BS thread - 2011 GT 11.80's @ 118 with bolt ons
05-08-2010, 04:33 PM
#81
Until I see individuals gaining said hp I will never belive what a company says. I mean Vararam claims 35hp and up to .5 tenths in the 1/4 with their intake on a 2010 Camaro.
Dont forget a joeblow went 11.7@114 with similar mods in a 2010 SS.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21013
Dont forget a joeblow went 11.7@114 with similar mods in a 2010 SS.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21013
05-08-2010, 05:53 PM
#85
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you have more posts than me on a website for a car you don't own. Whats your point? You pick apart every ones posts, right down to grammatical errors. And by pointing out that your a ford guy on ls1tech, I'm simply stating that your not going to find very many people that share your point of view. And BTW, the post counter doesn't really work on this site. But I'm sure you already knew that since your such a regular around here.
post count
post countYes it does work.....but I see you came to realize that later on in this thread.
Why did you choose the 2002 LS6 over the 2001 LS1 when comparing it to the 2000 5.4L Ford?
Not to mention I knew the first GM nut swinger would bring up the 2001-2004 LS6 and compare it to an earlier model Ford. I didn't know the first one to reply would though.
Sad
Why don't we compare a 2000 5.4L against a 2000 5.6L?
Not to mention I knew the first GM nut swinger would bring up the 2001-2004 LS6 and compare it to an earlier model Ford. I didn't know the first one to reply would though.
SadWhy don't we compare a 2000 5.4L against a 2000 5.6L?
my post was more in reference to the motor itself, not track times. Sure they squeezed a second off the 1/4 mile time, but the car was in full track trim when they ran those times.
They only squeezed around 40whp out of the motor over factory, i don't foresee much more power out of that motor without boost or nitrous.
So where I stand now is, you can easily make an ls1 have over 450-460 at the wheels with h/c/i, now i have a feeling the mustangs heads, cams, and intake dont have much room for improvement, so they are limited to just over 400 at the wheels.
so a 5.7 with 450-460, and a 5.0 with around 400...it's not reinventing the wheel. they made a comparable motor power to cube wise to the ls1, finally. congradulations ford.
***edit*** and like i said before, i'm open to anyone changing my mind with proven results.
They only squeezed around 40whp out of the motor over factory, i don't foresee much more power out of that motor without boost or nitrous.
So where I stand now is, you can easily make an ls1 have over 450-460 at the wheels with h/c/i, now i have a feeling the mustangs heads, cams, and intake dont have much room for improvement, so they are limited to just over 400 at the wheels.
so a 5.7 with 450-460, and a 5.0 with around 400...it's not reinventing the wheel. they made a comparable motor power to cube wise to the ls1, finally. congradulations ford.
***edit*** and like i said before, i'm open to anyone changing my mind with proven results.
If you are so open minded, then you wouldn't have such a strong a opinion right now. YOu'd be a tad more patient to see what does happen. SIgned,
The Ford Mustang guy that has more posts on here than you and has been here long enough to know how the site works and even have some respect from GM owners because he actually knows what he's talking about a decent amount of the time.
long signing, i know.
P.S. Can we be friends now?
05-08-2010, 05:53 PM
#86
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 18013
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 2011 5.0 doesn't break any physics laws that have stood since, well, forever. you can only get so much torque per displacement out of an engine. 90 ft lbs per liter is a pretty good number. once you hit that plateau you have to shift the torque curve up to produce more horsepower. what I was asking (and, I might add, are legitimate questions but youre not that bright are you?) is:
is the bottom end strong enough to handle 7500 rpm? 8000 rpm? can the valvetrain?
how much will driveability and low end power be compromised by installing camshafts that shift the torque band up?
can you answer these questions? or are you just going to be a retard and call me an idiot? I am sorry I used simple math it must have confused you. I bet I could figure out most of those equations faster than you even if I was using an abacus and you a calculator.
so where does ford go from here? the genV GM V8s are coming and theyre gonna be impressive. ford really can't make much more torque. they will have to continue by shifting the RPM band upward. at some point you start sacrificing high RPM power for low end torque. can you get that through your thick head? this car still weighs 3650 lbs you need some low end torque unless you want to shift at 4000 rpm everywhere which WILL negatively effect fuel economy (which is gonna get kind of important over the next few years)
so, would you like to have a civilized debate or are you gonna continue acting like a child?
