LT1 vs SN95 5.0 Cobra
04-02-2012, 02:59 AM
#61
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Greenhaven/ South Sacramento 'Burbs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
We were expecting pretty much what Ford sold, except 1 little thing. We expected this new 4.6L to be easily modified, like our old 5L was, for much better performance. It simply didn't happen that way.
Could be a poor driver(usually is) or any number of things, such as bad track prep.
C'mon now... Those 2 claim to be stock long block cars? And that just means they unquestionably are? Aside from that, I see Fox body Mustangs there, not SN95's, which are clearly heavier(by like 300 lb).
Iron GT40 heads really aren't good, and they really are bad in many ways. No matter what is done to them, they just can't be stretched into "par" heads when considering available options. As for working better with boost... Well which head doesn't?
450hp... Using stock iron GT40 heads and intake? Idonno which cam you're thinking of or which Vortech. I do know that much power with those parts on a 302HO is something I'd call "higher than normal" in the Fox 5L world. I never spent much time looking into(or converting) fwhp vs rwhp. I remember seeing a bit over 300rwhp using GT40 TurboSwirl heads with an extrude honed intake along with a Vortech S-trim and supporting build parts. That was considered good DD capable power at the time(2001) with those parts.
You don't like the word Cleveland? Okay then, but Cleveland heads as compared to iron GT40's is like comparing the cylinder heads of a 2011 Mustang GT(as the Cleveland) to a 1998 Mustang GT(as the GT40). Cleveland heads are far superior to the almost halfway worthy iron GT40. I'll put it this way. I don't think the iron GT40 can flow as well on the intake side as the "C" head can on exhaust.
Heh... plenty of problems!
That pretty much seals what I said... I can see a supercharged version of the Fox running 11's with GT40 stuff... not an SN95 though, without the S/C.
Eh... No parts for the LS1 in 98. F-bodies had OBDII since 1996, just like every other American sold vehicle. Remember a time before LS1 edit? I do.
Pricing generally favored the Mustang till June, 2002. 
Could be a poor driver(usually is) or any number of things, such as bad track prep.
C'mon now... Those 2 claim to be stock long block cars? And that just means they unquestionably are? Aside from that, I see Fox body Mustangs there, not SN95's, which are clearly heavier(by like 300 lb).
Iron GT40 heads really aren't good, and they really are bad in many ways. No matter what is done to them, they just can't be stretched into "par" heads when considering available options. As for working better with boost... Well which head doesn't?
450hp... Using stock iron GT40 heads and intake? Idonno which cam you're thinking of or which Vortech. I do know that much power with those parts on a 302HO is something I'd call "higher than normal" in the Fox 5L world. I never spent much time looking into(or converting) fwhp vs rwhp. I remember seeing a bit over 300rwhp using GT40 TurboSwirl heads with an extrude honed intake along with a Vortech S-trim and supporting build parts. That was considered good DD capable power at the time(2001) with those parts.
You don't like the word Cleveland? Okay then, but Cleveland heads as compared to iron GT40's is like comparing the cylinder heads of a 2011 Mustang GT(as the Cleveland) to a 1998 Mustang GT(as the GT40). Cleveland heads are far superior to the almost halfway worthy iron GT40. I'll put it this way. I don't think the iron GT40 can flow as well on the intake side as the "C" head can on exhaust.
Heh... plenty of problems!
That pretty much seals what I said... I can see a supercharged version of the Fox running 11's with GT40 stuff... not an SN95 though, without the S/C.
Eh... No parts for the LS1 in 98. F-bodies had OBDII since 1996, just like every other American sold vehicle. Remember a time before LS1 edit? I do.
Pricing generally favored the Mustang till June, 2002. 
04-02-2012, 10:50 PM
#65
[QUOTE=It'llrun;16150336]C'mon now... Those 2 claim to be stock long block cars? And that just means they unquestionably are? Aside from that, I see Fox body Mustangs there, not SN95's, which are clearly heavier(by like 300 lb).
Iron GT40 heads really aren't good, and they really are bad in many ways. No matter what is done to them, they just can't be stretched into "par" heads when considering available options. As for working better with boost... Well which head doesn't?
