LS1 Envy

</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> oh crap i think i will waste some more of ur time. if thats ok. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> the 331 and the 347 are still under powered. but ford is take some steps forward. i also think they are much harder to work on. and if u really want to pay that kinda money to get that kinda rwhp. u go right ahead. i would much rather have the old pushrod 302 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A 331 and a 347 are a stroked pushrod 302 engine. Maybe you are thinking of the modular engine, which are a 4.6L (289 ci) and the 5.4L (330 ci). But this whole post is about 302 based engine, just a stroked one to either a 331 or a 347.

Josh

DONAIMIAN

iTrader: (18)

The point thats some are trying to make comparing the mod motors to the LS1 are that theyre both the manufactuers latest engine. I still dont see any point in even trying to compare the 5.0 to the LS1. The LS1 is still a new engine compared to how long the 302 and derivative engines have been out. If the LS1 engines are that caught up technology wise something is wrong. I know the 5.0 is faster than the LS1, it should be in every way more powerful. But also comparing the 302 and the LS1 is apples to oranges, if you want to compare it to GM compare it to the SBC. Now another way you can think of it is comparing it technology wise and in my eyes the 5.0 is still with the SBC and the mod motor compares to the LT5. I dont mean to start any more spiled milk over this, but thats just my opinion <img border="0" alt="[driving]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_driving3.gif" />

BurnOut

iTrader: (1)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>And just for your information we had a COMPLETELY stock 03 cobra on our dyno at work and it laid down 403 rwhp and 397 rwtq with 65 less c.i than the z-06 your comparing the lightening to. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And at least double the boost. Just for fun you wanna double the boost on that Z06/Mgnacharger car??

Besides, if Ford's latest technology is so great, why is it that people are always pointing out that the Ford motors are smaller?? The technology should make up for the lack of displacement, right?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Besides, no one forced Ford to make small motors. They chose to do so, and the end result is that they got thoroughly stomped in the HP wars so they artificially increased displacement by boosting their motors. I don't have a problem with that, but let's compare apples to apples here; given that all other things are equal, an FI motor will put out more power/torque than an N/A motor the instant that it (the force fed motor) sees any positive manifold pressure (actually slightly lower than that, but let's not split hairs). Why's that?? Because the FI motor will, at that instant, be at AT LEAST 100% efficiency, something that even the trickest of N/A motors often struggle to do.

This is like saying that a MkIV Supra on 22 pounds of boost will lay down more power than that '03 Cobra you mentioned. Well no ****. It's on more boost. The '03 Cobra motor on 12 psi is moving as much air as a 510 inch motor at 100% efficiency (okay, so it's not exact, but it's in the ball park; one bar (14.7 psi) of boost essentially doubles the amount of air that the motor would be moving at 100% efficiency). Yeah, there's some drag from operating the blower, but we're talking rough figures here.

danimal95

iTrader: (2)

thanks for the support guys!I was'nt responding to this post to put down the ls-1,nor did I do so I just wanted to make the point that with similarly headed,and modded cars will have roughly the same result.Once again thanks for your support on this subject <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

BurnOut

iTrader: (1)

Once again, we have strayed from comparing apples to apples to comparing apples to oranges.

If you want to look at Ford's competition for the SBC, look at the Windsor motors.

If you want to look at Ford's competition for the LS1, look at the mod motors.

It is my opinion that Ford is WAAAAAYYY behind in (recent) N/A engine development. Even with a (factory) blower, they can't compare to an LSx motor with a blower.

Look at the Magnacharger (read: Eaton blower, just like Ford uses) kit for the 'Vettes. Between 5 and 6 pounds of boost, and over 400 RWHP/RWTQ. I have personally witnessed an otherwise stock (read: stock manifolds, stock cat-back, stock heads, stock cam; STOCK) Z06 with the Magnacharger kit lay down ~435 RWHP/RWTQ. Compare that to a Lightning motor, and you'll see what I am talking about. You may argue that the Lightning has a smaller motor (all of ~18 ci) and an automatic, but also remember that it is running at least double the boost that the Magnacharger/LS6 combo is.

Sure, we can argue factory vs. aftermarket, but the point is that if both engines are set up pretty closely, the General is going to come out ahead.

Just my $.02; take it for what it's worth...

QUASAR

iTrader: (6)

Cant someone just put an LS6 in a notch and call it a day? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

30mpg, smog legal, 10 sec slips <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

horist

What do I think of Ford N/A Engine Development?

Simple... they found they couldn't compete with the LS1 so what do they do to the Cobra? Supercharge it.

