. I dont believe this statement to be true, so i call b.s. I want to know more facts about his claim, with no response from him.
I respect most fast cars that are no adder because they take the most expertise and directly reflect the planning and execution of the engine builder. I also have trouble with this guy knocking GM engineering for not using OHC or DOHC
on Fbodys. I think it shows there engineering strength, no blowers and highest output with in block cam. Lower cost, easier maintenance and mod friendly, LS1 runs cleaner too, thats why they dont have to run 4 cats. like ford does too! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please read this because its as close to a apoplogy as you are going to get for my foul mouth. i still think you are wrong about Rear wheel hp claims. I dont forget specs as easily as you, thats not a smog cam making 400+ ft. lbs of torque in your motor.
<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 HP-GURU:
<strong> My point is that the 347/gt40 intaked motor was no where putting out any thing close to 400rwhp.
These intakes shut down at 5500 on a 302 and even earlier on a 347 because of long runner length.
The point is there are not many 331-347 based strokers putting out the 400rwtq+ which shows the high efficiency of the combo, and a great majority are well under 400rwhp.
The mustangs turn good times because they are usually very lightweight. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very well put, i know Fords are fast in many instances. I am sorry to get down to a name calling level, i am not usually a jerk.
I have been brought up around Ford vs. Chevy vs. Mopar battle my whole life and I am very passionate and emotional about my favorite. I know im not the only one out there like this. I forget there are a lot of "recovering mustang" owners on this board who have switched to F-bodys and Vettes. I am not one of them. I am extremely competitive and i study the competition, someone comes on here and claims stroker 5.0 with iron factory heads and emission cam makes same power as modded LS1 with similar mods and i jump all over this. I have built Fords and been involved in projects. I dont believe this statement to be true, so i call b.s. I want to know more facts about his claim, with no response from him.
I respect most fast cars that are no adder because they take the most expertise and directly reflect the planning and execution of the engine builder. I also have trouble with this guy knocking GM engineering for not using OHC or DOHC
on Fbodys. I think it shows there engineering strength, no blowers and highest output with in block cam. Lower cost, easier maintenance and mod friendly, LS1 runs cleaner too, thats why they dont have to run 4 cats. like ford does too! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please read this because its as close to a apoplogy as you are going to get for my foul mouth. i still think you are wrong about Rear wheel hp claims. I dont forget specs as easily as you, thats not a smog cam making 400+ ft. lbs of torque in your motor.
02-17-2003, 08:35 PM
#48
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: northern illinios
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by LS1derfull:
<strong> Aluminum Canfields are not iron oem type heads and you know it, you said similar power to ls1 with better heads that sounds like both motors are modded with head work. I said 370 to 420 rwhp because thats what power modded LS1 is making these days. You cant remember your smog legal cam specs? Your car weighs 3500+ lbs? Come on i still call B.S. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never stated oem style heads,when I stated better heads I was meaning the ls-1 has better heads from the factory than most aftermarket sbf heads,the original post stated 340-370 hp lets stay within the realm of what a cammed ls-1 can do,and the cam I was referring to was in my car over 4 years ago so no I don't remember,and I have a full weight 95 cobra and yes it does weigh 3550 lbs,you need to stop putting words in my mouth and get your tunnel vision looked at.
<strong> Aluminum Canfields are not iron oem type heads and you know it, you said similar power to ls1 with better heads that sounds like both motors are modded with head work. I said 370 to 420 rwhp because thats what power modded LS1 is making these days. You cant remember your smog legal cam specs? Your car weighs 3500+ lbs? Come on i still call B.S. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never stated oem style heads,when I stated better heads I was meaning the ls-1 has better heads from the factory than most aftermarket sbf heads,the original post stated 340-370 hp lets stay within the realm of what a cammed ls-1 can do,and the cam I was referring to was in my car over 4 years ago so no I don't remember,and I have a full weight 95 cobra and yes it does weigh 3550 lbs,you need to stop putting words in my mouth and get your tunnel vision looked at.
02-17-2003, 08:37 PM
#49
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? I think the LS1 could hit 400rwtq with a "smog" cam in the range of 218-224@.050", I'm sure it has occured on many occasions.
