Originally Posted by adamantium

So basically what im taking from your argument is who ever bought one of these mustangs is a retard for paying a similar price for an under performer. Judging from your sig, you were one of those retards.

So ford didn't HAVE to make a fast mustang right? They just went from pushrods to modular with an attempt to go slower. This is great, never knew this.

Originally Posted by Mike Morris

No one is a retard for buying anything. Hio said Ford could not build a n/a motor worth a crap. The retort was why do so if you product is selling like crazy. Hell I remember most of the Foxbody guys back then jumped ship to the LS1 Fbody. But again compared to the general car buying public this was not much. Most people actually thought the GT was faster. A 2 valve GT is actually meaner sounding car with catback on it lol. No one says the GT 2 valve performance was good or justified by its performance. The retort was why improve it. Hell the Fox body by 1990 was grossly out of date. But FMS sales along with the car was through the roof. Why add disk brakes to the rear,stronger trans,updated styling etc to something selling like crazy and risk upping the price and losing out. The 5.0 actually killed the average EPA Ford had to have and didn't care. SN95 was an attempt to continue that crazy craze which again worked sales wise but took a step backwards performance wise(added weight,lamer cam,lamer ecu due to drivetrain survival,tbird intake to clear the hood,and a much faster Z28 with only one motor choice instead of 4 different power combos).

Sales dictate the car.

Mustang and Fbodies are not sports cars. They are GTs/Pony cars

Originally Posted by Mike Morris

Yup was pathetic. Hell a V6 stripper Fbody could put up a fight with a 2 valve. They didn't care. I remember how excited Janine Bay was when the 99GT debuted with PI stuff. YAWN. I remember saying in 96 the GT could rev higher and was faster than the 95. Hmmm people went faster shifting at 5k with them and still ran slower than a comparable 95 GT

Originally Posted by adamantium

I just think what hio said about them not being able to produce a fast NA engine at the time is looking more and more true now that i see it. You even said it yourself they added the blower in 03 to kill of the LS1 cars. Why add a blower when you've never added a blower in ANY of your mustangs or cobras since the beginning of time? Seemed like a last resort.


Look at the trend from 96 and on it got better and better and better till the 5.0 came out. Seems like they advanced from trial and error.


lol fords daddy VV
Nissan VH engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Irunelevens

It was, but only by a ****-hair. Remember, it wasn't a 248a car either.

Originally Posted by HioSSilver

Then I guess you should've paid more attention to physics.

Wait till you see me run near 140 with 500hp.

They did a **** job advertising the f-cars then stop making them.......and GM paid the price for it.

Originally Posted by Mike Morris

The 2000 Cobra R put out 385HP. That is more than a LS1? The 351 Cobra R with Ford pieces could out power an LT1 too. Its costs a lot of money to develop a motor and certify it for sale in the US. Why go through the hassle if you don't have too. I could go through a 1995 Ford Motorsport book and piece together a motor that could pass emissions and idle like stock yet blast an LT1 to pieces in terms of output. I could get close to an LS1 too. And these pieces I used were designed when L98s were. See where I am going with this?

Originally Posted by Mike Morris

I don't know about that. I have some fast 98 GTs. What I mean is in stock trim. Tim Teal from Tealnet ran low 14s stock and I mean stock. Low option car and he knew where to shift. But like many 4.6 bolt ons builds non pi bolts ons didn't do much

Originally Posted by 01MagredC5

I paid enough attention to know that either your dyno is way off or you are sandbagging your numbers. Oh and if you trap 140 with 500whp, then I will still say the same thing.

There are cars out there with more power, less weight, better powerband, and better aero not trapping what you are trapping.

For example, my old Corvette had similar power to your car (literally within a few HP/TQ) and weighed 3000lbs. Baby cam with boltons and it had instant power across the band. It trapped 119 in good 60 degree weather. You're not trapping 12MPH more than a car that weighs less, has better aero, and the same tranny. Yeah, of course there are factors that can change things...but not to the tune of 12 MPH without adding power. The DA the day I ran was about 300.

Originally Posted by adamantium

The ZL1 camaro with the phase 3 option c5r block made 600hp and the LT4 made 330hp

What did the R's make?

Originally Posted by Mike Morris

The 2000 Cobra R put out 385HP. That is more than a LS1? The 351 Cobra R with Ford pieces could out power an LT1 too. Its costs a lot of money to develop a motor and certify it for sale in the US. Why go through the hassle if you don't have too. I could go through a 1995 Ford Motorsport book and piece together a motor that could pass emissions and idle like stock yet blast an LT1 to pieces in terms of output. I could get close to an LS1 too. And these pieces I used were designed when L98s were. See where I am going with this?

Originally Posted by 01MagredC5

I paid enough attention to know that either your dyno is way off or you are sandbagging your numbers. Oh and if you trap 140 with 500whp, then I will still say the same thing.

There are cars out there with more power, less weight, better powerband, and better aero not trapping what you are trapping.

For example, my old Corvette had similar power to your car (literally within a few HP/TQ) and weighed 3000lbs. Baby cam with boltons and it had instant power across the band. It trapped 119 in good 60 degree weather. You're not trapping 12MPH more than a car that weighs less, has better aero, and the same tranny. Yeah, of course there are factors that can change things...but not to the tune of 12 MPH without adding power. The DA the day I ran was about 300.

Originally Posted by HioSSilver

Yea Mike ......lets compare 2 limited productions cars that they didn't make 600 of combined and one of them you had to have a SCCA license to buy to a common everyday ls1 cars. Fact is that either of them would be a toss up run for a ls1 car. Fact is both those cars underperformed for what they were too. The ls6 matched the 32v 5.4's power in 01 and raised it 20 hp in 02.


Yea the dyno I was on reads a little low. My car would make a tick over 430 on a dynojet.

Our weights are similar....I'm a little heavier. But not all weight is created equal. That's where the physics come it.

It's kinda hard to beat the powerband of a bolt-on engine. It has power everywhere.

Yea......I am trapping 12 more mph than you did. W/O knowing your entire set up it's hard to say where you could improve. But there is no doubt improvements could be made.

Originally Posted by 01MagredC5

That was my setup years ago. I don't know your setup either but...even with 430whp...I don't believe you are trapping that without help. I owned fbodies for years and have seen literally 100's of them make passes at various tracks all through the South. I have seen every kind of configuration on them...I'm not even going to start making a list. I have seen some run some pretty sick times and some pretty good traps. I have NEVER seen any of them remotely close to trapping what yours does at that power level. Heck I've even seen a gutted Camaro that had close to 450whp and weigh 2700lbs and his best time was a 10.4 with a 127 trap. Car was damn near full race.

Oh well. We will never convince each other otherwise so...I suppose we should stop going round and round.

Originally Posted by HioSSilver

Funny.......I figured someone that dabbled in physics could have figured it out.

To many different combo's out there dude. Some just are not as efficient as others. There is no convincing me of your side.......I've seen it too. Then I went on to correct the issues.