2001 gt engine swap

billfisher said:

sorry abouthte controversial comments. i like fords, not chevy's. my blood is blue. i hate chevy's. always have always will. i like putting them on the trailor.

Click to expand...

No problem with that, but hate doesn't justify the claim that they are crap. Any reasonable person will be able to see this. As for me, well I REALLY don't get all this Ford vs GM thing. I simply like cars regardless of make, if it's good it good - PERIOD.

billfisher said:

my bad. the ls-1 in a 2000 camaro was rated at 305hp/325tq. how do you figure it has more power than 300hp/365tq?

Click to expand...

Yes as I said, ALL GM figures for the Fbody we underated. I personally think it was due to marketing and cost (only had to make one engine for the Vette and Fbody, and just advertise one lower than the other).

Not trying to be horrid, but it is laughable that someone beleives the LS1 was only producing 300bhp or less. Take a look around an Fbody site, it is accepted as FACT that the LS1 is underatted. Don't take my word for it, please go and have a look for yourself. www.ls1tech.com www.fbody.com

billfisher said:

you claim it was underrated. really? chevy has a history of the opposite. maybe the ford is underrated, or they only spun it to 5000 for a reason.

Click to expand...

I'll answer this in a bit (PS I won't mention the 320bhp Cobra escapade, if you don't )

billfisher said:

cam only ls running 10's. that's bull.

Click to expand...

Nope. But it would depend on the defination of cam only so my bad. In this respect I am meaning a full bolt on car with a cam swap and accompanying parts (springs, followers, push rods). BUT still running STOCK HEADS. Plus no power adders.

billfisher said:

so you are saying it can make 550 hp with just cam?

Click to expand...

No, but a full bolton on one with a massive cam (T-Rex or similar) should see near 450rwhp, so that makes it over 500bhp at the engine. Shed a lbs from the car and 10's are doable.

billfisher said:

that's crap. a 250 hp increase with a cam. must have 360 degrees duration and 1" lift. only a chevy can keep the valves open that long and that high. must rev 10,000 rpms'. i wonder how they get it to do that with 240 cfm. some kind of miracle. my heads flow as well, and my intake flows as well. cam only? wow.

Click to expand...

umm??

billfisher said:

they started overrating them in 1962 starting with the 425 hp 409. and it just snowballed from there.

Click to expand...

I think you will find the WHOLE American car industry is guilty of this. Hence you know have the SAE Net rating sytem. It was designed to stop these over zelious claims. SAE Net came inforce in the early 70's hence there appeared to be such a massive drop in power outputs.

billfisher said:

they seem to be advertisinga radical lift rate cam. the lift rates that require low ratios also need rev kits. do they recommend a rev kit? what makes you think i can't put that (similar)in my 3v. those heads don't out flow mine. raelly, i have been trying to get you chevy trolls to admit that equal head flow, equal cams, equal exhaust, equal ignition, equals equal power.

Click to expand...

Show me where I have claimed this? I am an avid defender of OHC engines, so I really don't understand your anger??

billfisher said:

you seem to be unable to face the facts that 3v and 4v can hang with the love of your life..... chevy LS. get used to being second fiddle when the 5.4 or 6.2 3v or 4v is available standard.

Click to expand...

Odd comment. BTW I've not heard anything about a 6.2 litre Mustang, got any info links?

billfisher said:

all hail teh mighty LS. also i make WAY more torque than equal chevy. 365 vs 325.

Click to expand...

Are you meaning PEAK torque? Also remember the torque numbers for the Fbody are as wrong as the BHP numbers. In all reality the LS1 makes a PEAK torque of nearer to 370lb ft, and it will make 90% of this by only 1500rpm.

Have a look at this dyno chart. NOTE: the scale on the left for torque is different to the scale on the right for BHP, this makes the torque curve look steep, but it isn't

See from 1500rpm to it's PEAK torque at 4400rpm there is only a variation of about 40lb ft.

billfisher said:

plus i have variable valve timing. that equal faster acceleration. ever wonder why the 4.6 3v run such good 1/4 times? VCT dude.

Click to expand...

VCT doesn't make a car quicker, it allows what would be a comparitily more agressive cam to be used in the higher rpms, but retains better refinment, driveability and fuel efficency in the lower rpms.

Honda's VTEC system does basically the same thing, and Rovers Variable Valve Control is slightly different but the same general idea.

