Originally Posted by Lawhead

Lmao at all this
Then someone wants to use the outside dementions of an engine to justify it's displacement because it loses

Originally Posted by HioSSilver

Lol at you two following lawhead's logic.


Can you imagine if the ls series was a furd? It woukd be the bee's knees........oh wait.......thats right furd finally showed up with a n/a engine that runs and you do think it's the bee's knees.

Originally Posted by JD_AMG

Loses? Loses what?
hp/l is ricer math, plain and simple. Whats more important, weight and location of the engine relative to the car (lower in the car and closer to the center for better weight distribution), or the volume of the cylinders?



False. Gm guys would be waiting for the day the boat anchor mod motor goes out of production. Both the Camaro and Corvette would have been bigger and considerably heavier due to the said boat anchor, while being underpowered like the pusstang was.
As for the fanboy talk, no Mustang guy on here should even be thinking those words, none the less typing them. You guys took the time to join a GM forum to post failing arguments time and time again in the street racing section trying to defend the pusstang and making some of the most pathetic excuses Ive ever read.

Originally Posted by Gt4urass

The LS architecture IS the bee's knees. No one here has debated that. We just understand that there are other products out there from different manufacturers that are quite excellent as well. It's a big world out there bud, open your eyes.

Originally Posted by Gt4urass

If it's ricer math, then why is GM going through all the trouble to improve their design and make it more efficient for it's given displacement? Better call GM and tell them they're wasting their time

Originally Posted by Lawhead

Lmao at all this

First a guy proves himself wrong in an article he posted himself

Then someone wants to use the outside dementions of an engine to justify it's displacement because it loses

I've said it once and I'll say it again, if the mod motor was a GM creation it would be the bees knees and if the LSx platform was a ford platform (which well it basically is) it would be dog **** , I just don't get the brand blind fan boys.....

Originally Posted by Puck

Displacement was and still is King. You can make up some of the difference with boost and RPMs, but when it comes down to it if you do the same thing to the larger motor it will make more power and have better manners.

Originally Posted by Gt4urass

The LS architecture IS the bee's knees. No one here has debated that. We just understand that there are other products out there from different manufacturers that are quite excellent as well. It's a big world out there bud, open your eyes.

Originally Posted by Gt4urass

If it's ricer math, then why is GM going through all the trouble to improve their design and make it more efficient for it's given displacement? Better call GM and tell them they're wasting their time

Originally Posted by Puck

HP/Pound has a much larger bearing on performance then HP/Liter. GM wins there for sure.

GM is trying to improve their designs because, unlike us, they are not focused solely on performance. Trust me, a factory 500ci smallblock with even just a modest cam would blow away any performance goals they set for a production car. It would get abyssmal MPG though, causing higher taxes, less market appeal, and making an expensive commuter.

Displacement was and still is King. You can make up some of the difference with boost and RPMs, but when it comes down to it if you do the same thing to the larger motor it will make more power and have better manners.

Originally Posted by snake95

SHHHHH!!!!!!!! The F-bodies were really the cat's ***! They disappeared because...because Aliens.

Hio, wanna compare total sales since the beginning of the Mustang to the total sales of the Camaro? Firebird?

Facts suck. Suckity suck suck

Edit: Here's 93-01, the glory years when HiO was jacking off to a picture of a catfish in Car & Driver, I couldn't find 02:

MUSTANG/CAMARO sales

93: 114,228/ *39,755
94:*123,198/ 119,934
95: 185,986/ 122,844
96: 126,483/ 66,827
97: 100,254/ 95,812
98: 170,642/ 77,198
99: 126,067/ 42,098
00: 218,525/ 45,417
01: 155,162/ 29,009
(01 production stopped May 2001. 2002 had a lengthy run)

Total 1965-2001: 7,899,556/ 4,821,768

For the release of the 03 model year for the Camaro, GM used the same technology as James Bond's DB9 Vanquish, however due to technical difficulties, the vanishing technology could not be turned off once it was turned on

Originally Posted by JD_AMG

May want to tell your buddies to take your advice.
They joined a GM forum to argue for a mustang after all...


Increasing hp is not ricer math, increasing hp without adding weight is not ricer math, comparing two engines by hp/l is ricer math. Do I really have to spell this out for you???
If you have engine A and B making the same power and torque:
Engine A is more displacement, but lighter and smaller
Engine B is less displacement but heavier and larger, making it higher up in the engine bay and further away from the center of the car.
Put them both in the same exact car, which one will have better all around performance?
HP/L means nothing, HP/weight and physical size is what you want to compare for performance.
When you add mods to your car and increase hp, are you going faster because you make more hp/l or because you make more hp/weight?

Originally Posted by Lawhead

Lmao at all this

First a guy proves himself wrong in an article he posted himself


Then someone wants to use the outside dementions of an engine to justify it's displacement because it loses


I've said it once and I'll say it again, if the mod motor was a GM creation it would be the bees knees and if the LSx platform was a ford platform (which well it basically is) it would be dog **** , I just don't get the brand blind fan boys.....

Originally Posted by Puck

HP/Pound has a much larger bearing on performance then HP/Liter. GM wins there for sure.

GM is trying to improve their designs because, unlike us, they are not focused solely on performance. Trust me, a factory 500ci smallblock with even just a modest cam would blow away any performance goals they set for a production car. It would get abyssmal MPG though, causing higher taxes, less market appeal, and making an expensive commuter.

Displacement was and still is King. You can make up some of the difference with boost and RPMs, but when it comes down to it if you do the same thing to the larger motor it will make more power and have better manners.

Originally Posted by JD_AMG

May want to tell your buddies to take your advice.
They joined a GM forum to argue for a mustang after all...


Increasing hp is not ricer math, increasing hp without adding weight is not ricer math, comparing two engines by hp/l is ricer math. Do I really have to spell this out for you???
If you have engine A and B making the same power and torque:
Engine A is more displacement, but lighter and smaller
Engine B is less displacement but heavier and larger, making it higher up in the engine bay and further away from the center of the car.
Put them both in the same exact car, which one will have better all around performance?
HP/L means nothing, HP/weight and physical size is what you want to compare for performance.
When you add mods to your car and increase hp, are you going faster because you make more hp/l or because you make more hp/weight?

Originally Posted by "MAC"

But its ok that ford as 4 times as many cams? Its ok that ford mod motors can rev higher? If anything those cancel out the pathetic displacement argument and im giving two reasons to your one...

Originally Posted by HioSSilver

I realize this.....and it's why I like the new 5.0. 3v's are poo.......open your eyes. If you like Mustangs trade that pos off on a 5.0 and sell the 3v to a girl. Make a great girl car.

LOL.......this is a stupid post.
You're a stupid post...

This dude speaks the troof!

Originally Posted by sw07gt

HP per liter is some honda fan boy ****. The coyote and the 4v are great motors. What's the issue here?

Originally Posted by Gt4urass

You're a flaming retard.

Originally Posted by sw07gt

HP per liter is some honda fan boy ****.

Originally Posted by Gt4urass

No issue. Other than the fact that nobody here is willing to accept the concept that volumetric efficiency is important. Why do you ask? Lol.