BlkMach1

The fact is, a H/C/I package has not been tested on this car so to say that this car is "limited to just over 400whp" is....well....not smart.

Sarge_13

iTrader: (1)

I've posted that link at least 3 times on this website alone to prove to disbelievers different things. It doesn't say anything about how strong the bottom end is however.

Packy

iTrader: (11)

Great thread!

w3s1c0a5t

iTrader: (3)

Why does everyone act like this car is the second coming of Jesus?

How will we ever hit high elevens... Oh ya. Real easy.

This car is way cool and I would probably rather have one than the new camaro but really guys...

It ran low 13's stock mid 12's with bogarts mickeys and a full suspension evoltions driver.

Cool car but really guys... This thing keeps up. Nothing more.

If you want to have the best hp per liter buy a Honda you wanna win races keep your ls and your cubes.

PewterScreaminMach

iTrader: (7)

x2. Let's wait until we have some facts and examples before we jump to conclusions.

ponygt65

FIrst I will say I shouldn't have used the phrase 'tear apart' as it can all be summed up in what I said before logging off.

You ddint' read what I posted when I left. THat is my entire point, you have not come up proof.
Why would you say that? that right there is the basis of my point. That graph looks very similar to a cobra's N/A 4V in regards to the curve in the upper rpms. Are you trying to tell me that the best shift point for an N/A cobra is 7500rpms? WTF? The new 6speed tranny doesn't have a steep first gear ratio like a T45 or 3650, so wth would be the point to shift that high?
Again, speculation comes to mind. you have no idea as you are saying 'probably not far off'. I'm not saying it isn't, but you obviously haven't checked (and neither have I for that matter). you bet 380s and MAYBE 390? THis is another speculation.....
https://ls1tech.com/forums/dyno-benc...n-numbers.html
375rwtq with bolt ons and tune. That doesn't even factor in LT's, or cams. Again, you have no idea what TQ this motor will get into until the A/M gets into it.
Again, why do you need to shift at 8k rpms to see 450 rwhp? Hardly anything has been done with these motors. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if 8k isn't all that 'do able'; nor do I believe it to be necessary....but that's MO.

Again...speculation.

Why? There are plenty of cars running FI on 11:1. I personally would not put a PD blower on it, but yet again, MO. Let's also not forget about the GT350.

No one says it'll break the laws of physics. THe only one's making a "huge" deal out of this are the bowtie loyalists that can't simply say....."nice job", and leave it at that. I remember ford guys respecting the LS1 when it came out...hell, even the LT1 when the '93 came out. It's a shame the respect can't be mutual.

as for your question: speculatory.

I dont' think anyone can answer you as of yet, because of hte above.

Hmmmm, as I recall the Mach1 made a nice TQ curve. Maybe you aren't familiar with it. As for TQ and shift at 4k, as I recall, peak TQ stock was made at ~4500 rpm. I have no idea why you would even think 4k is the 'spot'.


WHy? Ford cared more about sales as I'm sure you are aware of. They are a business after all.

and no, the Boss 351s were rated at 330hp thank you. you are correct in it taking for a while to get there, you are wrong about which car. As for not counting the Shelby, I get that, it isn't factory.

Good post.

um...see above, you did not come up with anything but speculation to support your opinion. Therefore it isn't a very strong support.

I will say this though (in agreement with you), the fact that the peak numbers are ~2500rpms apart is pretty, well, crazy. Maybe I'm off on my memory, but I can't recall ford ever having that much of a gap factory. I'm willing to bet if they did the same thing to this car as they did with the mach compared to the 01 cobra, you'd see a better low end TQ. IE: Used different intake cams.


After all that z, I have to say, maybe I'm just totally missing your point. If that is the case, I do apologize. The way I see it though, is you are just coming up with assumption to support your opinion.

and no, we don't have to have a childish debate on this.

Irunelevens

They only squeezed 42rwhp out of it over factory, but that's also with only a filter, a mid-pipe, catback, and a tune. There is more there.
The MPH tells the story there.
Not really... GM contracted Lotus to design, and Mercury Marine to build the LT5. So you can't really call it a GM motor in all fairness.

7plagues

iTrader: (1)

haha

DiscerningZ32

The only issue I can see concerning the stock short block and boost potential is the cast aluminum pistons. I assume the crankshaft is forged, like the connecting rods, but that site doesn't mention the crankshaft.

Arc00TA

iTrader: (17)

This was a fun read. I think the car will do really well, and probably start outselling the camaro quickly. Great work by ford giving the people what they want. Not to mention the new V6 stang is putting out almost as much as last years V8. If it weren't for the ugly *** end and my irrational fear of car loans I would be trying to buy one.

I think the variable valve timing employed here is the real secret to its success, with how much control the computer can have over the power curve. That's just my opinion though.

F8L BYT

Good post

ls1 1990 VN

WOW! What a read! Seems this Ford V GM debate 'argument' is happening on both sides of the world. Here down under in NZ i have been on another LS site in Australia, the Ford Falcon boys on that GM site are also crowing about the new Coyote engine as they will be getting it in their new Falcon later this year.
OK as a factory engine, it's impressive indeed. Bolt ons & tune sure will get this engine running up with us LS guys.

What we have to think about is when the aftermarket stuff comes on stream for this engine, and it will.
Bigger cams, head packages, etc. Also with our LS engines, we build strokers, fit turbos & blowers, nitros etc, they will too.

