BS thread - 2011 GT 11.80's @ 118 with bolt ons
05-09-2010, 08:58 PM
#183
13 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: baton rouge
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the date the 2011s mustangs are going to be for sale to the public? I am a gm guy all the way but i think ford did a helluva job on it. I can't wait till they hit the road and the myths can be sorted out.
05-10-2010, 02:13 AM
#184
Teching In
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Nashville / Indianapolis
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I will be down there again this year. You will have to let me know what car you will be taking so I can look for it. You wont be able to miss my bright *** yellow one though lol
05-10-2010, 06:18 AM
#185
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-10-2010, 06:39 AM
#186
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what people mean is, this is the first GT that has given GM any comp stock vs stock. Ford has been making mustangs faster than a lot of the LSx based GM cars for awhile.
Back in 2002, on the car lot, a 2002 Z28 also cost about 5k more than the GT did as well. (I am talking about actual sale off the lot) So it's of no surprise to me that a GT that Ford has out, that is in the same price range as the Camaro, is just as fast or faster than it.
Back in 2002, on the car lot, a 2002 Z28 also cost about 5k more than the GT did as well. (I am talking about actual sale off the lot) So it's of no surprise to me that a GT that Ford has out, that is in the same price range as the Camaro, is just as fast or faster than it.
05-10-2010, 06:47 AM
#187
05-10-2010, 06:51 AM
#188
A dig is the only chance i would have if any. I cant remember what numbers he puts down but i know its in the 4xx's and he weighs less i would assume. Maybe he will have a car load of people with him and ill catch him by surprise lol.
05-10-2010, 07:24 AM
#189
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went looking for a low mileage V8 RWD car. I love 2002 WS6s btw. I'd still love to have one... Anyhow, All the LS1 Fbodies that were below 15k in miles went from $16k and up. Near mint ones went for even more. I found a 02 GT with 8k miles on it, near mint for 11k.
Now, I know you can buy a LS1 based fbody for under 10k. But it certainly wont have less than 15k miles on it. And it will be well worn.
I didn't want that. My car isn't a race car. It's just a basic daily driver. I'll eventually mod it and make it faster, but it's not the most important thing to me. And the 4.6 modular is a very dependable engine.
05-10-2010, 07:53 AM
#190
Actually around 23,000. Around here I couldn't get a Z28 that was similar in trim for less than $25-28k. I was actually looking at both these cars in 2002. I never did buy either one because the company I worked for went under. I ended up getting a 4banger economy car. Fast forward to 2009. I still wanted one of these cars.. etc
I went looking for a low mileage V8 RWD car. I love 2002 WS6s btw. I'd still love to have one... Anyhow, All the LS1 Fbodies that were below 15k in miles went from $16k and up. Near mint ones went for even more. I found a 02 GT with 8k miles on it, near mint for 11k.
Now, I know you can buy a LS1 based fbody for under 10k. But it certainly wont have less than 15k miles on it. And it will be well worn.
I didn't want that. My car isn't a race car. It's just a basic daily driver. I'll eventually mod it and make it faster, but it's not the most important thing to me. And the 4.6 modular is a very dependable engine.
I went looking for a low mileage V8 RWD car. I love 2002 WS6s btw. I'd still love to have one... Anyhow, All the LS1 Fbodies that were below 15k in miles went from $16k and up. Near mint ones went for even more. I found a 02 GT with 8k miles on it, near mint for 11k.
Now, I know you can buy a LS1 based fbody for under 10k. But it certainly wont have less than 15k miles on it. And it will be well worn.
I didn't want that. My car isn't a race car. It's just a basic daily driver. I'll eventually mod it and make it faster, but it's not the most important thing to me. And the 4.6 modular is a very dependable engine.
For the used ones, the prices are coming down hard, but like you said, the mileage will be up there for anything under 10K most of the the time. 11K for an 8 thousand mile GT sounds like a good buy to me.
05-10-2010, 08:06 AM
#191
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-10-2010, 08:46 AM
#192
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 18013
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ponygt65, you really just don't get it.
I dont know how many times I can explain this to you. you will hit a wall when trying to extract torque from an all motor engine. you try and discredit me but everything you said well, isn't true.
