Originally Posted by zigroid

you really didnt have anything directed at me or challenging what I was saying.

Originally Posted by Stopsign32v

[Certain GM owners]BUT THE 2011 GT WONT HAVE MUCH ROOM FOOOR IMPROOOVEMEEENNNNTTT!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! [/Certain GM owners]

Originally Posted by zigroid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hF8mM0DGnE

Originally Posted by Stopsign32v

Maybe you should focus on getting your car to run mid 13's? And stop worrying about the 2011 GT and if it will or will not have potential.

Originally Posted by Stopsign32v

^
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh *gasps for air* hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh DUHD DUHD

that is what 317rwhp sounds like folks!

BTW love the hair zigroid

Originally Posted by zigroid

what did your car make stock? about 100 rwhp less?

Originally Posted by Sarge_13

Whatever. Unit once had a certain rule around here....I can't seem to remember it right now.........does anybody else?

Originally Posted by DiscerningZ32

The multi-quoting needs to stop.
Some of you bastards care too much.

Originally Posted by zigroid

ok since youre just not getting this Ill compare to other engines. drivetrain loss differences are probably minimal but lets use a 5.7L LS1 as an example. have you ever heard of an all motor LS1 making 450 rwtq? I can recall one car. a 346 making 450 rwtq is the equivalent of a 408 making 530 rwtq. you ever see a 408 making more than that? a 427 would be at 555 rwtq. ever see a 427 make more than that? it doesn't matter if you have DOHC, SOHC, OHV, 400 cfm head flow, 1000 cfm head flow you will always get to a point where you can no longer produce any more torque. a 346 making 450 rwtq is the equivalent of a 281 making 365 rwtq. a 346 making 450 rwtq is the equivalent of a 302 making about 390 rwtq. are you getting this yet? you will hit a wall with torque. this is not a hard concept to understand.

ARE YOU SHITTIN' ME?....NOw you're changing your story to RWpower???!!!>..first it was the motor and now it's RWpower? MAKE UP YOUR DANG MIND!!..you keep changing your dang replies to suit your mentality. STICK TO ONE THING!. I've already PROVEN (unlike you) that 450rwtq isn't too far off by YOUR OWN NUMBERS!!!...HELLO MCFLY!

using the pdf file posted earlier:
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...g_GT_Specs.pdf
and this site:
http://www.pszweb.com/car/gears.htm
I came up with the following:
shifting at 7000 rpm in 1st gear will put you at about 4600 in 2nd
shifting at 7000 rpm in 2nd gear and youre at ~4850
7000 rpm in 3rd gear puts you at 5450 in 4th
7000 rpm in 4th puts you at 5300 in 5th (1:1)

now that it is all figured out and pictured for you tell me with a straight face that thing really wants to be shifted at 7000 and not closer to 7500. whos the idiot now? UH....NOT I. why? cause that's exactlY!! where I'd start my shift points and toy with them from there. Look genius, it's obvious you're a tad 'slow' on the idea of optimum shift points. That probably explains your horrible ET in your sig.

ford is rating this thing at 390 ft lbs and that is estimated. based on 350 rwtq I would guess 400 ft lbs. evolution gained 25 rwtq so that puts it at around 425-430 ft lbs. another 15 ft lbs and youre reaching the limit of what it can physically produce. youre not going to see them over 450 ft lbs it is physically impossible for any 5.0L engine, not just ford, but ANY engine of that displacement to make over 450 ft lbs. if nascar can't achieve that kind of torque per cube and F1 cars cant achieve that kind of torque per cube what makes you think ford can? what kind of torque do you think theyre gonna make? AGAIN!!..now you're changing your story..earlier it was "MAYBE 450" and you should buy a Lotto ticket...now you are saying 450 isn't a problem but it's the max?....HOLY SHITballs....you have GOT to be kidding me. There's that "Idiot" word again.

mod motors dont come close to getting the same increases LS1s do... I have seen bolton LS1s go from 300 to 360 rwhp. youre telling me a bolton mach 1 will go from 280 to 340 rwhp? I never really paid attention to bolt on mach 1 dynos but I highly doubt theyre making 340 rwhp with boltons.
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.

you won't see them hit 500 rwtq either. or 600 rwtq.

I didnt know I limited my observation of ford fans to just this site? You have yet to prove it...thanks for playing though. I called you out to prove it on this site, and you CAN'T!!. end of story. leave your BS of so called other ford guys on the other sites. Dont' bring that ignorant **** here.

ok, here it goes.
ford isn't going to see a whole lot more torque out of the engine. the aftermarket isn't either. now both bases are covered. as for a dyno of a mach 1 at 2000 rpm this is the best I have:

thats my bone stock LS1 formula vs 5 mach 1s that are either stock or very close.Like I said brainiac........show me a mach dyno sheet at 2k rpm. you can't. thanks for playing though. (and before you say any BS, YOU are the one that said 60tq difference at 2k. NOT only is it not 60, it's not at 2krpm. BWAHAHAHHA.

my original post in this thread was to the dude who was all excited over what ford did with a smaller displacement engine. dont remember? no I do....unfortunately you've gone all over the map in your replies so it's a tad hard to figure out WTF exactly you're trying to say at this point.

I don't know what they have up their sleeve but I do know you're not going to be seeing huge gains in torque from them. why? because they can't change the laws of physics. Holy ****.......you really aren't listening are you? how much simpler can I put it..........YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT WILL DO AS IT HASN"T BEEN OUT VERY LONG. IT HAS ALREADY COME WITHIN 10 TQ OF YOUR MAGICAL NUMBER AND THAT'S NOT EVEN WITH ALL THE MODS IT COULD HAVE.

I don't have an engineering degree but I do have many advanced college level calculus and physics classes under my belt. That explains it right there. Thank you sharing that. I now know why it is that you can never be shown wrong even if the proof is shoved up your ***.

Originally Posted by OUTLAWZ RACING

Wtf. a 2011 stang hits a 11 somthing in the 1/4 and people are crying about it? Its a American built car and it is fast with minor upgrades. Just food for thought. Why dont people compair numbers on the more high end cars, say a 430 vs 2011 stang in the 1/4.

Originally Posted by DiscerningZ32

The multi-quoting needs to stop.
Some of you bastards care too much.

Originally Posted by AznMuscle

I believe I remember it

Originally Posted by jgoodson

lol it just feels like something i need to do before I die ya know

Originally Posted by unit213

It's an un-written rule that I leave up to you guys to enforce.

Originally Posted by AznMuscle

I can enforce it...but...Kevin, Mike and yourself are better suited for those duties lol.

Originally Posted by unit213

I find that it works best when a jury of one's peers puts the pressure on. At least it's funnier that way!

Originally Posted by lemons12

The only people that are butt hurt and arguing what the new mustang won't do are the people that will have to worry about the ones that have bolt ons because they aren't as fast as it is.

From what I have seen the guys with nicely done H/C setups aren't really bitching too much.

Originally Posted by unit213

It's interesting that people take it as a personal insult. Who cares what a car runs? It's not going to impact my life one bit. No one here is racing for
a living.

Originally Posted by lemons12

The only people that are butt hurt and arguing what the new mustang won't do are the people that will have to worry about the ones that have bolt ons because they aren't as fast as it is.

From what I have seen the guys with nicely done H/C setups aren't really bitching too much.