I think for this discussion, that aftermarket heads such as the TFS TW, Canfield, AFR make for legitimate comparision against ported head LS1.
I'm saying look at the frequency at which these events occur.
Dennis
I think for this discussion, that aftermarket heads such as the TFS TW, Canfield, AFR make for legitimate comparision against ported head LS1.
I'm saying look at the frequency at which these events occur.
Dennis
02-17-2003, 08:53 PM
#50
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: northern illinios
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by LS1derfull:
<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 LS1derfull:
<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 HP-GURU:
<strong> My point is that the 347/gt40 intaked motor was no where putting out any thing close to 400rwhp.
These intakes shut down at 5500 on a 302 and even earlier on a 347 because of long runner length.
The point is there are not many 331-347 based strokers putting out the 400rwtq+ which shows the high efficiency of the combo, and a great majority are well under 400rwhp.
The mustangs turn good times because they are usually very lightweight. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very well put, i know Fords are fast in many instances. I am sorry to get down to a name calling level, i am not usually a jerk.
I have been brought up around Ford vs. Chevy vs. Mopar battle my whole life and I am very passionate and emotional about my favorite. I know im not the only one out there like this. I forget there are a lot of "recovering mustang" owners on this board who have switched to F-bodys and Vettes. I am not one of them. I am extremely competitive and i study the competition, someone comes on here and claims stroker 5.0 with iron factory heads and emission cam makes same power as modded LS1 with similar mods and i jump all over this. I have built Fords and been involved in projects. I dont believe this statement to be true, so i call b.s. I want to know more facts about his claim, with no response from him.
I respect most fast cars that are no adder because they take the most expertise and directly reflect the planning and execution of the engine builder. I also have trouble with this guy knocking GM engineering for not using OHC or DOHC
on Fbodys. I think it shows there engineering strength, no blowers and highest output with in block cam. Lower cost, easier maintenance and mod friendly, LS1 runs cleaner too, thats why they dont have to run 4 cats. like ford does too! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please read this because its as close to a apoplogy as you are going to get for my foul mouth. i still think you are wrong about Rear wheel hp claims. I dont forget specs as easily as you, thats not a smog cam making 400+ ft. lbs of torque in your motor. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your right there is not a smog cam in my car at this point if you would have read my post closer you would have seen that I stated my original combo was emission legal,I don't see to many ls-1 's with smog cams on our dyno at work making 370 hp either,at no point did I knock gm of not going the ohc,dohc route,if there was ever a gm that could convert me it would be the ls-1 but thats not gonna happen,more because of the reason that I like the looks of my cobra better than whose badge is on the front of the car.If you need more proof of the power made by 347 n/a motors go to muscle mustangs and fast fords websight and do a search you'll have all the proof you need.I am begining to think that the originator of this post and most of the people that responded to it did'nt want any opinions he just wanted everyone to agree with him,I'm not looking for an apology,Ijust really have a hard time beleiving how narrow minded everyone is.Since I have been into cars I have met alot of "ford" or "chevy" guys but they all had respect for anything that hauled *** even if it was brand X,I hope this post doesnt represent the majority of f-body guys
<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 LS1derfull:
<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 HP-GURU:
<strong> My point is that the 347/gt40 intaked motor was no where putting out any thing close to 400rwhp.
These intakes shut down at 5500 on a 302 and even earlier on a 347 because of long runner length.
The point is there are not many 331-347 based strokers putting out the 400rwtq+ which shows the high efficiency of the combo, and a great majority are well under 400rwhp.
The mustangs turn good times because they are usually very lightweight. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Very well put, i know Fords are fast in many instances. I am sorry to get down to a name calling level, i am not usually a jerk.
I have been brought up around Ford vs. Chevy vs. Mopar battle my whole life and I am very passionate and emotional about my favorite. I know im not the only one out there like this. I forget there are a lot of "recovering mustang" owners on this board who have switched to F-bodys and Vettes. I am not one of them. I am extremely competitive and i study the competition, someone comes on here and claims stroker 5.0 with iron factory heads and emission cam makes same power as modded LS1 with similar mods and i jump all over this. I have built Fords and been involved in projects. I dont believe this statement to be true, so i call b.s. I want to know more facts about his claim, with no response from him.
