foxbody vs. ls1
#62
TECH Resident
iTrader: (2)
I was wrong
Originally Posted by mattkimsey
And with an AOD?....That is the best time I have ever heard of. ~185rwhp(aod)--3360lbs--13.26......simply amazing!! To put that in perspective, a 300+rwhp fbody at about the same weight with better gearing runs similar times.
Maybe you're joshin' us though
Maybe you're joshin' us though
60ft-1.93
330-5.533
1/8mile-8.522
mph-81.97
1000ft-11.111
1/4mile-13.297
mph-102.98
Gears, CAI and exhaust.full weight car 178,000 miles. Street tires as referenced by the 1.93 60ft.
#63
TECH Addict
Originally Posted by Stanger88
Stock for stock the LS1 would kill the stang. But it would happen at 50mph + Point in case was my old LT1 vs. my friends mild bolt-on 5.0 we were close to =, with me pulling a foot or two every 3 seconds or so. An LS1 WALKED AWAY FROM ME when we hit 50 (0-XXmph race) but was at my door 0-50, then it WALKED, so i must say, yes it would beat the 5.0, but only kill it after about 50 mph or so, then it would be busses.
STOCK FOR STOCK
STOCK FOR STOCK
I've done some searching and the best 0-60mph time I can find for a 5.0 Mustang is 6.2 seconds. However this is only once, most are 6.4 seconds, and also 7.3 seconds for an early 90's example. And 8 seconds for a early 80's example (82).
Now an Fbody should be knocking out the 0-60 in around 5.3 seconds if you beleive the mags. And this would be an auto as well. I've seen quite a few claims of 4.9x seconds for M6 cars.
So even worst case scenario the Fbody is still 1.1 seconds quicker to 60. I can't beleive it makes up that time in just 10mph (50+ as you claim).
I think there are 3 reasons for this.
1. For the first 30 feet or so most cars will be pretty even regardless.
2. As the 5.0 have less power I would assume they are quite easy to launch without roasting the tyres too much, thus being quite consistant 0-60mph.
3. The Fbody's have WAY more power so its far easier to spin the wheels and loose time. In addition the 10 bolt rear is not all that strong so I think many people do not give it as much abuse as the engine can offer, knowing that the car will make it up once moving.
#65
Lets put it this way as to the last 10mph it was enough for the LS1 to pull me by a good 1 car+ when he had been at my door (this was in my former LT1 A4 2.73 w/CAI and the race was against a lightly modded-exhaust,tune,cold air LS1 A4 from a light and we both got a good launch.) THe point is, the LS1 makes 365(TRUE) lb ft of tq while the 302 makes about 300. the 302 makes max tq at 3500 while the LS1 makes it at 4400, the LS1 weighs 3-400 lbs more. Now do the numbers make sense, forget what you read in the magazine, just take a look at THOSE numbers, it SHOULD make sense. I mean, afterall, i remember reading how an automatic mustang gt 04 ran 14.1 or something and i remember seeing how it ran 15.1 in another mag, clearly there are DEFINITE variations from truth and magazine if the magazines are a full second off. I even saw an LT1 F-body quoted at something like 14.9 IN PRINT.
#66
On The Tree
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Moline, IL
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mattkimsey
Not really? I said stock gear; slicks aren't street legal and neither is bypassing smog equipment.
My point was just that a 302 w/off shelf H/C/I will make around 275-310rwhp while staying emissions legal. Granted, they are usually 2-400lbs. lighter than an fbody, but they have less gear(2.73 5spd. & 3.27 auto. I believe). I would expect a 290rwhp h/c/i fox and 300rwhp stock fbody to run about the same times given the stipulations above.(slight advantage to fox)
My point was just that a 302 w/off shelf H/C/I will make around 275-310rwhp while staying emissions legal. Granted, they are usually 2-400lbs. lighter than an fbody, but they have less gear(2.73 5spd. & 3.27 auto. I believe). I would expect a 290rwhp h/c/i fox and 300rwhp stock fbody to run about the same times given the stipulations above.(slight advantage to fox)
#67
On The Tree
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Moline, IL
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 300bhp/ton
I don't doubt your claim. But the numbers don't add up.
I've done some searching and the best 0-60mph time I can find for a 5.0 Mustang is 6.2 seconds. However this is only once, most are 6.4 seconds, and also 7.3 seconds for an early 90's example. And 8 seconds for a early 80's example (82).
Now an Fbody should be knocking out the 0-60 in around 5.3 seconds if you beleive the mags. And this would be an auto as well. I've seen quite a few claims of 4.9x seconds for M6 cars.
So even worst case scenario the Fbody is still 1.1 seconds quicker to 60. I can't beleive it makes up that time in just 10mph (50+ as you claim).
