H/c Ta vs bolt on 5.0 and C6
10-25-2012, 11:48 PM
#161
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya thats not a good spot lol
10-25-2012, 11:58 PM
#162
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Grove City, Oh
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea before I just had timing pulled all the time and it was a compleat dog on motor, now I have a switch that when I arm the nitrous kit it pulls 6* of timing.
10-26-2012, 12:31 AM
#163
[QUOTE=BayAreaSS;16843541]This is an entertaining thread.
I think all the cars in this vid run how they should. Nothing spectacular but def not turds.
But the TA can't "hang" with ANY h/c car. That's a bold statement for a car with that set up. But then again I'm sure everyone has different definitions of what hanging is.
Well stated. And to make blanket statements of that nature is just plain foolish.
It's difficult not to be impressed by the new 5.0s, though. I'm pleased to see that Ford has unleashed a mod motor that can kick serious tail in N/A form, and on pump gas, in a user friendly, daily driven package. It was a long time coming, but worth waiting for.
Now, if Mopar and Chevrolet would just hook their cars up with Jenny Craig......
I think all the cars in this vid run how they should. Nothing spectacular but def not turds.
But the TA can't "hang" with ANY h/c car. That's a bold statement for a car with that set up. But then again I'm sure everyone has different definitions of what hanging is.
Well stated. And to make blanket statements of that nature is just plain foolish.
It's difficult not to be impressed by the new 5.0s, though. I'm pleased to see that Ford has unleashed a mod motor that can kick serious tail in N/A form, and on pump gas, in a user friendly, daily driven package. It was a long time coming, but worth waiting for.
Now, if Mopar and Chevrolet would just hook their cars up with Jenny Craig......
10-26-2012, 01:26 AM
#164
Teching In
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an entertaining thread.
I think all the cars in this vid run how they should. Nothing spectacular but def not turds.
But the TA can't "hang" with ANY h/c car. That's a bold statement for a car with that set up. But then again I'm sure everyone has different definitions of what hanging is.
I do know those 5.0s are good cars that can be made fast easily. I hope to run into one at the track that has a good amount of mods.
I think all the cars in this vid run how they should. Nothing spectacular but def not turds.
But the TA can't "hang" with ANY h/c car. That's a bold statement for a car with that set up. But then again I'm sure everyone has different definitions of what hanging is.
I do know those 5.0s are good cars that can be made fast easily. I hope to run into one at the track that has a good amount of mods.
10-26-2012, 07:45 AM
#165
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bay Area, CA (Pittsburg)
Posts: 4,240
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I dont think he meant it like that man...he is just annoyed that every video we post you guys bash his car. I mean he has a mildy ported ls6 heads ( just the exhaust side) still has an ls6 intake and stock 342s it makes 415 rwhp.... his car would gain tremendously from some 390-410 gears and a fast intake. We are saying for his mods it runs very well. And its conpletely irrelevant comparing track times and trao speeds clear across america.....and i know your car is fast and we have been talking for years but ill tell you the same i put my kidney on the line your car will not go that fast here....
10-26-2012, 08:37 AM
#166
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he's beat a car with similar mods to the one in this vid AND gutted to **** why isn't he entitled to his opinion? He's obviously had experience in this situation. From what I see in this section Mike doesn't make comments like this without having a reason for it. Now my opinion is this, the 5.0 is a low 120mph car as is the c6 and your car is sub 120mph car. That c6 put the same amount of cars the 5.0 did on you in a matter of 2 gears lol.
and the c6 only pulled a few feet before he missed the gear???
10-26-2012, 08:52 AM
#167
10-26-2012, 09:10 AM
#169
Just ignore him. He is cocky and doesn't have a running car. In the three years he has run his mouth three of my cars are in the 10s. Gues those mod motors are not easy or fast enough to make impressive.
Bingo. Some people need to read my threads again. I have raced them on rolls and from a dig from SVT forums. I workout with three 5.0 owners. I bounce on weekend with two others. I got flamed to hell warning LS1 owners about what they can run on here years ago. I have no problem with them. My dispute states the Trans Am is on the extreme slow end for a heads cam car and his claim he runs on par with heads cam car-no way. So is my heads cam car(not fast) but it would waste the operators roll or not. Hell there are three here that run low 10s and trap 128-130MPH.
