How could we keep up with an LS1 with the same power?

Pokageek · Feb 11, 2006

"Factory boosting is still up in the air, obviously there are more moving parts to be coverd by warranty, tuning and engine requirements typically call for a vastly different engine, and mass production is cheaper, not to mention the end users ability to modify much more easily and result in more engine warranties coming from unethical users"

The point I would like to expand on from this is that you can't just slap on a supercharger to GM engines not meant for it. They are N/A and if anything like my engine will have to stay N/A or suffer breakage along the line.

For example, with my upgrades in the sig, my engine manufacturer told me not to put a supercharger on the car because of the hyp pistons and non-(forged?) internals. Maybe the newer GM n/a's have beefy enough internals to make that point arguable. Anyone?

EDIT This also makes me wonder why alot of you guys with stock 94/95's internals running S/C don't blow up yuor engines? Why can't I S/C mine then?? Sorry if I am twisting this thread slightly, just curious...

nmcgrawj · Feb 12, 2006

Pokageek said:
"Factory boosting is still up in the air, obviously there are more moving parts to be coverd by warranty, tuning and engine requirements typically call for a vastly different engine, and mass production is cheaper, not to mention the end users ability to modify much more easily and result in more engine warranties coming from unethical users"

The point I would like to expand on from this is that you can't just slap on a supercharger to GM engines not meant for it. They are N/A and if anything like my engine will have to stay N/A or suffer breakage along the line.

For example, with my upgrades in the sig, my engine manufacturer told me not to put a supercharger on the car because of the hyp pistons and non-(forged?) internals. Maybe the newer GM n/a's have beefy enough internals to make that point arguable. Anyone?

EDIT This also makes me wonder why alot of you guys with stock 94/95's internals running S/C don't blow up yuor engines? Why can't I S/C mine then?? Sorry if I am twisting this thread slightly, just curious...

Because a lot of times the things that break things are a bad tune or getting too aggressive with power. Every part has its breaking point....u just have to know that point. Hyper pistons can take boost. Obviously not as much as forged...and u can believe if the tune is a little off, they will shatter alot sooner than forged. Like you said yourself, guys do it all the time with GREAT success. You just have to be smart with it...and when u have weaker parts, you have to be more conservative.

I know GM can put a blower on their motors....now im not sure how much power the stock block and internals can handle....but trust me, its plenty im sure.

And we cant just say generally that a built fox with a 351 with a 6speed can probably take a "Ls1". Cause what is a LS1? Is it a stock one? Modded? Bolt ons?

Maybe one of the Pro's like Jay Allen, Ed. C, etc could answer this in a better way. Cause there is always someone faster than you. I wonder if there is a way to say which motor would be "king" of power. I sure as hell dont know...cause while we're at home building our 351s....they're at home building their LS1's.

SWYZ721 · Feb 12, 2006

I know the LS engines do have trouble with boost. I think the weakness lies in the rods.

Also I believe they have an unfriendly CR ratio for boost.

pleasehelp · Feb 12, 2006

I really haven't read through all this but how about if you do HCI to a 351?? Will that take it to the HP #s the LS1s are making with HCI combos?? I read that some are making HP #s in the 400s, and that's at the wheels!!

Monsterbishi · Feb 12, 2006

Problem with this thread is that at the end of the day it's a flawed comparison, the LT1's have a greater edge in both displacement, power and potential:

94-95 SN95: 215hp/1396kg = 0.154hp/kg
93 LT1: 275hp/1500kg = 0.183hp/kg
= 7.4% Heavier but 27.9% More power

Bore Volume:
350 = 15.8% larger than 302
Plus 10.5:1 compression ratio vs 9.0:1

So the LT1 will respond better to the same mods as our SN95/302 in every way, shape and form.

Having said that, when we were deciding between the two, it was the weight the was the final decision, being lighter has the advantage of better durability when it comes to suspension, steering, braking, tyre durability - the list goes on. That and the Camaro's are ugly as sin in comparison!

final5-0 · Feb 12, 2006

Monsterbishi said:
Problem with this thread is that at the end of the day it's a flawed comparison, the LT1's have a greater edge in both displacement, power and potential:

94-95 SN95: 215hp/1396kg = 0.154hp/kg
93 LT1: 275hp/1500kg = 0.183hp/kg
= 7.4% Heavier but 27.9% More power

Bore Volume:
350 = 15.8% larger than 302
Plus 10.5:1 compression ratio vs 9.0:1

So the LT1 will respond better to the same mods as our SN95/302 in every way, shape and form.

Having said that, when we were deciding between the two, it was the weight the was the final decision, being lighter has the advantage of better durability when it comes to suspension, steering, braking, tyre durability - the list goes on. That and the Camaro's are ugly as sin in comparison!