You say their comps to high, it will certainly help their H/C & cams only engines, for those that want blowers etc, the motors will just be built with less comp.

If i could look into the future i'd say FORD has come of age and we definately now have a true equal fight on our hands, will be interesting to see how long it takes for the aftermarket stuff to be come available.

Not sure i'm going to like the future.....maybe change my Holden for a Gen 1 Camaro and fit a 572cu GM Crate motor haha!

ScreaminRedZ

iTrader: (3)

Honestly, I'd be much more likely to discount the V6 Mustangs than the Cobras since you're much more likely to find a Cobra owner to race than a V6 owner. I realize the new V6's are fast and the owners will probably be more likely to line them up than in the past, but since you're talking about 2003/2004 I'll stick with those years.

Since we're discounting V6's and sticking with ones you're actually likely to catch a race with (Cobras, GT's, and Mach 1's), I'm thinking that 4% is going to shoot up quite a bit for 2004, and shoot up from the 9% mentioned if you go with 2003.

Also, while I appreciate that you're trying to look at this from a purely numbers driven bench race standpoint, my actual experience at the stoplight drags and drag strips is that I've run into quite a few Cobras and "discounting" them doesn't mean the races never happened.

BlkMach1

Well Its got oil squirters which should help out some. I believe I read somewhere that whipple is already working on a 2.3L kit for the '11.

Sticks n Stones

I'm just wondering how long until we see the first Coyote 5.0 built to the hilt, nailing 8,500rpm shift points, in a old school late 80's Mustang LX stripped down to its G string and pulling 8 second 1/4 miles. You just know it's gonna happen! The block and head castings might be the only stock things on it, but someones gonna make a true screamer out of it before that poor engine even makes it to it's first gas station after it leaves the lot.

02ls1ss

iTrader: (2)

yeah, that would be nice but it's all about sales not big ci motors anymore this isn't the 60's.

PewterScreaminMach

iTrader: (7)

I think one of the previous posts I quoted made a great point about the marketing aspect of another 5.0 motor. Ford was very smart in that sense and I understand why they're keeping the size of the motor there, especially considering they're getting the performance they want out of it anyways.

I say great job to Ford on this one. I'm sure the sales numbers will back that up very soon.

zigroid

iTrader: (22)

my proof is this:
BMEP = 150.8 x torque / displacement
4 stroke engines are limited to how much torque they can make. you wont ever see a 302 cube engine making 500 ft lbs of torque. if you see one making 450 ft lbs of torque you should probably play the lottery more often as that is one incredibly stout engine not often seen.
So if an engine is peaking at 6800 rpm where exactly should you shift? 6800 rpm? you're losing average power shifting there. why do LS1s peaking at 6400 rpm shift at 7000-7200? you're really making yourself look like an idiot with replies like that.
I do have a pretty good idea of the torque the engine will produce when the aftermarket gets in to it.
BMEP = 150.8 x torque / displacement
pretty cool equation right there.
once again this isnt some magical engine that will break the rules of physics. unless there is forced induction involved that engine will not see over 450 ft lbs EVER. 450 ft lbs is probably going to be around 390 rwtq.
LSx based engines see tremendous horsepower gains because they also have tremendous torque gains. as I said before you can go from 330 rwtq to 430 rwtq. thats why they make power without having to spin really high. when you have an engine that makes 350 rwtq peak, only has the potential to make ~380-390 rwtq peak, you are going to have to find another way to make more horsepower. that other way is shifting the torque curve up. this isn't something I just pulled out of my ***, prettied up, and posted on the forum.
the only speculation in that paragraph was my prediction that you wont see them hit 400 rwtq. but that speculation is pretty god damn well educated.
did you read my original post? I have said the engine is impressive. the ford guys are the ones thinking its the second coming of christ. the GM guys are rolling their eyes because we've had cars that went in to the 11s with boltons at 115+ mph for 10+ years.
the mach 1 makes about 60 rwtq less than the LS1 at 2000 rpm. 1500-2500 rpm is where I drive 90% of the time. since I have already shown why they arent going to get a whole lot more torque out of the engine (ford has to deal with more stringent requirements than the aftermarket. its gonna need cats, a safer tune, etc) they are gonna have to shift the RPM band up to make more hp. what part of this dont you understand?
those boss 351s were underrated. so what was the first advertised 1 hp per cube engine ford made? none of the big blocks did it.
Ill say it one more time. ford did a good job of getting big power out of a small package. ~425 hp and ~400 tq is pretty damn good out of a 5.0L. my initial argument was that ford doesn't have a whole lot more they can do with the engine from a production level. the aftermarket has the luxury of removing catalytic converters, running very aggressive tunes, running larger camshafts without worrying about fuel economy or emissions. you can't squeeze a whole lot more torque out of this engine so the only way to make more horsepower is to push the RPM band up. obviously if they choose to do this they will build a bottom end that can support the power but my other question was at what point does it become a high strung race engine? Ive driven M3s that need to wind to 8000 rpm to make 330 hp. ive riden in S2000s that need 8500 rpm to make 240 hp. they are not fun cars to drive normal. they suck, actually. my personal preference is big power as soon as I hit the gas. others are different, I understand that.

MSS91Z28

iTrader: (3)

where though?

dsmfan95

Heads, cams, etc?