2011 mustang 5.0 getting beat by stock ls1
05-14-2010, 05:15 PM
#441
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExGF: I don't know why my paint is dull and nasty, I hate this car!
Me: You've owned it for 4 years, and not once did you wax it or take care of it properly.
So what? I'm pretty sure his "twisties" comment was a piece of dry humor, as have the past 20 or so pages of this retard-fest in this thread.
05-14-2010, 08:16 PM
#444
LOL at the first ricer excuse for the mustangs of the thread.
CAMAROS ARE TEH SUXORS TEH CADUMPO CANT TURNZ OR STOPS AND LOSES ON DA TWIZTIES!
LOL get bent with that weak *** ****. Where are the nurburgring times for mustangs? The ss put up an 8:20 which is pretty ******* respectable, dumbass.
CAMAROS ARE TEH SUXORS TEH CADUMPO CANT TURNZ OR STOPS AND LOSES ON DA TWIZTIES!
LOL get bent with that weak *** ****. Where are the nurburgring times for mustangs? The ss put up an 8:20 which is pretty ******* respectable, dumbass.
for what its worth my 3850lb 4 door sedan did a 8:19 back in 2003/2004 on the ring. the cobalt ss did 8:22 and thats an econo fwd car. so while a 8:20 is good for a camaro in the grand scheme of life it could have done alot better.
granted what i posted above is going to inflame some people. that wasnt the intent but people who dive into a thread and have no idea whats going on drives me nuts. so sorry to all the 4th gen owners who read that and now have sand in their panties.
05-14-2010, 08:22 PM
#445
The number of people who have reaped benefits from an ls6 block is unknown. All that can be said is it has one. If you read my previous posts you will see I state that no one knows one way or the other how much an LS6 block helps or not, but no one says it hurts. They stopped making the LS1 for a reason. They moved on to a better platform in their eyes. Same with the LT1,LS6, LS2, and etc. I simply said I would be willing to put my 02 Formula up againest a new 5.0 if anyone was interested since it is completely stock. My 02 is on the lighter end of the 4th gens and with the LS6 block and LS6 intake it is an oddball that "COULD" be a stronger car than your average LS1 car. That is all I said, but people continue to disbelieve in the LS6 block in a factory 4th gen, so here we are.
just to remind you, no one cares about your ls6 block!!!!!
05-14-2010, 08:37 PM
#446
05-14-2010, 08:38 PM
#447
Teching In
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Nashville / Indianapolis
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Blah blah blah blah blah... Thats what this thread has turned into... wait thats how it has been since the very first post. Opinions are like ********... everyone has one and some are stinkier than others 
05-14-2010, 09:28 PM
#448
just like someone who hasnt read the entire thread and is YAPPING HIS ******* MOUTH WITH NO GOD DAMN CLUE to what the **** has been going on in this thread. i mentioned handling because people seem to call the 5.0 and the 5th gen trash because they only run low 13's stock. yet its easily forgotten then they both have interiors, brakes and chassis that would make a 4th gen camaro look ancient. ( which is fine seeing that a 4th gen is like 18yrs old). being able to handle isnt a ricer thing. maybe in 1995 performance meant only being able to do one thing well, in 2010 you have to be able to do everything well. no matter how many 4th gens beat either a 5th gen or a 5.0 i doubt their owners would sell their cars for a a 4th gen.
for what its worth my 3850lb 4 door sedan did a 8:19 back in 2003/2004 on the ring. the cobalt ss did 8:22 and thats an econo fwd car. so while a 8:20 is good for a camaro in the grand scheme of life it could have done alot better.
granted what i posted above is going to inflame some people. that wasnt the intent but people who dive into a thread and have no idea whats going on drives me nuts. so sorry to all the 4th gen owners who read that and now have sand in their panties.
for what its worth my 3850lb 4 door sedan did a 8:19 back in 2003/2004 on the ring. the cobalt ss did 8:22 and thats an econo fwd car. so while a 8:20 is good for a camaro in the grand scheme of life it could have done alot better.
granted what i posted above is going to inflame some people. that wasnt the intent but people who dive into a thread and have no idea whats going on drives me nuts. so sorry to all the 4th gen owners who read that and now have sand in their panties.
He wasnt informed he was wrong. Its not hard to look **** up on the intertubez. It takes all of 10 seconds.
05-14-2010, 10:09 PM
#449
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Schertz, Texas
Posts: 2,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it didnt. I ran close, but not faster. It did probably outrun all the mustangs though.