450hp... Using stock iron GT40 heads and intake? Idonno which cam you're thinking of or which Vortech. I do know that much power with those parts on a 302HO is something I'd call "higher than normal" in the Fox 5L world. I never spent much time looking into(or converting) fwhp vs rwhp. I remember seeing a bit over 300rwhp using GT40 TurboSwirl heads with an extrude honed intake along with a Vortech S-trim and supporting build parts. That was considered good DD capable power at the time(2001) with those parts.
You don't like the word Cleveland? Okay then, but Cleveland heads as compared to iron GT40's is like comparing the cylinder heads of a 2011 Mustang GT(as the Cleveland) to a 1998 Mustang GT(as the GT40). Cleveland heads are far superior to the almost halfway worthy iron GT40. I'll put it this way. I don't think the iron GT40 can flow as well on the intake side as the "C" head can on exhaust.
QUOTE]
So no matter what I show you, you don't want to see it, because you wont beleive it lol.
I wasn't even mentioning turbo swirl aluminums. I ment pheads. I made 389rwhp and 430 rwtq at 4900 rpms on a md at sniper in sanford fl. Pull ended at 4900 because the stock explorer valvesprings wouldn't let me go anymore. Had a fcam and a v2. I don't know how turbo swirls wouldn't make more power. I surely would have made 400 plus making a pull to 5500.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWmYswMO1ho
Very similar combo. I know it's not a stock long block or an sn95, but this subject was brought up.
And I still feel like it was stupid on your behalf mentioning cleaveland heads.
Iron GT40 heads really aren't good, and they really are bad in many ways. No matter what is done to them, they just can't be stretched into "par" heads when considering available options. As for working better with boost... Well which head doesn't?
450hp... Using stock iron GT40 heads and intake? Idonno which cam you're thinking of or which Vortech. I do know that much power with those parts on a 302HO is something I'd call "higher than normal" in the Fox 5L world. I never spent much time looking into(or converting) fwhp vs rwhp. I remember seeing a bit over 300rwhp using GT40 TurboSwirl heads with an extrude honed intake along with a Vortech S-trim and supporting build parts. That was considered good DD capable power at the time(2001) with those parts.
You don't like the word Cleveland? Okay then, but Cleveland heads as compared to iron GT40's is like comparing the cylinder heads of a 2011 Mustang GT(as the Cleveland) to a 1998 Mustang GT(as the GT40). Cleveland heads are far superior to the almost halfway worthy iron GT40. I'll put it this way. I don't think the iron GT40 can flow as well on the intake side as the "C" head can on exhaust.
QUOTE]
So no matter what I show you, you don't want to see it, because you wont beleive it lol.
I wasn't even mentioning turbo swirl aluminums. I ment pheads. I made 389rwhp and 430 rwtq at 4900 rpms on a md at sniper in sanford fl. Pull ended at 4900 because the stock explorer valvesprings wouldn't let me go anymore. Had a fcam and a v2. I don't know how turbo swirls wouldn't make more power. I surely would have made 400 plus making a pull to 5500.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWmYswMO1ho
Very similar combo. I know it's not a stock long block or an sn95, but this subject was brought up.
And I still feel like it was stupid on your behalf mentioning cleaveland heads.
04-03-2012, 09:47 AM
#68
TECH Resident
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ya know? it's been so long, i don't remember which gt40's they were. i think there was a couple of possibilities with the aluminum heads......i do remember i made sure i wouldn't have to notch my pistons though....
04-04-2012, 01:58 AM
#70
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rent Free in Hio's Mind
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes
on
30 Posts
and if you want, I can send you pictures of my block and heads off the block so you can see what it's like to tear into a motor I have my new head gaskets and she will start being put back together tomorrow. If you still had the LT1 I would drive to Iowa just for you, sweetheart.
04-04-2012, 11:24 AM
#71
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't even mentioning turbo swirl aluminums. I ment pheads. I made 389rwhp and 430 rwtq at 4900 rpms on a md at sniper in sanford fl. Pull ended at 4900 because the stock explorer valvesprings wouldn't let me go anymore. Had a fcam and a v2. I don't know how turbo swirls wouldn't make more power. I surely would have made 400 plus making a pull to 5500.
And I still feel like it was stupid on your behalf mentioning cleaveland heads.
You'll simply never get an engine to make as much power or torque using GT40's(iron or aluminum) as you could with Cleveland's, or nearly any other aluminum head available for 5L OHV engines, for that matter.