They're doing the same thing to Jaguars... build a crappy motor, supercharge it, walla high HP numbers


Does ford even invest any money into N/A anymore? Or are they just going to use the same 4.6L motor, add forged internals and supercharge it (or the same 5.4L motor and supercharge it)

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

351W stroked to 420ci motor, 11.5:1 compression, carbed, with a roller cam...

89 Mustang at 3000 raceweight goes 10.2@135mph on pump gas. Sounds pretty similar to a 422ci LS1 motor to me.

Is it really fair to compare a 5.0 (4.000 bore x 3.000 stroke) to a bigger motor like the LS1?

I'm not much up on the new Mach1s' are they fast?

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 BurnOut:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>And just for your information we had a COMPLETELY stock 03 cobra on our dyno at work and it laid down 403 rwhp and 397 rwtq with 65 less c.i than the z-06 your comparing the lightening to. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And at least double the boost. Just for fun you wanna double the boost on that Z06/Mgnacharger car??

Besides, if Ford's latest technology is so great, why is it that people are always pointing out that the Ford motors are smaller?? The technology should make up for the lack of displacement, right?? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Besides, no one forced Ford to make small motors. They chose to do so, and the end result is that they got thoroughly stomped in the HP wars so they artificially increased displacement by boosting their motors. I don't have a problem with that, but let's compare apples to apples here; given that all other things are equal, an FI motor will put out more power/torque than an N/A motor the instant that it (the force fed motor) sees any positive manifold pressure (actually slightly lower than that, but let's not split hairs). Why's that?? Because the FI motor will, at that instant, be at AT LEAST 100% efficiency, something that even the trickest of N/A motors often struggle to do.

This is like saying that a MkIV Supra on 22 pounds of boost will lay down more power than that '03 Cobra you mentioned. Well no ****. It's on more boost. The '03 Cobra motor on 12 psi is moving as much air as a 510 inch motor at 100% efficiency (okay, so it's not exact, but it's in the ball park; one bar (14.7 psi) of boost essentially doubles the amount of air that the motor would be moving at 100% efficiency). Yeah, there's some drag from operating the blower, but we're talking rough figures here. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

HP-GURU

For the ford guys who point out their motor is "smaller", point out the fact that it is PHYSICALLY larger due to being DOHC.

Juggernaut

iTrader: (1)

Don't get me wrong here, I am a huge Chevy & LS1 fan but I am also a realist. To say that Ford cannot build an engine to compete with the LS1 is ridiculous, eventhough they haven't this time around. It is widely believed in most parts of the industry that the OHC is a better design than the pushrod design anyway.
The basic reason that the modular motors are in the s**thole is because of low displacement...I mean 281 vs. 346, geez its a wonder they can even get out of the driveway. And to answer the question of technology overcoming displacement, there is NO replacement for displacement! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

erikd93lx

I think for was retarted to put a 4.6 in the mustang personally. Its not a bad motor at all, but if you're trying to compete with an LS1, a 4.6 just doesn't cut it. I don't know how familiar you all are with a 4.6, but the bore is tiny, and it has a long stroke. If they would have made the block 1-2 inches longer, and used a 4" bore rather than the 3" or whatever it is, the same basic design could be a serious motor. Just my opinion on the 4.6. Actually, my friend is building a 4.6 right now that should be putting out about 450 crank horses, its gonna be stroked and its a 2V. I can't wait to see how that compares to an LS1, or even my 331!

DailyAluminumBlock

My question is if they could have made the motor bigger why didn't they. It's not like they couldn't do it according to most hear so why not. Remember the cobra r with its 5.4 litre 32valver. That motor is physically enormous so they had to cowl the hood to make it fit. Is that the reason they didn't do it? I know that if I was an engineer in the ford power train development I would seek better outcomes then they have.

Fact is they tried to be slick by creating a motor that creates equal power to their target comp which is GM's gen III with more technology and less cubic inches. Fact is they failed miserably and at the same time created a motor that doesn't run as clean either. Where are all the bolt on 11second mustang cobra 32valve cars at, and blowered 03s don't count. I only know of Bob Cosby that has achieved this. Look at the fastest bolt ons ls1 list. How many 11second time slips are in there, a ton. Yes I know that the ls1 has a cubic inch advantage but the mod motors have a technology advantage (or at least they are supposed to). That is simply Ford's choice to go that route.

As far as the 302. I'm quite sure that there are some impressive combos based off of them but as said before they have been around for a very long time as has the SBC and there are some quite impressive SBCs also. Lets see what ls1s are doing in this time. Remember, these heads and cam cars are making this kind of power (ls1s) with very restrictive 270-280 cfm intake manifolds (ls6). Will see what happens when a couple of different intake manifolds are out on the market for this motor besides the rediculously expensive sheet metal intakes for nothing but top end gain.