GM had a 5.7L engine making 405 hp in 1993. why did it take ford 7 years to catch GM?
GM was also first to one hp per cube back in 1957. how long did it take ford to have a V8 that hit one horsepower per cube? the 289 made, at most, 271 hp. I believe the boss 351s would be the first fords to achieve this feat and they came some 10+ years later.
childish ford fans, keep digging yourselves holes.
Last edited by zigroid; 05-08-2010 at 05:59 PM.
05-08-2010, 05:58 PM
#87
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all good job on being a child. what are you? 16 and just drove your first 215 hp 1996 mustang GT?
the 2011 5.0 doesn't break any physics laws that have stood since, well, forever. you can only get so much torque per displacement out of an engine. 90 ft lbs per liter is a pretty good number. once you hit that plateau you have to shift the torque curve up to produce more horsepower. what I was asking (and, I might add, are legitimate questions but youre not that bright are you?) is:
is the bottom end strong enough to handle 7500 rpm? 8000 rpm? can the valvetrain?
how much will driveability and low end power be compromised by installing camshafts that shift the torque band up?
can you answer these questions? or are you just going to be a retard and call me an idiot? I am sorry I used simple math it must have confused you. I bet I could figure out most of those equations faster than you even if I was using an abacus and you a calculator.
so where does ford go from here? the genV GM V8s are coming and theyre gonna be impressive. ford really can't make much more torque. they will have to continue by shifting the RPM band upward. at some point you start sacrificing high RPM power for low end torque. can you get that through your thick head? this car still weighs 3650 lbs you need some low end torque unless you want to shift at 4000 rpm everywhere which WILL negatively effect fuel economy (which is gonna get kind of important over the next few years)
so, would you like to have a civilized debate or are you gonna continue acting like a child?
GM had a 5.7L engine making 405 hp in 1993. why did it take ford 7 years to catch GM?
GM was also first to one hp per cube back in 1957. how long did it take ford to have a V8 that hit one horsepower per cube? the 289 made, at most, 271 hp. the 306 hp 289 and 315 hp 302s of the late 60s dont count because they were shelby modified ford engines. not ford production.
childish ford fans, keep digging yourselves holes.
the 2011 5.0 doesn't break any physics laws that have stood since, well, forever. you can only get so much torque per displacement out of an engine. 90 ft lbs per liter is a pretty good number. once you hit that plateau you have to shift the torque curve up to produce more horsepower. what I was asking (and, I might add, are legitimate questions but youre not that bright are you?) is:
is the bottom end strong enough to handle 7500 rpm? 8000 rpm? can the valvetrain?
how much will driveability and low end power be compromised by installing camshafts that shift the torque band up?
can you answer these questions? or are you just going to be a retard and call me an idiot? I am sorry I used simple math it must have confused you. I bet I could figure out most of those equations faster than you even if I was using an abacus and you a calculator.
so where does ford go from here? the genV GM V8s are coming and theyre gonna be impressive. ford really can't make much more torque. they will have to continue by shifting the RPM band upward. at some point you start sacrificing high RPM power for low end torque. can you get that through your thick head? this car still weighs 3650 lbs you need some low end torque unless you want to shift at 4000 rpm everywhere which WILL negatively effect fuel economy (which is gonna get kind of important over the next few years)
so, would you like to have a civilized debate or are you gonna continue acting like a child?
GM had a 5.7L engine making 405 hp in 1993. why did it take ford 7 years to catch GM?
