5.0 vs GTR
12-13-2011, 12:26 AM
#201
Staging Lane
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That 392 had a catback,cai,TC,275 hoosier radials, and skinnies up front. The DA was slightly negative. Full weight with sum junk in the trunk. Impressive but I think it has some left on the table. The 392 are TQ monters down low yet i wanna say it only managed a 1.7 short time with a TC. Also stock 392's are trapping 114+ so I would expect this car with the skinnies to be trapping atleast 116. Im sure he's still getting it dialed in. With some GOOD negative DA im confident that car could run 11.5-.7
12-13-2011, 05:07 AM
#202
Launching!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dyno tomorrow. Im nervous.
Im 500 rwhp right now but thats with the baby cam. So really since im changing the cam my base number goes back to 490 on the stock cam.
Roeracing is swearing to me Ill gain a minimum of 60 rwhp and the norm is 70 plus with some close to 100 rwhp gain from just the cam.
Sounds to good to be true to me and knowing my luck ill get 525 rwhp.
Anticipation is killing me. Set me back 3300 for the parts plus install so hope its worth it!
Im 500 rwhp right now but thats with the baby cam. So really since im changing the cam my base number goes back to 490 on the stock cam.
Roeracing is swearing to me Ill gain a minimum of 60 rwhp and the norm is 70 plus with some close to 100 rwhp gain from just the cam.
Sounds to good to be true to me and knowing my luck ill get 525 rwhp.
Anticipation is killing me. Set me back 3300 for the parts plus install so hope its worth it!
12-13-2011, 06:42 AM
#204
12-13-2011, 08:06 AM
#207
12-13-2011, 08:28 AM
#209
If you want to play that game " Oo look it's the ford nutswingers, they've come to line up a race with a ford gt against a challenger"
12-13-2011, 08:39 AM
#210
Id say its actually a compliment to the 5.0 to compare them. Its 15k+ cheaper, barely slower and out performs the srt8 in everything else.
12-13-2011, 10:06 AM
#212
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dyno graph you posted looks strange to me and dosent say sae anywhere. Never seen a dyno like that before.
Still not convinced.
Just tell me what you trapped quartermile wise. A 464 rwhp 3500 pound car in an average DA of plus 1000 should trap 120-124 mph.
So what did your 464 rwhp car trap?
Btw congrats on the 650 rwhp.
Still not convinced.
Just tell me what you trapped quartermile wise. A 464 rwhp 3500 pound car in an average DA of plus 1000 should trap 120-124 mph.
So what did your 464 rwhp car trap?
Btw congrats on the 650 rwhp.
12-13-2011, 10:15 AM
#213
is it safe to say ,all makes have had there issues lol, there usally is always some bugs in every car in there new model or first year lol,i would take a new 5.0 over a 5th gen anyday, really imo the 5.0 is the better of any of the other cars out, not talking c6s, but the 5.0 has some pretty good performance ,decent price,and looks better than all the pony cars, this is mo,
12-13-2011, 10:21 AM
#214
The dyno graph you posted looks strange to me and dosent say sae anywhere. Never seen a dyno like that before.
Still not convinced.
Just tell me what you trapped quartermile wise. A 464 rwhp 3500 pound car in an average DA of plus 1000 should trap 120-124 mph.
So what did your 464 rwhp car trap?
Btw congrats on the 650 rwhp.
Still not convinced.
Just tell me what you trapped quartermile wise. A 464 rwhp 3500 pound car in an average DA of plus 1000 should trap 120-124 mph.
So what did your 464 rwhp car trap?
Btw congrats on the 650 rwhp.
12-13-2011, 11:14 AM
#217
12-13-2011, 11:16 AM
#218
