LS1TECH - Camaro and Firebird Forum Discussion

Street Racing & Kill Stories Basic Technical Questions & Advice

I got drug, and I'm butt hurt. Real butt hurt. Feelings hurt bad.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-10-2014, 01:02 PM
  #501  
Staging Lane
 
snake95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rent Free in Hio's Mind
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts

Default
Originally Posted by HioSSilver
Not really......I would say if someone built a 347 furd that ran as good as my bolt-on ls6 it would be doin pretty good. But fact is it can't even match the overall performance of the ls6. Definitely not happening with furd parts. Didn't furd make a 5.4 32v modular.???....yea in a limited production car. Did it make as much power as a ls6???? nope Keep dreaming snake. Fact is you're wanting to compare your built ford to what is easily available from gm. You have proved how much you believe in furd by not using their major engine parts.
So you agree with me? Current 302 Mustangs laying the smack down to 6.2 Camaros. In the fox era, it took a 350 to touch a Stang 302.

Nothing has changed

Don't worry, I'm sure GM has room for a coupe more liters under the hood for the future. Lmfao.
snake95 is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:03 PM
  #502  
Staging Lane
 
snake95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rent Free in Hio's Mind
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts

Default
Originally Posted by Blown383LS1
Let's compare what top fuel dragsters run to a 5.0. Sounds legit.
Lmfao no ****. 500cu.in. Hemi = 302 Modular. C'mon Mac.
snake95 is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:04 PM
  #503  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
"MAC"'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by big hammer

they're too inefficient.
Why is it so hard for him to understand that?
"MAC" is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:05 PM
  #504  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
"MAC"'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by snake95
Lmfao no ****. 500cu.in. Hemi = 302 Modular. C'mon Mac.
Snake you're better than this please read what i said. I know you have better comprehension skills than he does!
"MAC" is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:05 PM
  #505  
10 Second Club
 
big hammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: over dere
Posts: 3,427
Received 153 Likes on 105 Posts

Default
Originally Posted by "MAC"
Why is it so hard for him to understand that?
mustang guys are the new Honda guys.
big hammer is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:10 PM
  #506  
On The Tree
iTrader: (23)
 
Blown383LS1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 108
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts

Default
Originally Posted by "MAC"
If an ohc engine was so much better wouldn't you think they would be using them? Which was my point... i know its hard for you to understand that...
At the same time if they could use engines with more than 500ci, don't you think they would? There are rules in place, it's not hard to understand at all if you pay attention.
Blown383LS1 is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:13 PM
  #507  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
"MAC"'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by Blown383LS1

At the same time if they could use engines with more than 500ci, don't you think they would? There are rules in place, it's not hard to understand at all if you pay attention.
Yes your right the rules limit the to superchargers for a reason to... and we all know turbos make power on top end...
"MAC" is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:15 PM
  #508  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
 
HioSSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,941
Received 433 Likes on 340 Posts

Default
Originally Posted by snake95
So you agree with me? Current 302 Mustangs laying the smack down to 6.2 Camaros. In the fox era, it took a 350 to touch a Stang 302.

Nothing has changed

Don't worry, I'm sure GM has room for a coupe more liters under the hood for the future. Lmfao.
Where did agree with you? You are simply wrong on both accounts. I would like to have some of that **** you smoke though.

Nothing has changed.......snakes sucks off mr ford his self then runs out and buys other major engine parts to make his furd run.

How come you didn't answer me about a 347 furd compared to my ls6???? We know why
HioSSilver is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:17 PM
  #509  
Teching In
 
Gt4urass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Orlando
Posts: 5
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by big hammer
can't argue with math.

the ls3 makes more hp\pound.