I used rwhp in comparing those other engines because engine dyno data is very hard to come by. here are a few that I have found:
383 - 611 hp / 523 tq
454 - 705 hp / 630 tq
346 - 557 hp / 485 tq
427 - 652 hp / 606 tq
427 - 656 hp / 615 tq
402 - 701 hp / 617 tq
these are all very well built, highly efficient engines. if you look at torque per cube of displacement for each one you get
1.366, 1.388, 1.402, 1.419, 1.440, and 1.535, respectively.
a 302 making the same torque per cube would be making:
412, 419, 423, 429, 435, and 464, again respectively.
the final engine is quite the badass making 231 psi BMEP (keep this figure in mind and then read the bolded section of the quote below.) that is astounding. it also took ITBs to do it (the major difference between it and the other engines)
so maybe this has shed some more light on the point I am trying to make. you are only going to see so much torque out of an engine before you hit a wall and can not go any further. ford's new 5.0L is damn close to those well built engines above from the factory (and that is something to be proud of) which is why you aren't going to see huge gains in the aftermarket or later down the line from ford. I will say I was slightly wrong about the 450 tq mark but its gonna take one badass little 5.0L to top that... and it won't do it by much, again see the bolded quote down below.
here is a thread being discussed by actual engine builders on this very subject
http://www.hardcorels1.com/vbulletin...ead.php?t=1291
I'm feeling nice so Ill save you a click.
Many/most Engine Masters Challenge winners over the years have had BMEP @ power peak rpm (~6500) in the 200-205 psi area. That's small blocks, big blocks, unlimited SCR, 10.5 SCR, etc. The first Big Block flat tappet year was probably the lowest BMEP. Joe Sherman's first year 365 cube SBC did about 201 psi @ 6500.
If you look at a power peak of 6500 and let's say 12% driveline loss, 190 psi BMEP (1.26 lb-ft/cube) should give you these approximate RWHP numbers:
355 ci = 487 rwhp
383 ci = 526 rwhp
408 ci = 560 rwhp
427 ci = 585 rwhp
That's on the high side of SBC street stuff, but not good LS stuff.
180 psi would drop those numbers to by a factor of 180/190 or .947
200 psi would raise them by a factor of 1.053. That would have a 427 LS7 making nearly 620 at the tires @ 6500. Stout for an NA DD.
A 450 rwhp @ 6500 383 LT1 thru an 88% driveline would be making aboout 163 psi BMEP. The 165 psi range seems reasonable and not too expensive for a streetable LT1.
If you see 500 rwhp (@12% driveline loss) on your 346 LS engine @ 6500, that's right at 200 psi BMEP. Doable? I think so. Easy? Probably not.
Of course streetable (or quick at the strip) isn't just peak power.
If you did 500 rwhp @ 7000 on a 5.0L engine with only 10% driveline loss, you'd be making about 206 psi BMEP @ 7000. That's not cheap, but it is doable and not just for the drag strip.
Jon I am really at my limit of how I can explain this to you.
as for the RPM range and shift points, go show some knowledgeable people who drag race often where the ideal shift points. hint: its not 200 rpm after horsepower peak.
post up some graphs of 340 rwhp bolt on mach 1s. if you read closely, which im guess you didnt, you will see I figured an LS1 to go from 300 rwhp to 360 rwhp with full boltons and a mach 1 to go from 280 rwhp to 340 rwhp with full boltons. those are the same gains, 60 rwhp from each. now put up or shut up.
I dont know how many times I can explain this to you. you will hit a wall when trying to extract torque from an all motor engine. you try and discredit me but everything you said well, isn't true.
I used rwhp in comparing those other engines because engine dyno data is very hard to come by. here are a few that I have found:
383 - 611 hp / 523 tq
454 - 705 hp / 630 tq
346 - 557 hp / 485 tq
427 - 652 hp / 606 tq
427 - 656 hp / 615 tq
402 - 701 hp / 617 tq
these are all very well built, highly efficient engines. if you look at torque per cube of displacement for each one you get
1.366, 1.388, 1.402, 1.419, 1.440, and 1.535, respectively.
a 302 making the same torque per cube would be making:
412, 419, 423, 429, 435, and 464, again respectively.
the final engine is quite the badass making 231 psi BMEP (keep this figure in mind and then read the bolded section of the quote below.) that is astounding. it also took ITBs to do it (the major difference between it and the other engines)
so maybe this has shed some more light on the point I am trying to make. you are only going to see so much torque out of an engine before you hit a wall and can not go any further. ford's new 5.0L is damn close to those well built engines above from the factory (and that is something to be proud of) which is why you aren't going to see huge gains in the aftermarket or later down the line from ford. I will say I was slightly wrong about the 450 tq mark but its gonna take one badass little 5.0L to top that... and it won't do it by much, again see the bolded quote down below.
here is a thread being discussed by actual engine builders on this very subject
http://www.hardcorels1.com/vbulletin...ead.php?t=1291
I'm feeling nice so Ill save you a click.