I respect most fast cars that are no adder because they take the most expertise and directly reflect the planning and execution of the engine builder. I also have trouble with this guy knocking GM engineering for not using OHC or DOHC
on Fbodys. I think it shows there engineering strength, no blowers and highest output with in block cam. Lower cost, easier maintenance and mod friendly, LS1 runs cleaner too, thats why they dont have to run 4 cats. like ford does too! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please read this because its as close to a apoplogy as you are going to get for my foul mouth. i still think you are wrong about Rear wheel hp claims. I dont forget specs as easily as you, thats not a smog cam making 400+ ft. lbs of torque in your motor. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your right there is not a smog cam in my car at this point if you would have read my post closer you would have seen that I stated my original combo was emission legal,I don't see to many ls-1 's with smog cams on our dyno at work making 370 hp either,at no point did I knock gm of not going the ohc,dohc route,if there was ever a gm that could convert me it would be the ls-1 but thats not gonna happen,more because of the reason that I like the looks of my cobra better than whose badge is on the front of the car.If you need more proof of the power made by 347 n/a motors go to muscle mustangs and fast fords websight and do a search you'll have all the proof you need.I am begining to think that the originator of this post and most of the people that responded to it did'nt want any opinions he just wanted everyone to agree with him,I'm not looking for an apology,Ijust really have a hard time beleiving how narrow minded everyone is.Since I have been into cars I have met alot of "ford" or "chevy" guys but they all had respect for anything that hauled *** even if it was brand X,I hope this post doesnt represent the majority of f-body guys
02-17-2003, 08:58 PM
#51
On The Tree
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: greenville, ohio
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Y2K2LS1:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by danimal95:
[qb] you must have over looked fords release of the mach-1 which is only 281 c.i. n/a and is running stock ls-1 times and mph
well i read muscle mustangs and fast fords. what u ford guys over look is that the heads have been polished and ported for better flow. also they uped the compression to 10.0:1. not to mention the exhuast manifolds where ported and polished also. so i would say the engine is max out n/a. <img border="0" alt="[shoot]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_guns.gif" />
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by danimal95:
[qb] you must have over looked fords release of the mach-1 which is only 281 c.i. n/a and is running stock ls-1 times and mph
well i read muscle mustangs and fast fords. what u ford guys over look is that the heads have been polished and ported for better flow. also they uped the compression to 10.0:1. not to mention the exhuast manifolds where ported and polished also. so i would say the engine is max out n/a. <img border="0" alt="[shoot]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_guns.gif" />
02-17-2003, 09:01 PM
#52
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: northern illinios
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by HP-GURU:
<strong> I think the LS1 could hit 400rwtq with a "smog" cam in the range of 218-224@.050", I'm sure it has occured on many occasions.
I think for this discussion, that aftermarket heads such as the TFS TW, Canfield, AFR make for legitimate comparision against ported head LS1.
I'm saying look at the frequency at which these events occur.
Dennis </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Like I stated previously I work on these cars for a living and it is possible for the cam you mentioned to make 400 but it does'nt happen that often and it would require a set of heads that were really worked,and i agree with head comparison comment,as far as the frequency of occurance is it possible you think this because you are more in touch with the ls-1 world as opposed to the mustang world?i am a frequent visitor on all the mustang boards and it is quite frequent to see n/a 400+ hp 347's.
<strong> I think the LS1 could hit 400rwtq with a "smog" cam in the range of 218-224@.050", I'm sure it has occured on many occasions.
I think for this discussion, that aftermarket heads such as the TFS TW, Canfield, AFR make for legitimate comparision against ported head LS1.
I'm saying look at the frequency at which these events occur.
Dennis </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Like I stated previously I work on these cars for a living and it is possible for the cam you mentioned to make 400 but it does'nt happen that often and it would require a set of heads that were really worked,and i agree with head comparison comment,as far as the frequency of occurance is it possible you think this because you are more in touch with the ls-1 world as opposed to the mustang world?i am a frequent visitor on all the mustang boards and it is quite frequent to see n/a 400+ hp 347's.