Cheers <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cheers.gif" />

<small>[ February 19, 2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: DailyAluminumBlock ]</small>

JPR

A couple comments and opinions.
Bottom line, the LSx based production engines ARE the best in the world hands down, and have earned more than a couple citations from JDPowertrain for "best innovative design from Detroit ever" back in 1997 Now that says alot, I think it's a subtle enough motor to drop in the Caddies? would you agree?

Yes, LSx through cats, and up to a 224 duration cam (that I know of personally) you can get 420 RWH emmission legal HP out of them.

GM incorperated ram pulse technology to the LSx motors succesfully into the forefront of cutting edge and stepped up the VE due largely to the intake manifold/intake runner design to become a seemingly "no ceiling" power house barring any component breakage. Ford really never figured out how to harness RJPT even back when they were screwing with there "turn about manifold" with 26" runner lengths <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> .

All modern performance Fords MUST run 4 to 6 catalitic converters just to meet OEM Fed emmissions standards in STOCK form, LS1's use 2 and burn cleaner stock vs stock.

I have worked on a few sets of OHV Cobra heads with the Vac actuated "butterfly" bar thingies that activate the second set of intake runners I must say... that is such a basterdised way of mixing low end TQ with top end HP! even when the heads HAVE been ported, they don't respond like the LSx based heads do ie adding up to 50+ RWH improvement. I know there is a CID difference but 2+2 still dosen't =4 even after being Diablow edited, it's off by a bit. Anyway, no more Ford bashing, I owned 4 Mustangs in the past 1966-67-69-87 and a Ford PU truck and I was never really happy with the rudementary designs and Technology for the day but, that WAS state-of-the-art back then. Us Chevy chest thumpers X Iroc/GTA owners are still licking our wounds from the *** whooping we all took at the track when in the Mid to late eightys the Mustang FI 5 liter first hit the market at 225 Hp and put a hurtin on us at the track and on the street! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> Revenge? .. Grand Nationals! I think the TPI motor is GM's red headed step child motor that nobody wants to talk about <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="gr_sad.gif" /> Oh, and lets not forget "ceace fire fuel rejection" motors that debuet on the late seventy to early eighty Vettes at a whopping overrated 240 horse? more like 195-200 when they decided to run, but who's counting. just my opinions. Have fun with them guys, all the brands, cause Dodge is supposed to be comming out with some Hemi Charger that should be awesome! it's all good now that NOS and blowers are more abundant. BTW.. What's the topic again?

Joe.

<small>[ February 19, 2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: JPR ]</small>

cobrakilla

i hate to add fuel to the fire. i have owned 3 stangs in the past,and now own my first Z. i love the LS1 engine and probably never own another Mustang. not because they are not capable of producing power, just because i want to try something different. for all the people who posted that ford engines cant make power, that is the dumbest thing i have heard. this guy named Jobe Spetter ripped of high 7s to low 8s on a 306ci ford engine on 10.5 tires about 3years ago. that was common then for mustangs then. now they are dipping into high-mid 6s on lager c.i. engines. my point is any engine can make the power, you just need to know how to do it. and dont be quick to judge the 4.6 dohc engine, there are a few of them running low 8s or high 7s....and they are fairly new as the LS1 in age.

DailyAluminumBlock

Those running 8s and 7s, are they NA.

HP-GURU

This post was not about how fast a power adder can get down the 1/4, it was about commonality of high HP N/A setups. Power adders not need apply

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

Back when we had our first regional F-Body vs Mustang shootout, the winner was an 86 GT with a 347ci stroker and a stock T5 and 3.73's... I think he goes by CoolBlue on the forums. He went 11.6@116mph with no problem at all in a very clean car that was not gutted. I was in 11.75 trim back then but traction problems slowed me down to 11.9's.

I think a 400rwhp 347ci is very possible but not a 400rwhp 302ci it would be high compression and more of race engine that would not run on pump gas.

Skelton

Billy Glidden was getting 866 hp N/A out of his 388 cube nitrous motor 4-5 yrs ago . I'm sure the N/A fords all out are still close to 1k or more these days. Yates heads, 16-1's, sheet metal intake, 2-4's, I'm sure 1k hp is easy enough. Ford guys dont care much about efi N/A except in cheap build ups for drivers. The racers go all out with carbs or run efi with power adders. The big thing with 331-347 motors these days is meeting california emission laws and making over 400 hp.

HP-GURU

Its been proven that 750-950HP can be made out of small blocks time and time again, doesn't matter the make.

The C5R head should allow for power in the 700-850 N/A range to be made on the LS1 platform.

There are some heads out for ford which flow better than the old Yates, should allow for almost 1000HP out of a small block.