Indicated mean effective pressure: (IMEP) The average pressure within an engine cylinder during a working cycle, calculated from an indicator diagram
Brake mean effective pressure: (BMEP)
1. The average pressure in the cylinders of an engine divided by its mechanical efficiency, i.e., the ratio of the power actually delivered at an output shaft to the power developed in the cylinders. It is used as an indication of torque.
2. That part of the indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) developed in an engine cylinder output equal to the brake horsepower of the engine; the product of IMEP and mechanical efficiency.
IMEP is basically the average cylinder pressure to produce a HP level.
BMEP is the average cylinder pressure / FMEP to produce a HP.
FMEP is the average cylinder pressure just to overcome the friction of the motor.
They are taken based on ALL the cylinders together, not per cylinder otherwise the number of cylinders would matter like you are thinking.
Bret
Brake mean effective pressure: (BMEP)
1. The average pressure in the cylinders of an engine divided by its mechanical efficiency, i.e., the ratio of the power actually delivered at an output shaft to the power developed in the cylinders. It is used as an indication of torque.
2. That part of the indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) developed in an engine cylinder output equal to the brake horsepower of the engine; the product of IMEP and mechanical efficiency.
IMEP is basically the average cylinder pressure to produce a HP level.
BMEP is the average cylinder pressure / FMEP to produce a HP.
FMEP is the average cylinder pressure just to overcome the friction of the motor.
They are taken based on ALL the cylinders together, not per cylinder otherwise the number of cylinders would matter like you are thinking.
Bret
To expand on Bret's post. (He posted while I was composing. We do think a lot alike. It's scary sometimes!)
Think of MEP as Torque per cubic inch. It tells you how well ANY engine processes air and fuel to make torque. If you also factor in the rpm you will have power.
Indicated MEP is what the engine actually produces internally from burning the fuel/air. Brake MEP is what gets to the flywheel or engne dyno (often called a "Brake"). The difference between IMEP and BMEP is friction and pumping losses. You could call them FMEP and PMEP.
Many high-end engines of very different configurations produce remarkably similar BMEP/torque per cube especially at their hp peak rpm. Here are a few examples.
F1 2.4L (146.4 cubic inch) engines produce about 750 fwhp @18,750 rpm. They have a 19,000 rpm mandated max rpm.
A 358 cubic inch (5.87L) Sprint cup "open" engine (not a restrictor plate) may produce 850 fwhp about 8800 rpm. It usually hangs there for a few hundred rpm.
The F1 engne makes 750/146.4 or 5.12 hp per cubic inch and the Cup engine makes 850/358 or 2.37 hp per cubic inch, so at first glance the F1 engine sppears to be over twice as effective as the Cup engine.
If HP = Torque x rpm/5252, then Torque = HP x 5252/rpm. Just a little algebra.
BTW, you can convert torque/cubic inch to MEP by multiplying by 150.8.
Example:
1.00 lb-ft/cubic inch = 1.00 x 150.8 = 150.8 PSI (the units for MEP).
Looking at BMEP or torque per cube, we get:
F1 engine: 750 x 5252/18750 = 210 lb-ft/146.4 or 1.435 lb-ft per cubic inch @ power peak rpm.
Cup engine: 850 x 5252/8800 = 496 lb-ft/358 or 1.417 lb-ft per cubic inch or about 98.7% as good as the F1 engine.
So, the Cup engine is processing air and fuel just about as efficiently as the F1 engine, when measured at the flywheel. The F1 engine spins over twice as fast so friction losses are a higher percent of IMEP, but not all that much.
The respective BMEPs are: F1=216 psi (at power peak rpm)
and Cup=213 psi (at power peak rpm).
Other examples: LS7 installed in the car by GM. 505 hp @6200 from 427.7 cubes =150.8 psi. BMEP.
Are there NA gasoline engines that produce BMEPs significantly higher than F1 or Cup? Are these little engines or big engines?
Try NHRA ProStock. Assume 1450 hp (perhaps low) @ 9400 rpm from 500 cubes. Torque per cube is 1.62 and BMEP is 244 psi or about 13-15% better than the F1 and Cup engines. That is impressive!
The cool thing is that MEP compares engines per cubic inch or per cc of displacement. For any size engine you them multiply by the cubes to get total torque and calculate hp with torque and rpm.
BMEP will also tell you if you proposed engine is practical. Let's say you wanted your 346 cube LS engine to make 700 fwhp @ 7000 NA. If you do the math you get about 229 psi BMEP. That's going to be a world class engine which not to many people can build, and which even fewer could afford.
OK, so let's say you can build a 210 psi BMEP 346 LS engine. How fast will it need to spin to produce 700 fwhp @ power peak rpm?