WAY more hp\valve.

more hp\physical material used.

more hp\cam.

all just as relevant if not more relevant than ricer math.
I can respect your opinions without agreeing with them. To each their own sir.
Gt4urass is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:18 PM
  #510  
10 Second Club
 
big hammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: over dere
Posts: 3,427
Received 153 Likes on 105 Posts

Default


"lol dude I almost had you and my motor is smaller lolzizzy omg so that kinda means you lost"



"maybe if you didn't have such a gay little engine you would have actually beat me and wouldn't have to flap your yap about ricer math"

big hammer is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:20 PM
  #511  
Teching In
 
Gt4urass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Orlando
Posts: 5
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by 01MagredC5
More HP per ci does make the 5.0 more efficient...but that doesn't mean it's a better motor...and when it comes to performance, closely matched STOCK motors are only half the story when it comes to the outcome in a straight line or road course race.
I agree 100%, as I also didn't claim one as "better". But one is CLEARLY a more efficient design.
Gt4urass is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:21 PM
  #512  
10 Second Club
 
big hammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: over dere
Posts: 3,427
Received 153 Likes on 105 Posts

Default
Originally Posted by Gt4urass
I agree 100%, as I also didn't claim one as "better". But one is CLEARLY a more efficient design.
what kind of efficiency?
big hammer is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:21 PM
  #513  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
"MAC"'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by big hammer

"lol dude I almost had you and my motor is smaller lolzizzy omg so that kinda means you lost"

"maybe if you didn't have such a gay little engine you would have actually beat me and wouldn't have to flap your yap about ricer math"
Lmao!!!
"MAC" is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:21 PM
  #514  
Teching In
 
Gt4urass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Orlando
Posts: 5
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by "MAC"
Again it only does that bc it can rev higher why do you think mustangs get called dyno queens?
I feel too bad for you to insult you any longer. SMH.
Gt4urass is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:24 PM
  #515  
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (17)
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,152
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts

Default
LMAO hp/liter is the gayest argument ever.

My zx6r made 120hp with .6 liters, **** an LS7 that's some sick hp/liter, must be the best **** ever built .

Originally Posted by big hammer
can't argue with math.

the ls3 makes more hp\pound.

WAY more hp\valve.

more hp\physical material used.

more hp\cam.

all just as relevant if not more relevant than ricer math.
Hahahahaha
Puck is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:24 PM
  #516  
Teching In
 
Gt4urass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Orlando
Posts: 5
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default
Hammer, you're funny
Gt4urass is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:24 PM
  #517  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
"MAC"'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by Gt4urass

I feel too bad for you to insult you any longer. SMH.
Lol only a retard would think you were insulting me
"MAC" is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:26 PM
  #518  
Teching In
 
Gt4urass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Orlando
Posts: 5
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by Puck
LMAO hp/liter is the gayest argument ever.

My zx6r made 120hp with .6 liters, **** an LS7 that's some sick hp/liter, must be the best **** ever built .



Hahahahaha
Nope, but it is in fact more efficient Tell me this, why do we enjoy this hobby? Why modify your car? Why bolt ons? Why cams? Why heads? All in the name of efficiency. Check mate.
Gt4urass is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:27 PM
  #519  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
 
HioSSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,941
Received 433 Likes on 340 Posts

Default
Personally I don't see where needing twice as many valves, 4 times as many cams, more weight, larger package equals efficiency. I really don't don't even know why those engines are being compared. Compare the 5.0 to the new lt1. The lt is not in camaro's yet but we all know it will be. Hopefully the 5.0 makes more power by then......it's gonna need to.
HioSSilver is offline  
Like
Old 05-10-2014, 01:30 PM
  #520  
10 Second Club
 
big hammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: over dere
Posts: 3,427
Received 153 Likes on 105 Posts

Default
Originally Posted by HioSSilver
Personally I don't see where needing twice as many valves, 4 times as many cams, more weight, larger package equals efficiency. I really don't don't even know why those engines are being compared. Compare the 5.0 to the new lt1. The lt is not in camaro's yet but we all know it will be. Hopefully the 5.0 makes more power by then......it's gonna need to.
"efficient" is a loose term. the 5.0 has better volumetric efficiency, but loses out in other measurements of efficiency. to simply say "the 5.0 is more efficient, end of story" is intellectually dishonest.
big hammer is offline  
Like



Advanced Search
Quick Reply: I got drug, and I'm butt hurt. Real butt hurt. Feelings hurt bad.


Reply Closed Thread Share

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 AM.