Learn how to read my threads and get some experience with a stalled car. On a 30MPH roll my 10.00 139MPH Stang can't shake it till 50MPH. I would read up on what a torque converter can do especially at low speeds. My converter with heads is now 4200(my times posted are with a 3800). With full time MTs and 373s a 30MPH roll is like being shot from a rubber band. I went 11.55 116MPH with stock heads at 75/80 which is the slowest track in the east. Wait this is even better.....here is the car with bolt ons full weight,sway bars on,stock gears,jack and spare in the car at 7580 in August with STOCK CAM...gee with a Fast,some lighter wheels,K member,more stall and 373s who knows how fast it might have gone. And again my car is not that fast compared to many on here. I run my car hot and in full street trim so yes the times suck. I don't care and I don't do it to impress. I have other cars for that. Its a daily driver weekend car.
Want to challenge a stalled A4 car then challenge them on a 50MPH roll not a 30. BIG MISTAKE.
My point is a average heads cam car(not mine or the Trans Am) should have not got pulled by that stang which I have plenty of experience running against that type of car at or near full weight on rolls or from a stop. Not a bash but stating. My car is not fast for a heads cam car. But its faster than the OPs for sure even on a 30 kick. My car is lighter probably about 200 pounds,has a better cam,has more gear and has better heads. And tomorrow a better intake with a tune. Don't get butt hurt about it and call my car names or cry you live in a different area or that you can hang with other heads cammed cars. Improve the car. If you can't take a different opinion then don't post or read threads.
If he's beat a car with similar mods to the one in this vid AND gutted to **** why isn't he entitled to his opinion? He's obviously had experience in this situation. From what I see in this section Mike doesn't make comments like this without having a reason for it. Now my opinion is this, the 5.0 is a low 120mph car as is the c6 and your car is sub 120mph car. That c6 put the same amount of cars the 5.0 did on you in a matter of 2 gears lol.
Learn how to read my threads and get some experience with a stalled car. On a 30MPH roll my 10.00 139MPH Stang can't shake it till 50MPH. I would read up on what a torque converter can do especially at low speeds. My converter with heads is now 4200(my times posted are with a 3800). With full time MTs and 373s a 30MPH roll is like being shot from a rubber band. I went 11.55 116MPH with stock heads at 75/80 which is the slowest track in the east. Wait this is even better.....here is the car with bolt ons full weight,sway bars on,stock gears,jack and spare in the car at 7580 in August with STOCK CAM...gee with a Fast,some lighter wheels,K member,more stall and 373s who knows how fast it might have gone. And again my car is not that fast compared to many on here. I run my car hot and in full street trim so yes the times suck. I don't care and I don't do it to impress. I have other cars for that. Its a daily driver weekend car.
Want to challenge a stalled A4 car then challenge them on a 50MPH roll not a 30. BIG MISTAKE.
My point is a average heads cam car(not mine or the Trans Am) should have not got pulled by that stang which I have plenty of experience running against that type of car at or near full weight on rolls or from a stop. Not a bash but stating. My car is not fast for a heads cam car. But its faster than the OPs for sure even on a 30 kick. My car is lighter probably about 200 pounds,has a better cam,has more gear and has better heads. And tomorrow a better intake with a tune. Don't get butt hurt about it and call my car names or cry you live in a different area or that you can hang with other heads cammed cars. Improve the car. If you can't take a different opinion then don't post or read threads.
Last edited by Mike Morris; 10-26-2012 at 09:18 AM.
10-26-2012, 09:17 AM
#170
10-26-2012, 09:40 AM
#171
Teching In
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just ignore him. He is cocky and doesn't have a running car. In the three years he has run his mouth three of my cars are in the 10s. Gues those mod motors are not easy or fast enough to make impressive.
Bingo. Some people need to read my threads again. I have raced them on rolls and from a dig from SVT forums. I workout with three 5.0 owners. I bounce on weekend with two others. I got flamed to hell warning LS1 owners about what they can run on here years ago. I have no problem with them. My dispute states the Trans Am is on the extreme slow end for a heads cam car and his claim he runs on par with heads cam car-no way. So is my heads cam car(not fast) but it would waste the operators roll or not. Hell there are three here that run low 10s and trap 128-130MPH.
Learn how to read my threads and get some experience with a stalled car. On a 30MPH roll my 10.00 139MPH Stang can't shake it till 50MPH. I would read up on what a torque converter can do especially at low speeds. My converter with heads is now 4200(my times posted are with a 3800). With full time MTs and 373s a 30MPH roll is like being shot from a rubber band. I went 11.55 116MPH with stock heads at 75/80 which is the slowest track in the east. Wait this is even better.....here is the car with bolt ons full weight,sway bars on,stock gears,jack and spare in the car at 7580 in August with STOCK CAM...gee with a Fast,some lighter wheels,K member,more stall and 373s who knows how fast it might have gone. And again my car is not that fast compared to many on here. I run my car hot and in full street trim so yes the times suck. I don't care and I don't do it to impress. I have other cars for that. Its a daily driver weekend car.
