91 5.0 VS. 96 4.6

FastDriver said:
You're right. That was an exaggeration, and I can’t show you one that weighs exactly 2900 lbs. I don’t have a stripper notchback available for weight tests at this time – I’ll be sure to send one out as soon as it becomes available.

Seriously though, a little bit of logic will confirm what I’m telling you. No, they didn’t weigh 2900 lbs – it was actually in the high 2900s, which can be confirmed by adding common sense to an article I’m going to send you in lieu of my unavailable stripper notchbacks. The stripper hatchback in the article weighed 3060 lbs straight from the factory. I don’t recall exactly what mine weighed because it has been a long time, but it was pretty close to this. Drop 70 lbs for the approximate weight difference of the hatchback body vs. the notchback, and that takes you to 2990. Now, I don’t know why you race at full weight, but I don’t. When I weigh my cars, I weighed them at my race weight. I also weighed the components that I took off of the car. The stock spare tire was 30lbs. The jack was 6 lbs. The dog-bone was 11 lbs. The gas tank holds 15.5 gallons. ¼ of a tank would be ~4 gallons. 15.5 gallons - 11.5 gallons drops 72 lbs. Therefore, the race weight minus the driver would be 2871.

Before you say it, I know that you don’t consider this the stock weight. I understand and grant that I exaggerated saying that stock stripper notch was 2900 lbs. This is what the car would weigh the first time I took it to the track, if it were my car.



You don’t feel like explaining yourself, because you know that it is in no way easier and especially not cheaper to get 250 rwhp from a 4.6.



Cool. I thought they weighed more. You’re still 300 lbs heavy. What did the lightest GTs weigh?



I’m correct that you’re an internet racer? BTW, that 14.2 was the one and only night that I took my car out. I feel that I would have gotten easy 13s and a couple more mph from it as I had not removed the stock air silencer or bumped the timing.



You weren’t there. I was. I know what outdriving someone looks and sounds like. When a car gets on the throttle and is reeled back in it isn’t the driving. That car was outpowered. Laugh if you like…. I was there.



Quit making an ass out of yourself. Honestly, how could you know that you spend more time at the track than me?



Yup, pretty much. Did it have A/C cause guess what…. That was a factory option in the early LX 5.0s. Ask me how I know, please.



You got it. I’ve seen it too many damned times for it to be a fluke. Will report the results.


Sure thing. I’m there every weekend.



Sure sounds like it to me. Hey mind posting a slip of your fastest time in that 2000 GT, or you could send it to me via email.



No….everybody please don’t go back and look, I’ll post what I said exactly: “The best running bone stock 5.0 LXs ran 13.8s right off of the factory floor.”

Reading accuracy: note the “LXs” right after “5.0.” This delineates a certain type of 5.0, which was not the fastest 5.0 produced. Sorry bud, try again.



Show me the car that equals the stripper notch from both 1996-1998 models and 99+ models and I’ll be happy to.



Which one LS1.com, or corral.net, because those are the only two other forums that I’ve been an active member on for the past 4 years. I know, maybe one of my cars made you think that I was a ricer. Which one was it, the 1989 5.0 LX that stayed pretty close to stock, the 1999 Corvette coupe, the 1992 5.0 H/C/I LX that ran low 12s, or my current 1991 Twin-Turbo 5.0 LX? Oh, my bad.... you must've seen me in my hooptie - a 1990 Honda Accord. That's what confused you. Relax, bro, that's not the hot rod it just gets me to work and back when I'm dirty.



Accusing me of lying is going way too far, and you damned sure owe it to me to show me where I lied before you accuse me of it.



Sorry brother, I’m an officer in the U.S. Army, and I don’t have much free time to come here. The last thing I did before I left to go to the field last Monday was to check this thread, and it was the first thing I checked when I got back, today.


Exaggeration explains it all...

I race my car "as is"...I don't strip it down just to get a faster time...what you see me race at the track is how you would see it on the street...a realistic time...instead of saying before we race..."Can I take out my spare tire and jack and let me burn off some gas first...is that okay?"

Again the exaggeration explains it all...

I would say the lightest Gt's weigh in at around 3200lbs...though they weigh 300lbs heavier (not on average)...in this case...it has the car outgeared and outpowered with better suspension, more room, etc...

I beat ls1's in my 2000...does that mean I got a faster car...and they "looked" like they were going all out...but you can always tell when he is slowly falling back that something isn't right...

Well I got a 93 so A/C is not an option :nice:

A 93 Cobra is an Lx hatch...with a body kit... :)

That is the point...there is no car that equals a "stripper" 5.0 in weight...which is the only reason why a 5.0 can hang with the newer 4.6...

Dang I thought the Accord was fast :nonono:

Look threw the thread to find out about the accusations...it's called "twisting the words"...Anybody up for a game of Twister?

An Officer in the Army and getting in a childish argument with me?...hmm....
 
5spd GT said:
I race my car "as is"...I don't strip it down just to get a faster time...what you see me race at the track is how you would see it on the street...a realistic time...instead of saying before we race..."Can I take out my spare tire and jack and let me burn off some gas first...is that okay?"

Hmm... with the exception of the level of gas, that's the way I drive around, too :)

I beat ls1's in my 2000...does that mean I got a faster car...and they "looked" like they were going all out...but you can always tell when he is slowly falling back that something isn't right...

