BS thread - 2011 GT 11.80's @ 118 with bolt ons
05-10-2010, 01:14 PM
#201
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
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.
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.
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.
05-10-2010, 04:09 PM
#203
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am done with this subject with you.
05-10-2010, 04:30 PM
#204
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Schertz, Texas
Posts: 2,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd guess around 430-440rwtq with a good H/C/I package and 500+rwtq with a supercharger. I'm basing this off the numbers the previous 4v 4.6 put down with NA and FI setups compared to the stock numbers the 5.0 put down.
edit - typo, wrong engine.
Last edited by Sarge_13; 05-10-2010 at 04:43 PM.
05-10-2010, 04:44 PM
#205
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: DETROIT,MI
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is, the reason why I am questioning that is, they are USUALLY the same. If there IS a difference, the Z28 is more.
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.
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, 04:54 PM
#206
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would a slower car be more insurance wise than a faster one?
05-10-2010, 05:04 PM
#207
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: DETROIT,MI
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well now I have collector car insurance so it doesnt matter about insurance quotes from 2002. Just for the record they said the camaro had better crash tests results. I was surprised at that myself, but the major reason was, I could have 310 hp or 260 hp. It wasnt a hard decision. Getting back on topic thats impressive about the mustang going 11.80!
05-10-2010, 08:08 PM
#208
Teching In
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Nashville / Indianapolis
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
LOL J/K........... but no, seriously... 
You actually said something decent about a ford?! Maybe there is a decent/halfway intelligent being inside of you yet.Yeah I agree... not callin BS because all companies are different, but generally the f-bodies are more expensive to insure because the insurance companies look at the size of the motor as well 5.7 vs 4.6
05-10-2010, 09:12 PM
#212
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: DETROIT,MI
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely we can grab a bite to eat....... Your treat of course
You actually said something decent about a ford?! Maybe there is a decent/halfway intelligent being inside of you yet.
Yeah I agree... not callin BS because all companies are different, but generally the f-bodies are more expensive to insure because the insurance companies look at the size of the motor as well 5.7 vs 4.6
You actually said something decent about a ford?! Maybe there is a decent/halfway intelligent being inside of you yet.Yeah I agree... not callin BS because all companies are different, but generally the f-bodies are more expensive to insure because the insurance companies look at the size of the motor as well 5.7 vs 4.6
05-10-2010, 09:24 PM
#213
I'll try to think of a way to get my car down there. 
05-11-2010, 04:14 AM
#214
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's more than likely you're just making this **** up as you go along. I can't see an insurance company being that dumb. Unless of course they were attempting to sucker you.
Not around here. Its usually VW bugs, or Civics that the girls wreck.
05-11-2010, 12:35 PM
#215
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the crash testing I going to go with the f-body as the better one.
The camaro head on crash I walked away, only got seatbelt burn and bursing.
The firebird guy ran the stop sing hit me right on the driver side door. I walked away unharmed.
The mustang head on crash, I was life flighted to the hospital in a comma for 2 days, fractured my skull, wrist and ankle. Broke my thy bone. I was in the hospital 3 weeks.
Do you still feel safe in your mustangs. Sorry for the miss spelling
The camaro head on crash I walked away, only got seatbelt burn and bursing.
The firebird guy ran the stop sing hit me right on the driver side door. I walked away unharmed.
The mustang head on crash, I was life flighted to the hospital in a comma for 2 days, fractured my skull, wrist and ankle. Broke my thy bone. I was in the hospital 3 weeks.
Do you still feel safe in your mustangs. Sorry for the miss spelling
05-11-2010, 12:52 PM
#216
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the difference in safety between F-bodies and Mustangs is so severe that a crash that almost kills you in a Mustang will do you no harm in an F-body 
. Do you really believe what you just typed?
. Do you really believe what you just typed? 