If you do the math the power peak will need to be around 7600 where it will need to make about 482 lb-ft. That's probably doable, but not cheap. To put that in perspective with a 10% loss drivetrain (probably optimistic), that's 630 at the tires from a 5.7L (346 cube) NA LS engine. There are a few, but not tons of them around.
More than you probably wanted to know.
Jon
Think of MEP as Torque per cubic inch. It tells you how well ANY engine processes air and fuel to make torque. If you also factor in the rpm you will have power.
Indicated MEP is what the engine actually produces internally from burning the fuel/air. Brake MEP is what gets to the flywheel or engne dyno (often called a "Brake"). The difference between IMEP and BMEP is friction and pumping losses. You could call them FMEP and PMEP.
Many high-end engines of very different configurations produce remarkably similar BMEP/torque per cube especially at their hp peak rpm. Here are a few examples.
F1 2.4L (146.4 cubic inch) engines produce about 750 fwhp @18,750 rpm. They have a 19,000 rpm mandated max rpm.
A 358 cubic inch (5.87L) Sprint cup "open" engine (not a restrictor plate) may produce 850 fwhp about 8800 rpm. It usually hangs there for a few hundred rpm.
The F1 engne makes 750/146.4 or 5.12 hp per cubic inch and the Cup engine makes 850/358 or 2.37 hp per cubic inch, so at first glance the F1 engine sppears to be over twice as effective as the Cup engine.
If HP = Torque x rpm/5252, then Torque = HP x 5252/rpm. Just a little algebra.
BTW, you can convert torque/cubic inch to MEP by multiplying by 150.8.
Example:
1.00 lb-ft/cubic inch = 1.00 x 150.8 = 150.8 PSI (the units for MEP).
Looking at BMEP or torque per cube, we get:
F1 engine: 750 x 5252/18750 = 210 lb-ft/146.4 or 1.435 lb-ft per cubic inch @ power peak rpm.
Cup engine: 850 x 5252/8800 = 496 lb-ft/358 or 1.417 lb-ft per cubic inch or about 98.7% as good as the F1 engine.
So, the Cup engine is processing air and fuel just about as efficiently as the F1 engine, when measured at the flywheel. The F1 engine spins over twice as fast so friction losses are a higher percent of IMEP, but not all that much.
The respective BMEPs are: F1=216 psi (at power peak rpm)
and Cup=213 psi (at power peak rpm).
Other examples: LS7 installed in the car by GM. 505 hp @6200 from 427.7 cubes =150.8 psi. BMEP.
Are there NA gasoline engines that produce BMEPs significantly higher than F1 or Cup? Are these little engines or big engines?
Try NHRA ProStock. Assume 1450 hp (perhaps low) @ 9400 rpm from 500 cubes. Torque per cube is 1.62 and BMEP is 244 psi or about 13-15% better than the F1 and Cup engines. That is impressive!
The cool thing is that MEP compares engines per cubic inch or per cc of displacement. For any size engine you them multiply by the cubes to get total torque and calculate hp with torque and rpm.
BMEP will also tell you if you proposed engine is practical. Let's say you wanted your 346 cube LS engine to make 700 fwhp @ 7000 NA. If you do the math you get about 229 psi BMEP. That's going to be a world class engine which not to many people can build, and which even fewer could afford.
OK, so let's say you can build a 210 psi BMEP 346 LS engine. How fast will it need to spin to produce 700 fwhp @ power peak rpm?
If you do the math the power peak will need to be around 7600 where it will need to make about 482 lb-ft. That's probably doable, but not cheap. To put that in perspective with a 10% loss drivetrain (probably optimistic), that's 630 at the tires from a 5.7L (346 cube) NA LS engine. There are a few, but not tons of them around.
More than you probably wanted to know.
Jon
If you look at a power peak of 6500 and let's say 12% driveline loss, 190 psi BMEP (1.26 lb-ft/cube) should give you these approximate RWHP numbers:
355 ci = 487 rwhp
383 ci = 526 rwhp
408 ci = 560 rwhp
427 ci = 585 rwhp
That's on the high side of SBC street stuff, but not good LS stuff.
180 psi would drop those numbers to by a factor of 180/190 or .947
200 psi would raise them by a factor of 1.053. That would have a 427 LS7 making nearly 620 at the tires @ 6500. Stout for an NA DD.
A 450 rwhp @ 6500 383 LT1 thru an 88% driveline would be making aboout 163 psi BMEP. The 165 psi range seems reasonable and not too expensive for a streetable LT1.