02-17-2003, 09:13 PM
#53
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: northern illinios
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by rocketsled:
<strong> [QUOTE]Originally posted by Y2K2LS1:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by danimal95:
[qb] you must have over looked fords release of the mach-1 which is only 281 c.i. n/a and is running stock ls-1 times and mph
well i read muscle mustangs and fast fords. what u ford guys over look is that the heads have been polished and ported for better flow. also they uped the compression to 10.0:1. not to mention the exhuast manifolds where ported and polished also. so i would say the engine is max out n/a. <img border="0" alt="[shoot]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_guns.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not calling you a liar either I missed the part in the article or misread it but I dont recall them saying anthing about ported and polished heads,or manifolds and what compression is a stock ls-1?I'm pretty sure it's 10 or 10.2 and I really don't think the engine is maxed out n/a what about cams,intake,filter,throttle body,a set of well ported heads,headers and I could go on and on these cars will respond to the same bolt ons as any other motor ever made.
<strong> [QUOTE]Originally posted by Y2K2LS1:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by danimal95:
[qb] you must have over looked fords release of the mach-1 which is only 281 c.i. n/a and is running stock ls-1 times and mph
well i read muscle mustangs and fast fords. what u ford guys over look is that the heads have been polished and ported for better flow. also they uped the compression to 10.0:1. not to mention the exhuast manifolds where ported and polished also. so i would say the engine is max out n/a. <img border="0" alt="[shoot]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_guns.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not calling you a liar either I missed the part in the article or misread it but I dont recall them saying anthing about ported and polished heads,or manifolds and what compression is a stock ls-1?I'm pretty sure it's 10 or 10.2 and I really don't think the engine is maxed out n/a what about cams,intake,filter,throttle body,a set of well ported heads,headers and I could go on and on these cars will respond to the same bolt ons as any other motor ever made.
02-17-2003, 09:16 PM
#54
On The Tree
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: greenville, ohio
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? well read it again. i have the artical right in front of me. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> i can see headers
making a differance. but i don't see a huge gain. that and they would have to be ported to match. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
<small>[ February 17, 2003, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: rocketsled ]</small>
making a differance. but i don't see a huge gain. that and they would have to be ported to match. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
<small>[ February 17, 2003, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: rocketsled ]</small>
02-17-2003, 09:34 PM
#55
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: northern illinios
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by rocketsled:
<strong> well read it again. i have the artical right in front of me. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">unfortunatly I dont have that copy readily available at this point so ill take your word for it,even so it is far from maxed out
<strong> well read it again. i have the artical right in front of me. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">unfortunatly I dont have that copy readily available at this point so ill take your word for it,even so it is far from maxed out
02-17-2003, 09:44 PM
#56
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: northern illinios
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by rocketsled:
<strong> well read it again. i have the artical right in front of me. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> i can see headers
making a differance. but i don't see a huge gain. that and they would have to be ported to match. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As would any headers on any car,what do the basic laws of physics only apply on gm made vehicles?No matter who manufactures the motor all of your typical bolt on and internal mods will have a positive affect on the hp levels of a motor if installed correctly.When have you ever seen a huge gain in a header only install and what do you consider huge?
<strong> well read it again. i have the artical right in front of me. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> i can see headers
making a differance. but i don't see a huge gain. that and they would have to be ported to match. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As would any headers on any car,what do the basic laws of physics only apply on gm made vehicles?No matter who manufactures the motor all of your typical bolt on and internal mods will have a positive affect on the hp levels of a motor if installed correctly.When have you ever seen a huge gain in a header only install and what do you consider huge?
02-17-2003, 09:55 PM
#57
On The Tree
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: greenville, ohio
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? i don't know u tell me. a hugh gain to me is about 20 to 30 hp. because i went form a flowmaster to slp's loud mouth my car went from 305 to the wheels to 330. and the car is all stock.