I think there are 3 reasons for this.
1. For the first 30 feet or so most cars will be pretty even regardless.
2. As the 5.0 have less power I would assume they are quite easy to launch without roasting the tyres too much, thus being quite consistant 0-60mph.
3. The Fbody's have WAY more power so its far easier to spin the wheels and loose time. In addition the 10 bolt rear is not all that strong so I think many people do not give it as much abuse as the engine can offer, knowing that the car will make it up once moving.
I've done some searching and the best 0-60mph time I can find for a 5.0 Mustang is 6.2 seconds. However this is only once, most are 6.4 seconds, and also 7.3 seconds for an early 90's example. And 8 seconds for a early 80's example (82).
Now an Fbody should be knocking out the 0-60 in around 5.3 seconds if you beleive the mags. And this would be an auto as well. I've seen quite a few claims of 4.9x seconds for M6 cars.
So even worst case scenario the Fbody is still 1.1 seconds quicker to 60. I can't beleive it makes up that time in just 10mph (50+ as you claim).
I think there are 3 reasons for this.
1. For the first 30 feet or so most cars will be pretty even regardless.
2. As the 5.0 have less power I would assume they are quite easy to launch without roasting the tyres too much, thus being quite consistant 0-60mph.
3. The Fbody's have WAY more power so its far easier to spin the wheels and loose time. In addition the 10 bolt rear is not all that strong so I think many people do not give it as much abuse as the engine can offer, knowing that the car will make it up once moving.
#68
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bessemer City NC
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fast89stang
I was wrong about the 13.26....it went like this
60ft-1.93
330-5.533
1/8mile-8.522
mph-81.97
1000ft-11.111
1/4mile-13.297
mph-102.98
Gears, CAI and exhaust.full weight car 178,000 miles. Street tires as referenced by the 1.93 60ft.
60ft-1.93
330-5.533
1/8mile-8.522
mph-81.97
1000ft-11.111
1/4mile-13.297
mph-102.98
Gears, CAI and exhaust.full weight car 178,000 miles. Street tires as referenced by the 1.93 60ft.
#69
ls1 vs 5.0
Originally Posted by mattkimsey
Ok, at first you didn't mention the gear and 5spd. It is still the best time I have ever heard of though!! A stock 178,000 mile 5.0 has about 180rwhp, add to this 10rwhp tops for the CAI/exhaust. Soooo, with ~190rwhp you ran 13.29 with a 1.93-60ft--incredible! 99-04 GT's with 230rwhp stock and 1/3 of the miles are running 13.9-14.1 at best.
Last edited by kennyxg; 09-13-2005 at 05:03 PM. Reason: add comment
#71
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bessemer City NC
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sukkoi19
And my point was if your doing H/C/I why would leave a stock gear in the car. Its probably the first mod any Mustang guy does to his car. And Ive seen Fox cars with 270 rwhp run in the low 12s. Hell I did with 309 rwhp. 12.30@116.
#72
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bessemer City NC
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kennyxg
The 4.6 is dohc doesnt make good torque down low and is also a heavier car.
It seems like a lot of magic surrounds the Fox bodies---buy a 170,000 mile 5.0; throw in a gear; weld on some mufflers and go huntin' LS1's
#74
ls1 vs 5.0
Originally Posted by mattkimsey
230rwhp is for a SOHC GT which makes just as much low end torque as a 5.0. The weight difference is probably less than 200lbs.
It seems like a lot of magic surrounds the Fox bodies---buy a 170,000 mile 5.0; throw in a gear; weld on some mufflers and go huntin' LS1's
It seems like a lot of magic surrounds the Fox bodies---buy a 170,000 mile 5.0; throw in a gear; weld on some mufflers and go huntin' LS1's
#75
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bessemer City NC
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kennyxg
Well i guess if you over looked the e- cam and the other bolt ons i have [short attention span i guess]but it is kind of magical when a fox body car tears an ls1 a new hole at the track.
Originally Posted by fast89stang
I was wrong about the 13.26....it went like this
60ft-1.93
330-5.533
1/8mile-8.522
mph-81.97
1000ft-11.111
1/4mile-13.297
mph-102.98
Gears, CAI and exhaust.full weight car 178,000 miles. Street tires as referenced by the 1.93 60ft.
60ft-1.93
330-5.533
1/8mile-8.522
mph-81.97
1000ft-11.111
1/4mile-13.297
mph-102.98
Gears, CAI and exhaust.full weight car 178,000 miles. Street tires as referenced by the 1.93 60ft.
#77
Ls1 Vs 5.0
Originally Posted by mattkimsey
Oh, and Kenny....260rwhp with an e-cam aint gonna happen.