I read the thread and you went for the ricer "the new mustang can out handle the camaro" route. And if not, thats how you came off. You made it sound like the camaro was uncapable of performing other than in the 1/4 mile.
He wasnt informed he was wrong. Its not hard to look **** up on the intertubez. It takes all of 10 seconds.
I read the thread and you went for the ricer "the new mustang can out handle the camaro" route. And if not, thats how you came off. You made it sound like the camaro was uncapable of performing other than in the 1/4 mile.
He wasnt informed he was wrong. Its not hard to look **** up on the intertubez. It takes all of 10 seconds.
05-14-2010, 10:26 PM
#450
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering I was off by 2 tenths of a second, that's pretty ******* sad for a car that has almost 200hp more, bigger brakes, and an LS3 with a T-56. 2 tenths on a track that's some 13 miles is pretty disgraceful for a "world beating Camaro with an engine touched by God himself."
The Camaro's time is respectable considering it wasn't built to be a track car by any means.
The Cobalt was built to be the quickest FWD car, which it was for a little bit.
It's still quicker than a B5 RS4, E46 M3, every EVO, and only 2 seconds slower than a base C5.
It's no track star, but it does alright considering its crappy brakes, massive weight, and soft suspension.
05-14-2010, 11:11 PM
#453
Considering I was off by 2 tenths of a second, that's pretty ******* sad for a car that has almost 200hp more, bigger brakes, and an LS3 with a T-56. 2 tenths on a track that's some 13 miles is pretty disgraceful for a "world beating Camaro with an engine touched by God himself."
You guys find complaints about everything. Are guys truely mad that the new camaro isnt getting waxed by the new mustang? I mean seriously look how bitter this last post is.
05-14-2010, 11:25 PM
#456
I'm sorry but you are wrong. While you are correct in that 98-00's recieved a slightly larger cam it does not offset the higher HP output in 01-02's. You make it sound like the larger cams in the 98-00's make up for the LS6 intake that the 01-02's got. Dyno after dyno, the 01-02's will put down bigger numbers. They also recieved better heads, (241's).
Also, the larger cam shaft is miniscule. 1998-2000 camshaft profile is 209/198 @ .500. The 2001-2002 camshaft profile is 207/196 @ .500. What you failed to mention is that the 2001-2002 camshafts are on a tighter lobe @ 116 instead of the lazy 98-00 LSA's 119.5.
If you still think "all 4th gen's power difference is virtually a nothing," then I give up.
05-15-2010, 12:25 AM
#457
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I hear on svt performance is waaaaahhhhhhh. One guy said that the mustang would rape the SS in every other category. Well the mustang has dam near a full decade of technology on the camaro. Give credit where credit is due. Sure the mustang will be a little faster after the break in period but is it really going to be that dramatic? They said the SS laid down 330rwhp right? What about 412hp and 390rwtq for the stang? Give the camaro props. LS1 FTW!
05-15-2010, 02:59 AM
#460
On The Tree
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry but you are wrong. While you are correct in that 98-00's recieved a slightly larger cam it does not offset the higher HP output in 01-02's. You make it sound like the larger cams in the 98-00's make up for the LS6 intake that the 01-02's got. Dyno after dyno, the 01-02's will put down bigger numbers. They also recieved better heads, (241's).
Also, the larger cam shaft is miniscule. 1998-2000 camshaft profile is 209/198 @ .500. The 2001-2002 camshaft profile is 207/196 @ .500. What you failed to mention is that the 2001-2002 camshafts are on a tighter lobe @ 116 instead of the lazy 98-00 LSA's 119.5.
If you still think "all 4th gen's power difference is virtually a nothing," then I give up.
Also, the larger cam shaft is miniscule. 1998-2000 camshaft profile is 209/198 @ .500. The 2001-2002 camshaft profile is 207/196 @ .500. What you failed to mention is that the 2001-2002 camshafts are on a tighter lobe @ 116 instead of the lazy 98-00 LSA's 119.5.
If you still think "all 4th gen's power difference is virtually a nothing," then I give up.
1998 - 2000 Fbody
202/210 int/exh @ 0.05" duration
0.496" / 0.496" int/exh lift
116 LSA
2001 - 2002 Fbody
197/207 int/exh @ 0.05" duration
0.467" / 0.479" int/exh lift
116 LSA
And as for heads: "The 241's are die casted and the 853's are sand casted" As for performance some people say 241's flow better and are worth 5-10hp. But no one has any proof of any of this if you can find some hard #'s please post them up.