Plus the new 6.2 Ls unit does have it as standard.

And what times for the new s197 Mustang. It is a solid 13.5-13.7 car when well driven, which should be bang on for 300bhp. There are a few claims of lower 13's but these are as rare as Fbody's running high 12's. Also if you look at the really quick times for the s197 they generally have a pretty low trap speed, which means the ET was really due to the 60' and the suspensions ability to hook up.

billfisher said:

365lb-ft @ 2900rpm = 201 hp
300 hp @4900 = 321lb-ft

not bad for a truck motor... just imagine what it can do in the hands of a real ford boy. it doesn't just die at 4900. it can rev safely to 5200. so a little extra cam phasing and WELLAH... 320 hp without adding ANYTHING. plus all that torque OFF IDLE.

Click to expand...

Yes it is impressive, but remember the LS1 red lines at 6000rpm, although it does suffer valve float at 5800rpm once the PCM restrictor is removed. However some after market springs will see 6200-6500 rpm quite safely.

billfisher said:

i know i own one. my 245's spin like they are on butter from a roll. my 4.6 would not really do that from 15 roll. this one tries to snap spin a 180. hmmmm.

Click to expand...

Yep been there, had a slight bit of wheel spin @ 40mph in my Z28 (wiith 245's) in kick down, and this was even with the TCS activated. With it off and under the right conditions (whether, temp, tarmac surface) it will roast the tyres upto the red line in 1st which is 54mph. It probably would have continued in 2nd except for the fact that I whimped out and had run out of road nearly.

billfisher said:

BIG torque off idle,
big torque at 2900 rpm
big torque at 5200. jeez i am only good valves from phasing the cam for 5500 rpm BIG torque.

Click to expand...

billfisher said:

if i maintain just 321 lb-ft at 5500 that is 336hp.

i wonder what it will do with a few select mods.

these are real numbers. just cam phasing torque. no need to lose bottom end like chevy's

Click to expand...

With more valves a DOHC engine will always have a larger operational window than a OHV. But on the street that window is not usually exploited.

LS1's will loose no more bottom end than any other OHV push rod V8 including the Ford 302ci.

Numbles said:

You are a lazy ass. Go back to that link and actually read. You might just find a video.

Click to expand...

This is your second personal attack on my in this thread. One more and you will get banned.

billfisher said:

i get off because 3v makes more torque across a wide band than 2v or 4v.

Click to expand...

2v yes, 4v NO. And a 5v is even better, but far more expensive and complex and has other issues.

billfisher said:

give the aftermarket time, and 3v will take over. VCT dude.. i got it, 302 don't.

Click to expand...

Well 4v has already taken over. Just take a look at the rest of the world. ALL 4 cylinder engines are 4v and most V engines. Jaguar, Merc, BMW, Porsche, TVR, Lotus, Lambo, Ferrari.

300bhp/ton said:

2v yes, 4v NO. And a 5v is even better, but far more expensive and complex and has other issues.


Well 4v has already taken over. Just take a look at the rest of the world. ALL 4 cylinder engines are 4v and most V engines. Jaguar, Merc, BMW, Porsche, TVR, Lotus, Lambo, Ferrari.

Click to expand...

most merc engines are 3V

tomustang said:

most merc engines are 3V

Click to expand...

my bad.

ta.

what do you mean it doesn't make a car quicker? so you are saying area under the torque curve has nothing to do with acceleration? that's a new one to me.

this is fun. what is the percentage of HIGHLY modified LS's.

i bet there are enough of them out there to be real suprised by these lowly mods. everyone doesn't have the money to cam,lid,header, etc their LS. the jury is out for the time being on whether or not i will get into the 10's. i won't have stock heads soon enough. i will never know if a stock heads 5.4 3v can run 10's.

billfisher said:

what do you mean it doesn't make a car quicker? so you are saying area under the torque curve has nothing to do with acceleration? that's a new one to me.

Click to expand...

Are you talking to me? If so I have no idea what your talking about. If your not then my bad.

billfisher said:

this is fun. what is the percentage of HIGHLY modified LS's.

Click to expand...

Actually quite a lot.

Check out this thread on LS1Tech: http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281398

It's a how much rwhp are you making thread.

