Bolt-on A6 Coyote vs Stock A6 C7
05-07-2014, 01:05 PM
#122
10 Second Club
Why so defensive?
05-07-2014, 01:12 PM
#125
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was 375hp till '93, then got a bump to 405hp. I know all about C4s, and the original ZR1 is one of my absolute favorite cars... But the engine wasn't engineered or made by GM, and there weren't any 350hp or 400hp "options." That's what I was getting at. It sounded/looked like he just skimmed over a Wikipedia page and regurgitated something.
05-07-2014, 01:14 PM
#127
10 Second Club
It was 375hp till '93, then got a bump to 405hp. I know all about C4s, and the original ZR1 is one of my absolute favorite cars... But the engine wasn't engineered or made by GM, and there weren't any 350hp or 400hp "options." That's what I was getting at. It sounded/looked like he just skimmed over a Wikipedia page and regurgitated something.
05-07-2014, 01:23 PM
#128
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's definitely part of it. They also didn't have much experience making high output overhead-cam engines, and conveniently had just acquired a company that had extensive experience. It was the perfect storm. 
05-07-2014, 01:26 PM
#129
10 Second Club
they did have high zoot OHC engines in the 60's though.
05-07-2014, 02:26 PM
#132
Staging Lane
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: West Valley, Utah
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=BlackGasGuzzler;18194718]
We can cherry pick all day long.
QUOTE]
Cherry picking LOL if anything you cherry picked the slowest trapping c7 you could find. all the stock c7's im finding are trapping 117-119
We can cherry pick all day long.
QUOTE]
Cherry picking LOL if anything you cherry picked the slowest trapping c7 you could find. all the stock c7's im finding are trapping 117-119
05-07-2014, 02:47 PM
#133
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that was mostly his point. As much of an improvement it is over the C6 overall, the difference in straight line speed is almost inconsequential.
05-07-2014, 03:31 PM
#135
No, but yet again, appropriate spelling and grammatical efficiency helps others understand your typically ill-informed and frankly pathetic posts. I didn't think that pointing out a fact was being a douche, but last I heard, your car was in the mid-twelve second range...thus, well withing even "cam only" 2v territory. Just sayin'.
FORD trolls, this is a GM biased forum. What else do you blue tie guys expect to see on a site that has LS1 in its title? The coyote is the baddest motor on the planet? Get real.
Carry on!
05-07-2014, 04:24 PM
#136
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being the grammar ****, you should ensure that you're practicing what you preach.
FORD trolls, this is a GM biased forum. What else do you blue tie guys expect to see on a site that has LS1 in its title? The coyote is the baddest motor on the planet? Get real.
Carry on!
FORD trolls, this is a GM biased forum. What else do you blue tie guys expect to see on a site that has LS1 in its title? The coyote is the baddest motor on the planet? Get real.
Carry on!
05-07-2014, 04:35 PM
#137
Banned
iTrader: (1)
!["MAC"'s Avatar](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewBox='0 0 50 50'><circle class='avatar-circle-default' fill='%237f3b59' cx='25px' cy='25px' r='20px'></circle><text class='avatar-text-default' x='49%' y='53%' fill='white' text-anchor='middle' alignment-baseline='middle'>"</text></svg>)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was standard with 385hp and they built a more performance one with 405hp... idk why thats hard to understand... also yes Lotus did engineer it and Mercury built it but still doesnt matter bc GM had a 350hp or 400hp ohc engine long before Ford caught up...
05-07-2014, 04:40 PM
#139
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is one of those times when people dismiss your posts because you've passed full retard.
You're also uneducated on the LT5. Lotus, skip. Lotus. GM didn't engineer that engine.
05-07-2014, 04:46 PM
#140
As has been pointed out I completely worded my statement wrong about the Cylinder/CU thing. The statement remains true....the coyote is giving up 1.2 Liters on the motor.
Regardless......for the sake of the conversation here are the specs for all relevant vehicles straight from their manufacturers.
CR= Compression Ratio
CW= Curb Weight
M5/A6 = Manual/Auto + Total gears
Weights in parenthesis for Mustangs are in comparison to GM vehicles
Weight for auto cars are in blue below
LS3 Camaro SS | $33,355 | 426HP 6.2L LS3 10.7CR | CW M5 = 3908lbs
C7 | $53,000 | 460HP 6.2L LT1 11.5CR | CW M7 = 3298lbs / CW A6 = Unknown
5.Br0 GT | $31,210 | 420HP 5.0L 11.0CR | CW M6 = 3618lbs (+320lbs C7 / -290lbs SS)
14 GT500 | $55,100 | 662HP 5.8L-SC 9.0CR | CW M6 = 3845lbs (+554lbs C7 / -66lbs SS)
LS3 Camaro SS | CW A6 = Unknown
C7 CW A6 = Unknown
5.Br0 GT CW A6 = 3675lbs (+377lbs C7 / -233lbs SS)
14 GT500 Auto not offered
Regardless......for the sake of the conversation here are the specs for all relevant vehicles straight from their manufacturers.
CR= Compression Ratio
CW= Curb Weight
M5/A6 = Manual/Auto + Total gears
Weights in parenthesis for Mustangs are in comparison to GM vehicles
Weight for auto cars are in blue below
LS3 Camaro SS | $33,355 | 426HP 6.2L LS3 10.7CR | CW M5 = 3908lbs
C7 | $53,000 | 460HP 6.2L LT1 11.5CR | CW M7 = 3298lbs / CW A6 = Unknown
5.Br0 GT | $31,210 | 420HP 5.0L 11.0CR | CW M6 = 3618lbs (+320lbs C7 / -290lbs SS)
14 GT500 | $55,100 | 662HP 5.8L-SC 9.0CR | CW M6 = 3845lbs (+554lbs C7 / -66lbs SS)
LS3 Camaro SS | CW A6 = Unknown
C7 CW A6 = Unknown
5.Br0 GT CW A6 = 3675lbs (+377lbs C7 / -233lbs SS)
14 GT500 Auto not offered