02-17-2003, 10:06 PM
#58
Banned
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: northern illinios
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by rocketsled:
<strong> i don't know u tell me. a hugh gain to me is about 20 to 30 hp. because i went form a flowmaster to slp's loud mouth my car went from 305 to the wheels to 330. and the car is all stock. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you even know what headers are?You talking about cat back exhaust systems.And when you go from the least power producing(flomaster)exhaust for an f-body to a basically open exhuast(loud mouth) yeah I suppose you could expect those kinds of gains.I didnt respond to this post to talk about cat back exhaust or the mach 1 specifically,I was merely using that car as an example,so if you dont have anything to offer to this discussion on comparative hp #'s on the ls1 to a 347 I'd imagine there is a dicussion somewhere on cat back exhaust yopu should be attending.
<strong> i don't know u tell me. a hugh gain to me is about 20 to 30 hp. because i went form a flowmaster to slp's loud mouth my car went from 305 to the wheels to 330. and the car is all stock. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you even know what headers are?You talking about cat back exhaust systems.And when you go from the least power producing(flomaster)exhaust for an f-body to a basically open exhuast(loud mouth) yeah I suppose you could expect those kinds of gains.I didnt respond to this post to talk about cat back exhaust or the mach 1 specifically,I was merely using that car as an example,so if you dont have anything to offer to this discussion on comparative hp #'s on the ls1 to a 347 I'd imagine there is a dicussion somewhere on cat back exhaust yopu should be attending.
02-17-2003, 10:14 PM
#59
On The Tree
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: greenville, ohio
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? well with slp headers i can gain anther 41hp. the cat-back is all i've done to mine. do u think that mach 1 can produce that kinda gain? i don't think so. i'm not trying to **** u off here. don't forget about that lt5 in the zl1 vette. 410 hp. with out mods.
<small>[ February 17, 2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: rocketsled ]</small>
<small>[ February 17, 2003, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: rocketsled ]</small>
02-17-2003, 10:15 PM
#60
FormerVendor
Re: What do you think of N/A Ford Engine development? I will respond to the original post, since this has got WAY off topic.
Of 331-347 cubic inch strokers.
"My thoughts are that there are too many of these fully built combo's that fall really short of the type of bar the LS1 has put up.
Built right, these cars could put down similar numbers in similar RPM ranges."
----I would say that since there are alot more 331-347 inch strokers out there than heads/cam LS1's, than your success/failure rate will always favor the LS1 since you are starting out with more base HP, and there aren't the same amount of cars for comparison. I would say alot of fully built combo's of every make fall short of there potential.-----
"I remember when the bar for LS1 was 400rwhp, then 420, then 440 and now it appears to be in the 450-470rwhp range for hydraulic cammed, street cars that don't need to rev to 7000 rpm to make their power. The rwtq is phenominal too, looks like the really good combos are in the 400-430rwtq range. This is a true testiment to the EFFICIENCY of these combos."
----The current output of a heads/cam LS1 is VERY good. As for the 450-470rwhp cars I've seen, they DO need to spin 7k+ in order to make there power. Nothing wrong with that, but I havn't seen any hydraulic cammed 470rwhp LS1's peaking at 6,200.---
"Most of these ford 331-347's are putting down around 350-370rwhp and 350-370rwtq. This is a far cry from the current LS1 development."
---You're probably right. But just because most people aren't building them right, doesn't mean that there is no N/A ford engine development. I don't see you using bottom of the barrel LS1 cars for your comparison. A properly built 347 with good heads/cam should make similar power to an LS1, if built to make peak HP at the same RPM. In fact, I can't think of a cylinder head that more closely resembles an LS1, than that of a small block ford.----
"On that side they are saying you guys spend ALOT of money to get the type of power.
My thoughts are is it costs in the $4000-$7000 range.
Heck some of the shops such as LG or MTI should put out ford packages for the ford guys so they can get a taste of real N/A power. "
The LS1 cars are comparitavely expensive, but that's no suprise given how long they have been around.
Your original question is about N/A Ford engine development. But then you bring up examples of 347's. As someone else stated, that engine should be compared to the SBC, as it's architechture is from the same era.