If you see 500 rwhp (@12% driveline loss) on your 346 LS engine @ 6500, that's right at 200 psi BMEP. Doable? I think so. Easy? Probably not.
Of course streetable (or quick at the strip) isn't just peak power.
If you did 500 rwhp @ 7000 on a 5.0L engine with only 10% driveline loss, you'd be making about 206 psi BMEP @ 7000. That's not cheap, but it is doable and not just for the drag strip.
Jon
as for the RPM range and shift points, go show some knowledgeable people who drag race often where the ideal shift points. hint: its not 200 rpm after horsepower peak.
HOLY ****>..NOw you REALLY are showing your ignorance. You know how many times I've shown/proven that both machs and LS's get the same gains with catback, CAI/LID, midpipe, tune, etc?...SEV-ER-AL. the only difference is the LS starts with more power. Listen really closely....I never said anything about matching the peak numbers, I said they will get the same gains...as in HP/mod. You can't be this lame.....please tell me you are jsut foolin' around.
05-10-2010, 09:39 AM
#193
I'm sure you could drive the price up with a bunch of options (I think the basic SS package was like 3K by itself), but if kept conservative a basic Z28 should have been about the same as a GT.
05-10-2010, 09:39 AM
#194
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a rule that unfortunately, anyone with guts and a pen can overcome. Just because someone pays a shop to make their car fast and furious, doesn't and shouldn't give them any more credibility than forty year old uncle Jim Bob, with his stock Camaro. In fact, a lot of richest bitches with the fastest rides, are some of the biggest know-nothings around. Jmho. That's why I've always hated that rule, and also why I never got out of the thirteens....yeah, that's why. 
New rule should be- "until you are OVER thirteen, stfu!" as opposed to BEING IN THE thirteen second range. This would be a better indicator of who we want to hear from, and who we do not.
New rule should be- "until you are OVER thirteen, stfu!" as opposed to BEING IN THE thirteen second range. This would be a better indicator of who we want to hear from, and who we do not.
05-10-2010, 10:04 AM
#196
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: DETROIT,MI
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually around 23,000. Around here I couldn't get a Z28 that was similar in trim for less than $25-28k. I was actually looking at both these cars in 2002. I never did buy either one because the company I worked for went under. I ended up getting a 4banger economy car. Fast forward to 2009. I still wanted one of these cars.. etc
I went looking for a low mileage V8 RWD car. I love 2002 WS6s btw. I'd still love to have one... Anyhow, All the LS1 Fbodies that were below 15k in miles went from $16k and up. Near mint ones went for even more. I found a 02 GT with 8k miles on it, near mint for 11k.
Now, I know you can buy a LS1 based fbody for under 10k. But it certainly wont have less than 15k miles on it. And it will be well worn.
I didn't want that. My car isn't a race car. It's just a basic daily driver. I'll eventually mod it and make it faster, but it's not the most important thing to me. And the 4.6 modular is a very dependable engine.
I went looking for a low mileage V8 RWD car. I love 2002 WS6s btw. I'd still love to have one... Anyhow, All the LS1 Fbodies that were below 15k in miles went from $16k and up. Near mint ones went for even more. I found a 02 GT with 8k miles on it, near mint for 11k.
Now, I know you can buy a LS1 based fbody for under 10k. But it certainly wont have less than 15k miles on it. And it will be well worn.
I didn't want that. My car isn't a race car. It's just a basic daily driver. I'll eventually mod it and make it faster, but it's not the most important thing to me. And the 4.6 modular is a very dependable engine.
05-10-2010, 10:22 AM
#197
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I almost got a 2002 mustang gt but it cost more to insure the mustang.
05-10-2010, 10:31 AM
#198
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: DETROIT,MI
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is why I specifically mentioned the same type of features. I have leather seats power stuff etc. Feature matching Feature, the GT was about 2 to 5k less off the lot. Now it's even more of a difference. Having said that, ever since the 2010 Camaros came out, the prices are now coming down on LS1 Fbodies.
I REALLY hope you aren't trying to say that a 2002 Mustang GT was more to insure than a 2002 Z28. Please tell me you aren't trying to pass that one off as being accurate. Either you're making that up, or your insurance company thinks you're a sucker.
I REALLY hope you aren't trying to say that a 2002 Mustang GT was more to insure than a 2002 Z28. Please tell me you aren't trying to pass that one off as being accurate. Either you're making that up, or your insurance company thinks you're a sucker.
05-10-2010, 10:35 AM
#199
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So while you claim that is the case with your insurance company (Considering your past of just making up stuff, I'll also take that into consideration) it's certainly not the norm.
05-10-2010, 10:42 AM
#200
LOL J/K........... but no, seriously... 