Cliffnotes:
From 936 voters

25% make 400-450rwhp (that's a quater of all Fbody's)
18% make over 500rwhp
With a further 20% making more than 350rwhp

So basically 72% of Fbody's make 350rwhp or more. (About 400bhp at the engine).

billfisher said:

i bet there are enough of them out there to be real suprised by these lowly mods. everyone doesn't have the money to cam,lid,header, etc their LS. the jury is out for the time being on whether or not i will get into the 10's. i won't have stock heads soon enough. i will never know if a stock heads 5.4 3v can run 10's.

Click to expand...

Well best of luck and I hope you do get into the 10's.

Numbles said:

Click to expand...

He's not kidding.

Numbles said:

EDIT: I was curious and looked at your previous posts on stangnets forums. Do you contribute to anything other than being a post whore? <----Thats a question mark. So yeah its a question not an attack.

Click to expand...

"CanadaStang quietly turns off computer and tip toes out of the room, closing the door behind...."

billfisher said:

my bad. the ls-1 in a 2000 camaro was rated at 305hp/325tq. how do you figure it has more power than 300hp/365tq?

you claim it was underrated. really? chevy has a history of the opposite. maybe the ford is underrated, or they only spun it to 5000 for a reason.

Click to expand...

my SS dyno-ed 320 HP to the wheels stock and 325 LB torque...all stock. its a good platform, and anyone who argues differently really isnt that bright. an LS1 is a great motor. The same way that a 4.6 DOHC is great motor. buy a 400 dollar cam, do full exhaust and get a 100 dollar intake lid and you will make around 400 horse with a mild cam. its a damn good platform. i think itd be a cool thing to do. It's a really popular swap with the RX-7 world. I wish the thread starter the best of luck whatever he decides. He will not be disappointed. He wouldnt be disappointed with a 4.6 DOHC either. To each his own, but dont put down an engine just because its dodge or a chevy or another company. id love to see an LS6 rx7. i see no problem with mixing and matching the best of both worlds. good luck...

Numbles said:

EDIT: I was curious and looked at your previous posts on stangnets forums. Do you contribute to anything other than being a post whore? <----Thats a question mark. So yeah its a question not an attack.

Click to expand...

I walk quietly and carry a big stick. I'm deleting your posts because they are off topic and have nothing to do with tech. If you want to take this to PM, you know where to find me.

poorcollegekid said:

my SS dyno-ed 320 HP to the wheels stock and 325 LB torque...all stock. its a good platform, and anyone who argues differently really isnt that bright. an LS1 is a great motor. The same way that a 4.6 DOHC is great motor. buy a 400 dollar cam, do full exhaust and get a 100 dollar intake lid and you will make around 400 horse with a mild cam. its a damn good platform. i think itd be a cool thing to do. It's a really popular swap with the RX-7 world. I wish the thread starter the best of luck whatever he decides. He will not be disappointed. He wouldnt be disappointed with a 4.6 DOHC either. To each his own, but dont put down an engine just because its dodge or a chevy or another company. id love to see an LS6 rx7. i see no problem with mixing and matching the best of both worlds. good luck...

Click to expand...

I'd have to agree, a good engine is a good engine regardless of who made it. They all have their strong/weak points and designers and are always switching companies all the time anyway [look at Carol Shelby for example].
When Ford or GM starts sending me checks in the mail for PR work, then I'll defend them.

This really isn't off topic but

billfisher: did you weigh in the heads before you installed them?

(question would give better insite on what to choose if it comes down to front end weight) I think the SOHC head was 54lbs, my DOHC head was around 70 (complete)

no. i never pulled the heads. just the stuff in them to look at it. you have to figure they are nearly the same as dohc. they are physically larger than 2v, but don't have the running gear of 4v.

yes i can. and i am quite bright.

poorcollegekid said:

my SS dyno-ed 320 HP to the wheels stock and 325 LB torque...all stock. its a good platform, and anyone who argues differently really isnt that bright. an LS1 is a great motor. The same way that a 4.6 DOHC is great motor. buy a 400 dollar cam, do full exhaust and get a 100 dollar intake lid and you will make around 400 horse with a mild cam. its a damn good platform. i think itd be a cool thing to do. It's a really popular swap with the RX-7 world. I wish the thread starter the best of luck whatever he decides. He will not be disappointed. He wouldnt be disappointed with a 4.6 DOHC either. To each his own, but dont put down an engine just because its dodge or a chevy or another company. id love to see an LS6 rx7. i see no problem with mixing and matching the best of both worlds. good luck...