GM was also first to one hp per cube back in 1957. how long did it take ford to have a V8 that hit one horsepower per cube? the 289 made, at most, 271 hp. the 306 hp 289 and 315 hp 302s of the late 60s dont count because they were shelby modified ford engines. not ford production.
childish ford fans, keep digging yourselves holes.
05-08-2010, 06:07 PM
#89
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 18013
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now, regarding the 5.0L, it is an impressive engine. I saw evolution made about 375 rwtq at peak with boltons ... nascar and F1 engines run at 215-220 psi range. a 302 running at 220 psi BMEP is making about 440 ft lbs of torque which is probably not far off from where that bolt on evolution car is sitting. I bet you'll see some go in to the 380s rwtq MAYBE touch 390 rwtq which is no doubt impressive from a 5.0L.
you guys are just trolls.
05-08-2010, 06:07 PM
#90
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B) who's being the child now with the 'submission that I am right' mentality? We haven't even had a conversation in here. I could pick apart you post so much it's pathetic. I'm more interested in seeing what stopsign has to say as it was directed at him.
C) I'll take it as my observation was correct.
05-08-2010, 06:08 PM
#91
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact, I have less than half of your posts being a "ford guy" on a primarily GM site.
And BTW - Pssst.....you're wrong about teh Boss 351.
05-08-2010, 06:09 PM
#92
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 18013
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for some reason when you post I think of this picture:
if you want to pick apart my post go ahead I invite you to. please explain how ford is going to get more torque per displacement than any 4 stroke all motor engine ever. please explain how they are going to produce an engine capable of operating in a 7000 rpm band (1000-8000 rpm) without sacrificing power at any point. if you can do this I will shut up.
if you want to pick apart my post go ahead I invite you to. please explain how ford is going to get more torque per displacement than any 4 stroke all motor engine ever. please explain how they are going to produce an engine capable of operating in a 7000 rpm band (1000-8000 rpm) without sacrificing power at any point. if you can do this I will shut up.
05-08-2010, 06:14 PM
#94
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for some reason when you post I think of this picture:
if you want to pick apart my post go ahead I invite you to. please explain how ford is going to get more torque per displacement than any 4 stroke all motor engine ever. please explain how they are going to produce an engine capable of operating in a 7000 rpm band (1000-8000 rpm) without sacrificing power at any point. if you can do this I will shut up.
if you want to pick apart my post go ahead I invite you to. please explain how ford is going to get more torque per displacement than any 4 stroke all motor engine ever. please explain how they are going to produce an engine capable of operating in a 7000 rpm band (1000-8000 rpm) without sacrificing power at any point. if you can do this I will shut up.
I'm actually heading out and have to log off, but I'll check back in later, and if Stop hasn't torn it apart of If I have something else to add, I'll gladly do so. I will leave you will this................the vast majority of what you posted is purely assumption as you have no idea what ford can and can't do. And of course shifting power bands will sacrifice somewhere at some point. You never stress that point. You stressed Ford not being able to do much more with the motor. that's your whole point.
05-08-2010, 06:18 PM
#95
my post was more in reference to the motor itself, not track times. Sure they squeezed a second off the 1/4 mile time, but the car was in full track trim when they ran those times.
They only squeezed around 40whp out of the motor over factory, i don't foresee much more power out of that motor without boost or nitrous.
So where I stand now is, you can easily make an ls1 have over 450-460 at the wheels with h/c/i, now i have a feeling the mustangs heads, cams, and intake dont have much room for improvement, so they are limited to just over 400 at the wheels.
so a 5.7 with 450-460, and a 5.0 with around 400...it's not reinventing the wheel. they made a comparable motor power to cube wise to the ls1, finally. congradulations ford.
***edit*** and like i said before, i'm open to anyone changing my mind with proven results.
They only squeezed around 40whp out of the motor over factory, i don't foresee much more power out of that motor without boost or nitrous.
