5.0 vs LS1

[BlackVert]

and i thought this thread was supposed to be about comparing the LS1 to the 5.0

neither the cobra or mach 1 motor is either a LSx or a 5.0

 

[95Vert383AOD]

Mehh....400hp...900hp. What does it matter, they still all seem to run 12's when they get to the track.

Oh yeah this thread is about who runs anyways 12's right?

Who needs torque? I hear from the import forums that if you need torque then your car is too heavy

 

[1slow95]

It would be nice if someone made a LS1 style heads/intake package for the 5.0. You can easily replace the distributor with a cam sensor and coil packs these days. That will probably be my next mod actually.

I found this new intake from Edelbrock, looks very interesting....

Edelbrock.com - EFI - EFI Manifolds - Ford

 

[Stopsign32v]

^ I cant imagine what size hood you would have to run to make that intake work. Looks more designed around the Cobra R intake. The key to making good power out of a 5.0/5.8 is to get rid of that traditional 180* bend intake. Well that is if you want to make power above 6,000rpms.

 

[95Vert383AOD]

^ I cant imagine what size hood you would have to run to make that intake work. Looks more designed around the Cobra R intake. The key to making good power out of a 5.0/5.8 is to get rid of that traditional 180* bend intake. Well that is if you want to make power above 6,000rpms.

What about a 90mm TB and a 4" pipe? Would that make Power over 6000RPM ???

I feel you can either make the pipe straighter OR make the pipe bigger so the bend doesn't effect performance.

 

[revhead347]

It would be nice if someone made a LS1 style heads/intake package for the 5.0. You can easily replace the distributor with a cam sensor and coil packs these days. That will probably be my next mod actually.

I found this new intake from Edelbrock, looks very interesting....

Edelbrock.com - EFI - EFI Manifolds - Ford

Somebody already put LS1 heads on a 5.0. I saw pictures on the net of it awhile back. They modified a carbuerated Ford Intake to make it fit. I can't find any of the pics now, but if you do a search you'll find all the forums where people talked about it.

Kurt

 

[HankyGT]

Stopsign,

How's that BoxR intake working out for you?

 

[Stopsign32v]

It works great. The people that say the car has no low end torque don't know what they are talking about. I've got over 315rwtq by 3,000rpms.

 

[Pokageek]

It works great. The people that say the car has no low end torque don't know what they are talking about. I've got over 315rwtq by 3,000rpms.

Just being DA.. but that's not much and those peeps like me want it well b4 3000. Flame suit on.

 

[Stopsign32v]

I don't race anyone at 3,000rpms or below so I see no point in all that torque at 2,000rpms unless you plan to pull your mobile home with your car.

 

[Pokageek]

I don't race anyone at 3,000rpms or below so I see no point in all that torque at 2,000rpms unless you plan to pull your mobile home with your car.

Mobile home pulls I leave to the chevy guys. But "waiting for my torque" is not for a streeter. Like I said, Chris's car will pull away from yours AND mine in top gear and from a light. You see, what I am trying to say is that your car would feel slow the way I drive. Two different mindsets, two different drives. It's all good.

 

[95Vert383AOD]

Mmmmm TORQUE

Torque at low RPMs...why guys ditch 302's for 351's and 351's for 460's

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Indeed. If I wanted to start making power above 3,000RPM, I would have bought a Honda.

 

[95Vert383AOD]

Well with a larger displacement you have more control. You can make 500+ hp with a calmer cam.

 

[revhead347]

I don't race anyone at 3,000rpms or below so I see no point in all that torque at 2,000rpms unless you plan to pull your mobile home with your car.

Amen. Power and torque below 3000rpms is meaningless.

Kurt

 

[Pokageek]

Indeed. If I wanted to start making power above 3,000RPM, I would have bought a Honda.

LOL. Yep.

 

[BlackVert]

Amen. Power and torque below 3000rpms is meaningless.

Kurt

so why do the big boys in racing have big motors?

and what is going to be more fun on the street and around town?

have you people ever heard the statement that ET is a function of torque while trap speed is a function of horsepower?

torque wins races, not horsepower

unbelievable

 

[Gearbanger 101]

I think torque and horsepower are only considered meanlingless below 3,000RPM to those who aren't making it. Kind of like when the teacher hands out suckers to the kids in class and she runs out before she gets to the last kid...at which point he starts pouting with the whole "I don't care if you all got suckers...I didn't want one anyway", attitude.

 

[Black Stampede]

so why do the big boys in racing have big motors?

and what is going to be more fun on the street and around town?

have you people ever heard the statement that ET is a function of torque while trap speed is a function of horsepower?

torque wins races, not horsepower

unbelievable

This post is kind of confusing. First you say "what is going to be more fun on the street and around town" implying low end is more fun around town.

Then you say "have you people ever heard the statement that ET is a function of torque while trap speed is a function of horsepower".

Which is ironic to me because how fun a car is on the street is related to trap speed not ET. Example, a guy traps 126 and runs mid 11s. Fairly common with cars unable to get traction. Guy #2 traps 117 and runs mid 11s. He hooks hard.

Which car is going to be more fun on the street? Well it's certainly not going to be guy number 2. Guy #1 traps 9 mph faster and has a car that is gonna be alot more fun to drive around on the streeet then guy #2 whos car without slicks and fancy suspension would probably be around a 12.2 when guy #1's car with slicks is a 10 second car.

I'm just saying, when it comes to the street trap speed says alot more about a car.

 

[Pokageek]

This post is kind of confusing. First you say "what is going to be more fun on the street and around town" implying low end is more fun around town.

Then you say "have you people ever heard the statement that ET is a function of torque while trap speed is a function of horsepower".

Which is ironic to me because how fun a car is on the street is related to trap speed not ET. Example, a guy traps 126 and runs mid 11s. Fairly common with cars unable to get traction. Guy #2 traps 117 and runs mid 11s. He hooks hard.

Which car is going to be more fun on the street? Well it's certainly not going to be guy number 2. Guy #1 traps 9 mph faster and has a car that is gonna be alot more fun to drive around on the streeet then guy #2 whos car without slicks and fancy suspension would probably be around a 12.2 when guy #1's car with slicks is a 10 second car.

I'm just saying, when it comes to the street trap speed says alot more about a car.