You can't really compare a SBF to an LS1 in terms of N/A development, because the LS1 had the latest technology in 1997. Just because we can do heads/cam and bolt-ons and make outrageous horsepower doesn't mean we're ahead of the game with engine development. It means that GM's LS1 is ahead of Fords small block in terms of engine development, and it should be considering it's 30+ years newer.
If you really want to know about naturally aspirated Ford development, look no further than the ohc modular motors. They will not have the capability to make the same streetable horsepower, in the same RPM band as an LS1 due to a serious lack of cubic inches, but they really shine with forced induction.
And before I hear any "give us 32 valves" or "give us a blower" remarks, remember that those comments are really irrelevant, because that's NOT THE WAY IT IS!
Fords are 4.6l, making power with 4 valves per cyl and overhead cams, and in some cases boost.
LS1's are 5.7l, naturally aspirated.
If all the variables between both engines were equalled out, than obviously both engines would be identical and there would be no debate.
JMHO <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
-Jim
<small>[ February 17, 2003, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: INTMD8 ]</small>
Of 331-347 cubic inch strokers.
"My thoughts are that there are too many of these fully built combo's that fall really short of the type of bar the LS1 has put up.
Built right, these cars could put down similar numbers in similar RPM ranges."
----I would say that since there are alot more 331-347 inch strokers out there than heads/cam LS1's, than your success/failure rate will always favor the LS1 since you are starting out with more base HP, and there aren't the same amount of cars for comparison. I would say alot of fully built combo's of every make fall short of there potential.-----
"I remember when the bar for LS1 was 400rwhp, then 420, then 440 and now it appears to be in the 450-470rwhp range for hydraulic cammed, street cars that don't need to rev to 7000 rpm to make their power. The rwtq is phenominal too, looks like the really good combos are in the 400-430rwtq range. This is a true testiment to the EFFICIENCY of these combos."
----The current output of a heads/cam LS1 is VERY good. As for the 450-470rwhp cars I've seen, they DO need to spin 7k+ in order to make there power. Nothing wrong with that, but I havn't seen any hydraulic cammed 470rwhp LS1's peaking at 6,200.---
"Most of these ford 331-347's are putting down around 350-370rwhp and 350-370rwtq. This is a far cry from the current LS1 development."
---You're probably right. But just because most people aren't building them right, doesn't mean that there is no N/A ford engine development. I don't see you using bottom of the barrel LS1 cars for your comparison. A properly built 347 with good heads/cam should make similar power to an LS1, if built to make peak HP at the same RPM. In fact, I can't think of a cylinder head that more closely resembles an LS1, than that of a small block ford.----
"On that side they are saying you guys spend ALOT of money to get the type of power.
My thoughts are is it costs in the $4000-$7000 range.
Heck some of the shops such as LG or MTI should put out ford packages for the ford guys so they can get a taste of real N/A power. "
The LS1 cars are comparitavely expensive, but that's no suprise given how long they have been around.
Your original question is about N/A Ford engine development. But then you bring up examples of 347's. As someone else stated, that engine should be compared to the SBC, as it's architechture is from the same era.
You can't really compare a SBF to an LS1 in terms of N/A development, because the LS1 had the latest technology in 1997. Just because we can do heads/cam and bolt-ons and make outrageous horsepower doesn't mean we're ahead of the game with engine development. It means that GM's LS1 is ahead of Fords small block in terms of engine development, and it should be considering it's 30+ years newer.
If you really want to know about naturally aspirated Ford development, look no further than the ohc modular motors. They will not have the capability to make the same streetable horsepower, in the same RPM band as an LS1 due to a serious lack of cubic inches, but they really shine with forced induction.
And before I hear any "give us 32 valves" or "give us a blower" remarks, remember that those comments are really irrelevant, because that's NOT THE WAY IT IS!
Fords are 4.6l, making power with 4 valves per cyl and overhead cams, and in some cases boost.
LS1's are 5.7l, naturally aspirated.
If all the variables between both engines were equalled out, than obviously both engines would be identical and there would be no debate.
JMHO <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
-Jim
<small>[ February 17, 2003, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: INTMD8 ]</small>