I knew it! Mustang Answers...
12-20-2010, 07:21 PM
#101
quit crying about cubic inches, your the one that likes ford.
Thatd be like choosing to date fat girls then complaining about their nasty gut touching me.
I could always say well what if chevy did 4V heads or what if they did FI, oh wait they did and the LS9 makes more HP than the fabled GT, almost a hundred more.
Thatd be like choosing to date fat girls then complaining about their nasty gut touching me.
I could always say well what if chevy did 4V heads or what if they did FI, oh wait they did and the LS9 makes more HP than the fabled GT, almost a hundred more.
12-20-2010, 07:25 PM
#102
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no doubt that the Ls based 6.0 in a Mustang would run very well. If he's running 9's its probably a gutted out drag car weighing 2700lbs or so with out driver. I have never denied that the LS engines will make good power. I will how ever say that the LT1 and older efi SBC will get their butts handed to them by a hot little efi 302 based combo. I've seen it first hand more times than I can count. Part of that is because the Mustang was lighter but remember it also came with 302 cubic inches instead of 350 like its GM counter part. The 4V was 281 cubic inches and would spank the 350 cid LT1.
People want to talk about a cobra being rare or what ever the case may be none the less fact of the matter is it was still a mustang and there was not a Camaro which could come around them in most years, No SS and no Z-28. Ford did it back then with less cubic inch and is doing it again. For how long? Who knows.
As for a 302 or 351 getting in the 9s on pump gas not being possible I advise you to do some research as its been done many times. When it comes down to it the motor, car or driver doesnt make a difference, none of our cars are stock and we all spend stupid amounts of money on them making them faster in hopes to out run someone else. Its a timeless argument that will never end or be answered.
12-20-2010, 07:35 PM
#103
Staging Lane
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why must there be so many idiots on this site? I remember when you could get beat up for posting dumb ****. Now ten jerkoffs will post right after the first idiot. Let me be clear...ten dumb asses saying the same dumb **** doesn't make you morons right.. Just makes you a liberal.
I'm posting from my phone so excuse the sweet grammar.
I'm posting from my phone so excuse the sweet grammar.
12-20-2010, 07:36 PM
#104
Staging Lane
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quit crying about cubic inches, your the one that likes ford.
Thatd be like choosing to date fat girls then complaining about their nasty gut touching me.
I could always say well what if chevy did 4V heads or what if they did FI, oh wait they did and the LS9 makes more HP than the fabled GT, almost a hundred more.
Thatd be like choosing to date fat girls then complaining about their nasty gut touching me.
I could always say well what if chevy did 4V heads or what if they did FI, oh wait they did and the LS9 makes more HP than the fabled GT, almost a hundred more.
12-20-2010, 07:42 PM
#105
This debate will never end and is pretty much worthless to continue. Mustangs where on top from 87-95 then Camaros and in 2011 it switched back with the introduction of the new 5.0.
People want to talk about a cobra being rare or what ever the case may be none the less fact of the matter is it was still a mustang and there was not a Camaro which could come around them in most years, No SS and no Z-28. Ford did it back then with less cubic inch and is doing it again. For how long? Who knows.
As for a 302 or 351 getting in the 9s on pump gas not being possible I advise you to do some research as its been done many times. When it comes down to it the motor, car or driver doesnt make a difference, none of our cars are stock and we all spend stupid amounts of money on them making them faster in hopes to out run someone else. Its a timeless argument that will never end or be answered.
People want to talk about a cobra being rare or what ever the case may be none the less fact of the matter is it was still a mustang and there was not a Camaro which could come around them in most years, No SS and no Z-28. Ford did it back then with less cubic inch and is doing it again. For how long? Who knows.
As for a 302 or 351 getting in the 9s on pump gas not being possible I advise you to do some research as its been done many times. When it comes down to it the motor, car or driver doesnt make a difference, none of our cars are stock and we all spend stupid amounts of money on them making them faster in hopes to out run someone else. Its a timeless argument that will never end or be answered.