Click to expand...

i have two degrees. i might get more soon. getting degrees is easy when you are me. sorry guys, i sound bad. but he started it.

i am quite bright.

and i hate ANY chevy. i have the right to hate them.

320 rwhp. i don't believe it. but so what, if it does... it is still a chevy, so it sucks. enjoy your chevy's... at least until they file bankruptsy or get delisted. DOH!!!

i can back down a little. my truck 5.4 3v has more power and torque than a 2006 impala LS. so there chevy lovers. i am not sure why chevy boys resort to insults when they cannot win an arguement. and 300bhp/ton, you can pull quotes out of context and attempt to break them down, but you are still a chevy lover, and there is no getting around that. you lose by forfeit.

hey tom, here is the thing....

4v = higher power up top at higher lifts.

if you are staying less radical then 3v VCT is a distinct advantage. we need to wait a little longer for more research to be done on the exhaust. i am biting my fingers off waiting to find out how they respond to different lobe profiles, ie fast opening slow closing or whatever it might be. my guess is very high lift, and 10-15 degrees more duration to balance total gas volumes. there is no good way with shrouding to get a larger valve in there. i believe the flow is across the head and not laminar like parallel 2v's. it probably acts alot like canted yates heads. "D" porting is a good way to get more out of it. if that is the case then lift doesn't help as much as duration. (higher than .5) i am also waiting to find out how much material they put around the ports. it is a hard call. if they ever put VCT on 4v then they will own this whole show. in the end i may end up switching to 4v. i think i may get a front cover just in case. 4v heads are everywhere.

billfisher said:

i have two degrees. i might get more soon. getting degrees is easy when you are me. sorry guys, i sound bad. but he started it.

i am quite bright.

and i hate ANY chevy. i have the right to hate them.

320 rwhp. i don't believe it. but so what, if it does... it is still a chevy, so it sucks. enjoy your chevy's... at least until they file bankruptsy or get delisted. DOH!!!

i can back down a little. my truck 5.4 3v has more power and torque than a 2006 impala LS. so there chevy lovers. i am not sure why chevy boys resort to insults when they cannot win an arguement. and 300bhp/ton, you can pull quotes out of context and attempt to break them down, but you are still a chevy lover, and there is no getting around that. you lose by forfeit.

Click to expand...

you could quite possibly be the most arrogant jackass ive ever talked to on stangnet. its chevy so it sucks? WTF? thats like saying the light bulb sucks because you dont like thomas edison. So what you have two degrees. Obviously one of them wasnt how to remove your head from your ass.
Why do you hate chevy's? not saying you don't have the right but why? My truck has more horsepower than a mustang? so should i hate ford? that is pretty retarded. and isnt it easy to compare your truck to a v6? the SS has the V8 if thats what you meant...but since you have two degrees and possibly more... i bet you know what you meant and thought it through carefully. theres nothing wrong with liking GM the same way theres nothing wrong with liking dodge or ford. if they have a good product why not enjoy it? and BTW here are my dynographs...

i apologize to everyone who has to read that last post but those kind of biggotory remarks are what make people not like mustang owners, or fbody owners....those close minded remarks...and thats what gives sports car people a bad name. I'm sorry for my rant but I feel it justified.

i am not really close minded. it is a fact that chevy sucks.

ok, i am sorry. i got the reaction i was looking for. this is a ford site. i like fords. nothing else. i will never own a chevy. as you said, it is my choice, and my opinion. it is my right. i have been told i am closed minded by others before, and i didn't care what they had to say either.

to address others in this forum, please excuse my exposing chevy trolls, it was uncalled for. -bill

p.s. sorry for the arrogance... it also got the expected response from chevy boyz.

you are talking to the mustang owner that asked DALE EARNHARDT'S crew if they needed me to hook up my ford to their chevy to pull it out if their trailor when they couldn't start it. they wanted to kick my ass for that one.

we ford boyz are expected to just take trolls' crap. i have been doing these kind of conversations for 20 years or more. hck we got them out numbered, intellectually it only takes one ford boy for every 10 chevy boys to win a debate.

as you see they finally break down into there baser elements when they can no longer use reason to win.

once again sorry for inciting a chevy(troll) riot.