Got a Question about Stock HP #'s on 5.0's
- Thread starter MorbidGTVert
- Start date
5spd GT said:What about the 350 camaros...they ran right with the 5.0's...
The lt1 would walk a 94-95 Cobra...
Actually an ls1 has 44 cubes more
The 350 Cammies would indeed run with a 5.0...but geez, throw on some slicks, bump the timing, yank the sway bar, throw on a shortbelt, remove the jack and spare, and you've got a solid 13 second mustang...throw in some gears, and the right conditions, and you might see a 12.99
I don't remember seeing many TPI Cammies doing this. Getting a 1987-1993 5.0 deep into the 13's, and possibly cracking the 12 second barrier isn't all that difficult or expensive...doing it with a TPI car is an entirely different matter.As for the LT1 walking a 94-95 Cobra...I don't doubt that...the SN95 is a pig, and has a F***ed up computer. Sure, they are a better ride quality, better brakes, etc...but I will take my little coupe over one of those eggshaped things any day. FYI...not long ago, I destroyed an LT1 Camaro in a street race...maybe he didn't know what he was doing...but he got killed all the same.
Also, yeah, I know the LS1 is technically a 346 or 347 CID engine...which I find just a bit ironic.
Hax
i think the reason ricers compare performance to 5.0's is that 5.0's are generally owned by a younger crowd.
They are cheaper to buy, which works good for the tight after school job budgeted younger crowd.
Since most ricers tend to be younger as well... you now have kids from the same schools running rice and affordable 5.0's.
They hang out and cross paths frequently.
Thus, they have run in's with 5.0's, and use them as thier performance baseline.
LSI's are not cheap, and are generally owned by an older crowd of graduates or proffessionals, or mid life crissis types.
These people have matured, and likely don't want to risk an 'exibition of speed' ticket to wax a 4cylinder ricer.
So, A. they don't hang out where LS1's are plentiful, and when they do run across one, it's usually an older person that is on thier way home from work and and has the days events on thier mind, rather than the bumble bee ricemobile sitting next to them...
The contests of speed don't happen, so, nothing to baseline against...
Just my guess.
They are cheaper to buy, which works good for the tight after school job budgeted younger crowd.
Since most ricers tend to be younger as well... you now have kids from the same schools running rice and affordable 5.0's.
They hang out and cross paths frequently.
Thus, they have run in's with 5.0's, and use them as thier performance baseline.
LSI's are not cheap, and are generally owned by an older crowd of graduates or proffessionals, or mid life crissis types.
These people have matured, and likely don't want to risk an 'exibition of speed' ticket to wax a 4cylinder ricer.
So, A. they don't hang out where LS1's are plentiful, and when they do run across one, it's usually an older person that is on thier way home from work and and has the days events on thier mind, rather than the bumble bee ricemobile sitting next to them...
The contests of speed don't happen, so, nothing to baseline against...
Just my guess.
mob said:
They Didnt have 302s period untill 68. The A code 289 was for the most part the same as the C code exept for the addition of a 4 barrel instead of a 2. The K code was also a 289 with a solid lifter cam, better exaust, higher compression and a 4 barrel.
The C code was rated at 200, the A at 225, and the K at 271.
The only time I can think of when a car was advertized with one moter while having another was in the case of the 70 chevell which wore 396 badges but came with a 402.
willys1 said:
OH DEAR GOD! You did not just say a late model 302 had anything on the boss did you?!?!?!?!? tell me you are joking! With forged everything 4 bolt mains WAY beefier block I believe it had 2.27 intake valves and 1.75 exhaust or something similiar, somebody correct me. Either way you could stick your whole head in the intake port and stick your buddies head in the exhaust port. Couple that with factory solid lifters and 9000 rpm and i think any 302 produced since seems kind of a joke in comparison. The reason a newer 302 car could even run anywhere near the numbers the old boss car could is because of the technology gap. Think late 60's suspension and tires.... Less than ideal for any application. I believe they ran in the 12's with decent rubber. Which is not bad for a stock 40 year old car. Which I believe nearly doubled the 87 - 93 power numbers once you skipped the rev limiter.
ill advised
Member
Another reason why they probably don't mention racing say an LS1 Camaro is because they got their asses kicked up and down the block. lol
dvs bullet
New Member
SPEED FREAK said:
The reason a newer 302 car could even run anywhere near the numbers the old boss car could is because of the technology gap. Think late 60's suspension and tires.... Less than ideal for any application. I believe they ran in the 12's with decent rubber. Which is not bad for a stock 40 year old car. Which I believe nearly doubled the 87 - 93 power numbers once you skipped the rev limiter.
The old boss 302 had such large cylinder heads that the thing barely started breathing until 4g, they are a pig off the line unless modifed. Any way who cares if the mustangs were faster or slower than the cameros, they were out selling them 3 to 1 at the dealerships, that's why the camero is gone. It was a lump anyway
cmozez said:
jesus im not that new to these things, i know a 5.0 is a 302 i just didnt know a 68 302 was a 5.0 im not very smart in like the bore and stroke and all that stuff
dvs bullet
New Member
yea, before i didnt know the liters had anything to do with the ci and the bore and stroke and stuff, on the time ive been here ive learned that stuff tho
There's also another side to the story, which is the corporate side....