12-20-2010, 07:49 PM
#106
Banned
iTrader: (60)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adkins - Tx
Posts: 2,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM hit the ball out of the park withthe Ls based engine and I will completely admit that. We can go back and forth on the Lt based engine being swell or crap. Personally I think its a POS. As I said in the beginning, Ford and the people who own them have always done more with less. I wish Ford would have stepped up and offered the 351 as an option in the Mustang but it never happend. I wish they would have put more cubic inches into the mod motors as well but it didn't happen either. Breaking it down on a power per cubic inch basis, Ford in stock form is on par for the most part. The new 5.0 DOHC is taking it to another level in my opinion and I look foward to what Gm and Mopar are going to do about it.
12-20-2010, 07:50 PM
#107
Sorry at work ad on my phone.. I totally agree with it being an endless debate... But that 87-95 mustang outperformed gm.. I don't think so.. Please back up this statement if u do truly believe that.. See endless debate lol
12-20-2010, 07:54 PM
#108
Got to remember, a Fox car only runs so well since the lack of weight, not because the motor are decent, there is a guy here witha all stock 6.0 in a fox body, carbed and cammed, unported heads turning 9s all motor on pump gas, never could happen with any 302 or 351 with pump has, stock short block with ANY heads you put on it. Unless someone can prove me wrong anyway.
Just shows chevy power in a light car get down hard.
That is why Ford doesnt rule in category where weight restrictions even things up so there is no HP to weight advantage to save them.
That is what i see anyway.
Just shows chevy power in a light car get down hard.
That is why Ford doesnt rule in category where weight restrictions even things up so there is no HP to weight advantage to save them.
That is what i see anyway.
12-20-2010, 08:42 PM
#111
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No there is a debate on if it is performance or overall? Come on man overall performance. You want to talk about power? Hands down GM has made more power, the few years Ford made more it was due to being forced induction but every year GM did it due to more cubic inch. Whats the point? Some people like turbos some like dope its all the same in the end GM guys cry about a blower Ford guys cry about cubic inch doesnt matter its a timeless debate that will never end.
Mustangs are compared to both the camaro and the vette but some reason never once was the camaro compared to the Ford GT. Dont mean anything by it just saying, and yes I realize the cost difference. Take 99-02 the Mustang GT was just over half the cost of a Camaro yet it still gets compared to everything. You wonder why it was or is the best selling "muscle" car? Its no mystery unless you are just to stupid to understand basic economics.
Mustangs are compared to both the camaro and the vette but some reason never once was the camaro compared to the Ford GT. Dont mean anything by it just saying, and yes I realize the cost difference. Take 99-02 the Mustang GT was just over half the cost of a Camaro yet it still gets compared to everything. You wonder why it was or is the best selling "muscle" car? Its no mystery unless you are just to stupid to understand basic economics.
12-20-2010, 08:46 PM
#112
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1997 Ford Mustang Cobra:
Curb Weight:3404 lbs.
0-60: 5.8 seconds
1/4: 14.0
4.6 Liter V8
HP:305@5800 rpms
TQ:300@4800 rpms
Top Speed: 152 mph
1997 Chevrolet Camaro SS:
Curb Weight:3375
0-60: 5.4
1/4: 13.8
5.7 Liter V8
HP: 310@5200 rpms
Top Speed: 155 mph
TQ: 335@2400 rpms
2 tenths?? Cant say anyone has the upper hand in that battle but GM did make more power and had a quicker ET with 70 more cubic inch. Not something I would really brag about given it could go either way with a swift wind.
2002??
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ang_specs.html
Again nothing major to set them apart by any thing worth speaking of well other then price yet again!
12-20-2010, 08:52 PM
#113
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: St Joseph, MO
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, that's a very close battle. Hardly the Cobra "dragging the LT1's ***." Who cares about cubic inch, FI, etc?... IT IS WHAT IT IS. We are talking about stock vs stock, not "what if"...
If you wanted to use that argument then compare the 2002 F-body vs the 03-04 Cobra.
If you wanted to use that argument then compare the 2002 F-body vs the 03-04 Cobra.