Want to challenge a stalled A4 car then challenge them on a 50MPH roll not a 30. BIG MISTAKE.
My point is a average heads cam car(not mine or the Trans Am) should have not got pulled by that stang which I have plenty of experience running against that type of car at or near full weight on rolls or from a stop. Not a bash but stating. My car is not fast for a heads cam car. But its faster than the OPs for sure even on a 30 kick. My car is lighter probably about 200 pounds,has a better cam,has more gear and has better heads. And tomorrow a better intake with a tune. Don't get butt hurt about it and call my car names or cry you live in a different area or that you can hang with other heads cammed cars. Improve the car. If you can't take a different opinion then don't post or read threads.
Bingo. Some people need to read my threads again. I have raced them on rolls and from a dig from SVT forums. I workout with three 5.0 owners. I bounce on weekend with two others. I got flamed to hell warning LS1 owners about what they can run on here years ago. I have no problem with them. My dispute states the Trans Am is on the extreme slow end for a heads cam car and his claim he runs on par with heads cam car-no way. So is my heads cam car(not fast) but it would waste the operators roll or not. Hell there are three here that run low 10s and trap 128-130MPH.
Learn how to read my threads and get some experience with a stalled car. On a 30MPH roll my 10.00 139MPH Stang can't shake it till 50MPH. I would read up on what a torque converter can do especially at low speeds. My converter with heads is now 4200(my times posted are with a 3800). With full time MTs and 373s a 30MPH roll is like being shot from a rubber band. I went 11.55 116MPH with stock heads at 75/80 which is the slowest track in the east. Wait this is even better.....here is the car with bolt ons full weight,sway bars on,stock gears,jack and spare in the car at 7580 in August with STOCK CAM...gee with a Fast,some lighter wheels,K member,more stall and 373s who knows how fast it might have gone. And again my car is not that fast compared to many on here. I run my car hot and in full street trim so yes the times suck. I don't care and I don't do it to impress. I have other cars for that. Its a daily driver weekend car.
Want to challenge a stalled A4 car then challenge them on a 50MPH roll not a 30. BIG MISTAKE.
My point is a average heads cam car(not mine or the Trans Am) should have not got pulled by that stang which I have plenty of experience running against that type of car at or near full weight on rolls or from a stop. Not a bash but stating. My car is not fast for a heads cam car. But its faster than the OPs for sure even on a 30 kick. My car is lighter probably about 200 pounds,has a better cam,has more gear and has better heads. And tomorrow a better intake with a tune. Don't get butt hurt about it and call my car names or cry you live in a different area or that you can hang with other heads cammed cars. Improve the car. If you can't take a different opinion then don't post or read threads.
10-26-2012, 09:41 AM
#172
Staging Lane
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Omg you guys are rediculous. Why come in here and hate on people cars? The 5.0 runs really well and is driven really well. They can be fast, get over it. 00silverGTP's car runs just as strong as a car that made 433/398, there is nothing wrong with his car.
AWD- I have a motor and nitrous tune in the car now, but that was a 40 roll from second gear which isnt a good roll for me. But i was still supprised i didnt start pulling sooner, the 5.0 is fast!
AWD- I have a motor and nitrous tune in the car now, but that was a 40 roll from second gear which isnt a good roll for me. But i was still supprised i didnt start pulling sooner, the 5.0 is fast!
Let's think about this. The stock LS1 was rated at 320 net hp, if we figure a conservative 15% drive train loss, that puts his baseline at 272 rwhp. He's quoting 417 rwhp from h/c.
The Mustang is 412 net hp, with the same 15% loss, he's got 350 rwhp plus the h/c/i. The TA picked up 145 hp from his h/c if the mustang picked up the same, then the mustang should be putting down 495 rwhp.
The Corvette's 400 net hp = 340 rwhp + 145 hp = 485 rwhp
So y'all have a 70 - 80 hp advantage on him.
However, if that Mustang is putting out 1.6 rwhp per cubic inch.... damn!!
10-26-2012, 10:28 AM
#174
Teching In
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When did the Trans Am pull up? Was the race over once he saw taillights? Or when the other car put the brakes on?
Let's think about this. The stock LS1 was rated at 320 net hp, if we figure a conservative 15% drive train loss, that puts his baseline at 272 rwhp. He's quoting 417 rwhp from h/c.