I'm not privy to GM's and Ford's accounting spreadsheets, but I'm guessing the 5.0/302, based on an upgraded 30 year-old design (starting with the 289), costs significantly less to design, mass-produce and maintain than the Camaro's ever-changing powerplant lineup.
Lower costs + higher sales (the Mustang has never, IIRC, been outsold by the Camaro) = no reason for Ford to switch powerplants in the Mustang for a long time, and one of the driving forces behind the switch to the 4.6 motors was the effort to consolidate the different engine production lines to lower costs.
To answer why the Mustang has only 215 flywheel HP, it's because the 5.0 was targeted as a street performance machine, and Ford tuned the 5.0 HO for low-end torque production (and MPG and emissions, of course). That's why it's relatively easy to gain 100+ HP in a H/C/I swap - Ford tuned their stock H/C/I combo away from high-end HP. They could have just as easily tuned the factory 5.0 HO for close to 300 flywheel HP, but they wouldn't want to take the hit on fleet mileage and emissions, or seat-of-the-pants low-end grunt.
I'm not privy to GM's and Ford's accounting spreadsheets, but I'm guessing the 5.0/302, based on an upgraded 30 year-old design (starting with the 289), costs significantly less to design, mass-produce and maintain than the Camaro's ever-changing powerplant lineup.
Lower costs + higher sales (the Mustang has never, IIRC, been outsold by the Camaro) = no reason for Ford to switch powerplants in the Mustang for a long time, and one of the driving forces behind the switch to the 4.6 motors was the effort to consolidate the different engine production lines to lower costs.
To answer why the Mustang has only 215 flywheel HP, it's because the 5.0 was targeted as a street performance machine, and Ford tuned the 5.0 HO for low-end torque production (and MPG and emissions, of course). That's why it's relatively easy to gain 100+ HP in a H/C/I swap - Ford tuned their stock H/C/I combo away from high-end HP. They could have just as easily tuned the factory 5.0 HO for close to 300 flywheel HP, but they wouldn't want to take the hit on fleet mileage and emissions, or seat-of-the-pants low-end grunt.
Sir Hacksalot said:The 350 Cammies would indeed run with a 5.0...but geez, throw on some slicks, bump the timing, yank the sway bar, throw on a shortbelt, remove the jack and spare, and you've got a solid 13 second mustang...throw in some gears, and the right conditions, and you might see a 12.99
As for the LT1 walking a 94-95 Cobra...I don't doubt that...the SN95 is a pig, and has a F***ed up computer. Sure, they are a better ride quality, better brakes, etc...but I will take my little coupe over one of those eggshaped things any day. FYI...not long ago, I destroyed an LT1 Camaro in a street race...maybe he didn't know what he was doing...but he got killed all the same.
Also, yeah, I know the LS1 is technically a 346 or 347 CID engine...which I find just a bit ironic.
Hax
I was referring to stock for stock on the camaro and mustang...go look at some f-body websites and you will find little tricks that they have to...
Well the looks of an sn-95 body style is strickly opinion...An lt1 is just slightly behind a 99+ Gt and the newer gt's can walk a 94-95 cobra...it's a good race...anything can happen on the street just like at the track...I've had a side by side race with a 6spd lt1...and also KILLED a (appeared to be an auto) lt1...winning has a lot of factors...driver skill, condition of car etc...I'm seen stock lt1's have a 2 second difference at the track...some are more raggedy that others and some can flat out drive...I've took vettes from "stoplight to stoplight"...but in realiy I know that if the 60yr old man would get out the drivers seat and put a "good" driver in it that it could be very different...not saying 60yr old drivers are bad...just this one was...
Not sure what you mean by ironic...
willys1
Active Member
LOL,,,yes your rite,it had very big intakes,,or exhaust!! But a stock "Boss 302" was a 15 second car!!! Im sorry if your a Mustang fan,but its the truth.To say it could hit the 12 second with a pair of slicks is ridiculous!!! Im talking 1970.Im not sure of the HP rating,but it wasnt that high.The70 z28 was rated at 360HP,and was in the 14's.Although that same motor in the Nova would pull mid 13's.The Boss 302 was more of a Trans-Am racer,they werent known as drag racers.SPEED FREAK said:
The reason a newer 302 car could even run anywhere near the numbers the old boss car could is because of the technology gap. Think late 60's suspension and tires.... Less than ideal for any application. I believe they ran in the 12's with decent rubber. Which is not bad for a stock 40 year old car. Which I believe nearly doubled the 87 - 93 power numbers once you skipped the rev limiter.
super302
I'd do anything for free Bapples
Lt1's aint shtt, they run 14.0-14.2 with a manual, my buddys 1997 ws6 (ram air) ran a 14.05...but he has an auto. The lt1's are WAY overated, the ls1's are a dif. story.