12-20-2010, 09:01 PM
#114
Banned
iTrader: (60)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adkins - Tx
Posts: 2,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about 2 tenths. There must be some no driving *** Camaro drivers out there because I've seen a many Sn95 4v's kill the Lt1 F body from a dig and from a roll. Put a set of 4.30's in the rear and its not even a race.
12-20-2010, 09:10 PM
#115
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: St Joseph, MO
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be?? The facts are listed right above. Of course, anything can happen, especially on the street. For instance: A couple years ago, while my car was bone stock, with a failing opti (imagine that) and a 6 speed, I raced a friend of mine in his '96 Cobra. Low mileage, xpipe/exh, 4.10 gears, intake, 5spd, short shifter, etc...was a really nice car. We went from a dig, up through 4th gear and he had a bumper on me, barely nosed me out. And I even had a 250lb passenger. With bolt ons I raced several 99/01 Cobra's and it was no contest. However running into a 03/04 Mach 1 was a different story...
12-20-2010, 09:19 PM
#116
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for comparing the 03-04 Cobras thats a loosing battle for any LS owner as 80 bucks will net you 470+ hp at the tire. Can tell me there is a single mod any LS can install that cost 80 bucks and gain nearly 100 hp. Even modded to hell the 03-04 cobra has it as the stock motor including cams, heads, crank, rods and block will push out 1k hp. Cant tell me you can slap a turbo or big blower on a LS1, 2 or 3 and net the same results can you?
Why is it a pissing contest? Because everyone always wants to claim to be superior.
Growing up my father had 2 67 camaros and raced them every weekend later switching to dirt track again with GM stuff. When I came home with a Mustang he was like "Son I didnt raise you like that" LOL When I built my turbo car several years ago and told him it would make around 1k to the tire he said no way I can get that out of a 347 ci motor. Needless to say I did and he was amazed. Nothing has changed it was a battle in the 70's and its still a battle today. There is nothing you can do with one you cant do with the other. If the new camaros didnt cost so damn much I would have one just as the mustangs but I refuse to shell out 45+k for a ******* car when I can use that to pay my house off or something worth while.
I bought an 03 cobra 2 years ago for 17k and to this day I can sell it for 20k. Most expensive car I have ever bought and only have it because its value isnt dropping. Granted I had close to 40k in my turbo car but thats a hobby I dont need a new edge camaro or mustang as a hobby car its a depreciating investment that will only cost more and more all while losing value in the process.
12-20-2010, 09:27 PM
#117
Banned
iTrader: (60)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adkins - Tx
Posts: 2,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be?? The facts are listed right above. Of course, anything can happen, especially on the street. For instance: A couple years ago, while my car was bone stock, with a failing opti (imagine that) and a 6 speed, I raced a friend of mine in his '96 Cobra. Low mileage, xpipe/exh, 4.10 gears, intake, 5spd, short shifter, etc...was a really nice car. We went from a dig, up through 4th gear and he had a bumper on me, barely nosed me out. And I even had a 250lb passenger. With bolt ons I raced several 99/01 Cobra's and it was no contest. However running into a 03/04 Mach 1 was a different story...
We have really digressed from the original topic of this thread though. If some internet article says the Mustang is a chic car, I'm fine with that. Just remember the next time you see the tail lights of one, regardless of what is done to it and regardless of all your excuses, YOU JUST GOT BEAT BY A CHIC's CAR!!!!
12-20-2010, 09:40 PM
#118
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Helendale
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SRT8 392
12-21-2010, 06:59 AM
#119
I have no doubt that the Ls based 6.0 in a Mustang would run very well. If he's running 9's its probably a gutted out drag car weighing 2700lbs or so with out driver. I have never denied that the LS engines will make good power. I will how ever say that the LT1 and older efi SBC will get their butts handed to them by a hot little efi 302 based combo. I've seen it first hand more times than I can count. Part of that is because the Mustang was lighter but remember it also came with 302 cubic inches instead of 350 like its GM counter part. The 4V was 281 cubic inches and would spank the 350 cid LT1.
well, i had a 383 at one time i had about 1000$ in parts and murdered every 302 powered fox i cam across motor for motor, but my new 6.o does them even worse.
12-21-2010, 07:30 AM
#120
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just let me know.