The Mustang is 412 net hp, with the same 15% loss, he's got 350 rwhp plus the h/c/i. The TA picked up 145 hp from his h/c if the mustang picked up the same, then the mustang should be putting down 495 rwhp.
The Corvette's 400 net hp = 340 rwhp + 145 hp = 485 rwhp
So y'all have a 70 - 80 hp advantage on him.
However, if that Mustang is putting out 1.6 rwhp per cubic inch.... damn!!
Let's think about this. The stock LS1 was rated at 320 net hp, if we figure a conservative 15% drive train loss, that puts his baseline at 272 rwhp. He's quoting 417 rwhp from h/c.
The Mustang is 412 net hp, with the same 15% loss, he's got 350 rwhp plus the h/c/i. The TA picked up 145 hp from his h/c if the mustang picked up the same, then the mustang should be putting down 495 rwhp.
The Corvette's 400 net hp = 340 rwhp + 145 hp = 485 rwhp
So y'all have a 70 - 80 hp advantage on him.
However, if that Mustang is putting out 1.6 rwhp per cubic inch.... damn!!
Ummn what? Lol
10-26-2012, 10:38 AM
#175
Staging Lane
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what we've been told about all three cars, they shouldn't have pulled away from the TA like that.
Now if the TA gave up when the Mustang or the Vette was 1/2 to 3/4 ahead, then yeah, nothing's wrong with the TA.
10-26-2012, 10:53 AM
#176
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, we'll start with this. If the TA was "trying" to race all the way until the Mustang or the Vette hit their brakes, then something simply isn't right.
From what we've been told about all three cars, they shouldn't have pulled away from the TA like that.
Now if the TA gave up when the Mustang or the Vette was 1/2 to 3/4 ahead, then yeah, nothing's wrong with the TA.
From what we've been told about all three cars, they shouldn't have pulled away from the TA like that.
Now if the TA gave up when the Mustang or the Vette was 1/2 to 3/4 ahead, then yeah, nothing's wrong with the TA.
heres my question. you have two cars, forget the make or model. car 1. makes slightly more power than car 2. both weight about the same. car 1 has way better gears. who should win? just based on that info....
10-26-2012, 11:18 AM
#177
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: South MS
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said before put some geasrs and longtubes in it run some high 11s and I can show you a handful of machs that have done the same.
10-26-2012, 11:48 AM
#178
When did the Trans Am pull up? Was the race over once he saw taillights? Or when the other car put the brakes on?
Let's think about this. The stock LS1 was rated at 320 net hp, if we figure a conservative 15% drive train loss, that puts his baseline at 272 rwhp. He's quoting 417 rwhp from h/c.
The Mustang is 412 net hp, with the same 15% loss, he's got 350 rwhp plus the h/c/i. The TA picked up 145 hp from his h/c if the mustang picked up the same, then the mustang should be putting down 495 rwhp.
The Corvette's 400 net hp = 340 rwhp + 145 hp = 485 rwhp
So y'all have a 70 - 80 hp advantage on him.
However, if that Mustang is putting out 1.6 rwhp per cubic inch.... damn!!
Let's think about this. The stock LS1 was rated at 320 net hp, if we figure a conservative 15% drive train loss, that puts his baseline at 272 rwhp. He's quoting 417 rwhp from h/c.
The Mustang is 412 net hp, with the same 15% loss, he's got 350 rwhp plus the h/c/i. The TA picked up 145 hp from his h/c if the mustang picked up the same, then the mustang should be putting down 495 rwhp.
The Corvette's 400 net hp = 340 rwhp + 145 hp = 485 rwhp
So y'all have a 70 - 80 hp advantage on him.
However, if that Mustang is putting out 1.6 rwhp per cubic inch.... damn!!
Ive also literally never read math like this before.
Last edited by evangto87; 10-26-2012 at 12:06 PM.
10-26-2012, 12:04 PM
#179
10-26-2012, 12:08 PM
#180
Staging Lane
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I told you you could make 482 rwhp with a head, cam, & intake, would you believe me? RWHP? That's basically what he's saying with his 302. If he's making 420 rwhp with his 302, that's 1.39rwhp/ci which is extremely efficient.
& way better gears, what are we talking about a 3.73 vs 3.42? better, but not way better. are you running 2.73? I could buy that if that's the case.
Now look how he pulled away from that TA, that looks like at least 50 hp difference, at the wheels. if the numbers for the TA is right, 417 rwhp, car1 has got to be at 465 rwhp. from heads, cam, & intake.
If they got it like that, I'm just saying wow. That's 1.53 rwhp per cubic inch & that's a technological marvel. Unless something is wrong with car2.