So where I stand now is, you can easily make an ls1 have over 450-460 at the wheels with h/c/i, now i have a feeling the mustangs heads, cams, and intake dont have much room for improvement, so they are limited to just over 400 at the wheels.
so a 5.7 with 450-460, and a 5.0 with around 400...it's not reinventing the wheel. they made a comparable motor power to cube wise to the ls1, finally. congradulations ford.
***edit*** and like i said before, i'm open to anyone changing my mind with proven results.
05-08-2010, 06:20 PM
#96
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Schertz, Texas
Posts: 2,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zigroid, you are asking questions that NONE of us could know, unless one of the members here designed the 5.0. How would anybody know how strong the bottom end is and how much RPM it could take before popping? The ONLY way to find that out is trial and error and I don't think there are any 5.0's on the road yet but I may be wrong.
I will say you are correct about the displacement and torque arguement, but come on man. Who races from such a low RPM you have to rely on low end torque? We aren't diesels.
I will add however that bolting on a supercharger will solve the whole low end torque problem and Mustang guys have been going the boost route because of the expense of an NA build for the better part of 15 years now. The last time it didn't cost a first born child to do a massive NA build was in 1995 with the death of the famed 302.
Like I said, as far as torque goes the LSX has the 5.0 beat purely because of displacement.
I'm very interested in what this engine's capabilities are both NA and with FI. It should make for a very interesting few years for the GM-Ford wars.
I will say you are correct about the displacement and torque arguement, but come on man. Who races from such a low RPM you have to rely on low end torque? We aren't diesels.
I will add however that bolting on a supercharger will solve the whole low end torque problem and Mustang guys have been going the boost route because of the expense of an NA build for the better part of 15 years now. The last time it didn't cost a first born child to do a massive NA build was in 1995 with the death of the famed 302.
Like I said, as far as torque goes the LSX has the 5.0 beat purely because of displacement.
I'm very interested in what this engine's capabilities are both NA and with FI. It should make for a very interesting few years for the GM-Ford wars.
05-08-2010, 06:22 PM
#97
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 18013
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the vast majority of what you posted is purely assumption as you have no idea what ford can and can't do. And of course shifting power bands will sacrifice somewhere at some point. You never stress that point. You stressed Ford not being able to do much more with the motor. that's your whole point.
Ill be eagerly awaiting your articulated response. I hope you can dumb it down a little so stopsign can understand it.
05-08-2010, 06:46 PM
#98
zigroid, you are asking questions that NONE of us could know, unless one of the members here designed the 5.0. How would anybody know how strong the bottom end is and how much RPM it could take before popping? The ONLY way to find that out is trial and error and I don't think there are any 5.0's on the road yet but I may be wrong.
I will say you are correct about the displacement and torque arguement, but come on man. Who races from such a low RPM you have to rely on low end torque? We aren't diesels.
I will add however that bolting on a supercharger will solve the whole low end torque problem and Mustang guys have been going the boost route because of the expense of an NA build for the better part of 15 years now. The last time it didn't cost a first born child to do a massive NA build was in 1995 with the death of the famed 302.
Like I said, as far as torque goes the LSX has the 5.0 beat purely because of displacement.
I'm very interested in what this engine's capabilities are both NA and with FI. It should make for a very interesting few years for the GM-Ford wars.
I will say you are correct about the displacement and torque arguement, but come on man. Who races from such a low RPM you have to rely on low end torque? We aren't diesels.
I will add however that bolting on a supercharger will solve the whole low end torque problem and Mustang guys have been going the boost route because of the expense of an NA build for the better part of 15 years now. The last time it didn't cost a first born child to do a massive NA build was in 1995 with the death of the famed 302.
Like I said, as far as torque goes the LSX has the 5.0 beat purely because of displacement.
I'm very interested in what this engine's capabilities are both NA and with FI. It should make for a very interesting few years for the GM-Ford wars.
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...g_GT_Specs.pdf