Try racing one from a highway roll-on, and it will just walk away, though. The difference between a GT and an LS1 isn't in the same league as the difference between a 5.0 and a 99+GT. The LS1s run between 106 and 109mph traps and anywhere from 12.9s (So, I hear) to 13.5s depending on options, transmissions etc... The best I've seen a verified stock one go is 13.08@109.

Anyway, the point is that your slower LS1s at 106mph are still trapping 4 mph faster than your fastest GTs whereas the slowest GTs are not trapping any faster than the fastest LXs.... at least not in my opinion.

Well I got a 93 so A/C is not an option :nice:
cool

A 93 Cobra is an Lx hatch...with a body kit... :)

I guess you could say that. You could also say that the GT is an LX hatch with a body kit. Neither of them are classified as LXs, though.

That is the point...there is no car that equals a "stripper" 5.0 in weight...which is the only reason why a 5.0 can hang with the newer 4.6...

Couldn't agree more.

Dang I thought the Accord was fast :nonono:

According to the hole in the muffler, it thinks it's fast, too!

An Officer in the Army and getting in a childish argument with me?...hmm....

Absolutely. Everybody has to have a hobby that they're passionate about. This is mine.

Later,

Chris
 
FastDriver said:
Try racing one from a highway roll-on, and it will just walk away, though. The difference between a GT and an LS1 isn't in the same league as the difference between a 5.0 and a 99+GT. The LS1s run between 106 and 109mph traps and anywhere from 12.9s (So, I hear) to 13.5s depending on options, transmissions etc... The best I've seen a verified stock one go is 13.08@109.

Anyway, the point is that your slower LS1s at 106mph are still trapping 4 mph faster than your fastest GTs whereas the slowest GTs are not trapping any faster than the fastest LXs.... at least not in my opinion.

That is my point exactly...try racing a 99+ Gt from a highway roll...what I have "experienced" is the same type :spot: goes on...

Thats cool...

David
 
5spd GT said:
You better love it...because 98mph isn't a good run...again go back to the track or the 4.6 forums and they will laugh you out of the forum...101mph would be a good run...


FastDriver said:
You got it. I’ve seen it too many damned times for it to be a fluke. Will report the results.

I guess I was stretching it when I said 99-101. That said, I know what I've seen, and I've been to the track enough to be credible. I've seen 5spd GT coupes (not convertibles, mind you) that I know were bone stock make good runs that were as slow as 98mph and as fast as 102.

Here are the requested results....http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=504728. I think the responses to your post were especially interesting. I guess this kinda makes the races I mentioned in my old stock 5.0 more believable, eh?
 
98mph is not a good run...and that doesn't prove anything to me...I know what they do...just wait till some of the better drivers respond...don't take the responses as "that is it" type answers...wait till some more show up in there...
 
FastDriver said:
I guess this kinda makes the races I mentioned in my old stock 5.0 more believable, eh?

I believed your races 100%...but you beat the drivers...like I said if everything where equal...the 99+ Gt would come out on top...but we can't all have a perfect world huh?
 
frmus3 said:
you two should settle this **** in person. who would win that

Nah, just in it for the argument bud. Some day he'll get another stock 99+ GT and I'll get another stock 5.0 and we'll race, but until then I'm perfectly happy internet racing :D :rlaugh: :lol:

Chris
 
FastDriver said:
Nah, just in it for the argument bud. Some day he'll get another stock 99+ GT and I'll get another stock 5.0 and we'll race, but until then I'm perfectly happy internet racing :D :rlaugh: :lol:

Chris

In a perfect world :nice: but for everything else there is Walgreens :)
 
87'GTstang said:
Since when has high-end torque ever been something to consider for an engine period? Torque is mainly important downlow and somwhere in the middle of the RPM band the two trade off and the built-up hp takes over and builds until the engine starts running out of air. The 5.0 was kknow as a "stump puller" - it was a torque monster and made gobs of it. Any modular engine by history has not been known as torque monsters, but high-revving hp engines. This is the tradeoff by technology. Given an equal engine you should find a race between a pushrod and modular to be a little different. Wheras the pushrod will probably pull off of the line with its torque, when the modular starts revving it should catch back up when it begines revving higher and higher and builds hp (the only way ricers have anything whatsoever).

On another note, the 5.0 again was in no way like the 4.6. The 4.6 was weak and enthusiasts knew it in more ways than you could imagine - the 91'-98' 4.6 sucked period (until technology started being pushed their way).

Also, the 87' and 88' 5.0 was the most powerful and earned the 225/300 rating rightfully so. In 89' a chocked MAF meter size and a revised cam profile cost approx 5-7 hp. Again in 91' the cam was revised and that cost another 3-4hp (your true 10 hp loss and 15 ft/lbs torque loss). Due to revisions in which manufactures performed testing (no loads on the engine being the old way vs. accesories being driven the new), it was a combination of the revised methods and the fact that hp was lost over the years.

I just had to quote this, i know its old but it was a such a good laugh LOL oh god. :rlaugh: you really dont know how horsepower/torque works do you? "build horsepower". :lol: the 96-96 GT's didnt rev much higher at all, actually the powerband was very similar to the 5.0, especially from 3200-5200 where most of the racing would be taking place, except it had about 7-10 less RWHP. and how much does a 58mm MAF really "choke" a 60mm TB? I do agree that the speed density vehicle ran more aggressively stock, but the MAF size does not do much in "choking" the motor as you stated. \And making tq at a higher RPM is a good thing, atleast in racing it is. you need to read up on how torque multiplication works.