I could not agree more

That is why you got to even things up with a windsor in our car

Grady

DougNuts · Feb 12, 2006

This may be off topic from the original question, but I think you guys are missing one major point.

The LS1 is simply a better engine design. The cylinder heads are phenominal in those motors. Take it another step and look at the LS6 or the almighty LS7 and you'll be wanting to swap one of those into your car.

Check the flow numbers on the new LS7 heads, they are amazing! Over 300cfm with good low lift numbers too!

As someone else pointed out, these new Chevy motors have little to nothing in relation to the old motors, they are a completely new generation with a clean sheet design. They make good power down low and great power up high and they also get good mileage.

I'm a fan.

My point of all of this is that you may be able to make a motor with peak numbers that match the LS-X motor, but it still won't be as good through the whole RPM range.

Next, talking about those motor's weak points is a moot point unless you drive an '03-04 Cobra, and even those motors have problems.

Finally, if you want to get your mustang to hook off the line and handle better, I recommend a torque arm/panhard rod setup like the Camaros have.

Zero Signal · Feb 12, 2006

Finally, if you want to get your mustang to hook off the line and handle better, I recommend a torque arm/panhard rod setup like the Camaros have.

Ahah! I knew there was something in the suspension that we didn't have with the way I see them launch.

broken_joke · Feb 12, 2006

during the christmas holidays we put a cam in my pops 02 ss. with the cam and all the supporting mods he should be at 400 to the wheels. he just bought heads and they are ported ls6 that flow better than afr 205's. he should be able to put down about 430-440 at the wheels with this combo. which is pretty outstanding. the car has great weight transfer. when you punch that thing it squats down hard and pulls all the way to redline! after having first hand experience with an ls1. i don't see anything (n/a speaking) other than a stroked 302 or 351 based motor keeping up with a ls1. of couse a blown 302-351 is another story but just like others have said put a blower or boost on an ls1 and you back at sqaure one. i think that n/a power levels can be acheived to match the ls1's it just takes a really good set of heads/cam/intake and good tuning. my .02
jake

final5-0 · Feb 12, 2006

DougNuts said:
This may be off topic from the original question, but I think you guys are missing one major point.

The LS1 is simply a better engine design. The cylinder heads are phenominal in those motors. Take it another step and look at the LS6 or the almighty LS7 and you'll be wanting to swap one of those into your car.

Check the flow numbers on the new LS7 heads, they are amazing! Over 300cfm with good low lift numbers too!

As someone else pointed out, these new Chevy motors have little to nothing in relation to the old motors, they are a completely new generation with a clean sheet design. They make good power down low and great power up high and they also get good mileage.

I'm a fan.

My point of all of this is that you may be able to make a motor with peak numbers that match the LS-X motor, but it still won't be as good through the whole RPM range.

So true ... and ... I agree with you

Well

I'd not go as far to say ....................

"I'm a fan" ... Don't forget ... It is a Chevy

And

I'd certainly not wanna put any Chevy motor in my Stang

anyway

The windsor motor is as close as we can get to being on an equal footing with those motors when talking about pushrods, cubic inch displacement, and stock Ford motor offerings.

Again, our smaller 302 c i motors are just not a fair comparison here.

Grady

blksn955.o · Feb 12, 2006

I have always thought that ford did ok with the less HP numbers and smaller CI engines they have used.

I mean up until the ls1 a maf fox would run very well against the lt1, and the SD foxes ran better. The model year to model year is kinda were things get funky for ford the 94-95 going up against the lt1 was a def. win for the f-body.

the ls1 is one hellova good motor, I dont care if your are a die-hard Ford fan its just an awsome power plant.

that being said the N/A 4v (non-03/04 cobras and mach1's) with its CI underdog number run realy good track times in the ls1 area stock as well.

As far as our pushrod setups...look at paul's-killer- vert it has a smaller motor with about the same hp at the rear wheels as yes a stock ls1 but runs faster than a vert f-body would.

as far as needing aftermarket stuff to run with a motor that is as far ahead of the 5.0. That is not a apple to apple comparo to me. That is like comparing a mustangII 302 against a 87 SD 5.0. So yes your going to need mods to play.

SWYZ721 · Feb 12, 2006

The Ford 5.0 (302) and the Chevy LS1 (346?) are VERY different engines.

Also let's stop and figure out which engine we are talking about, as the LS engine ranges from 5.7L-7.0L now and where your flow numbers have been taken from.

Gas mileage cannot really be included as this is dependant on soo many things (from 6-speeds to 3100lb Vettes)

My only thought is that OHC tech (which is still very new) will pay off for ford.

Look at 98+ Maros/Birds against 05+ stock for stock, Ford is inching much close with 1.1 less liters.

SeventyMach1 · Feb 12, 2006

SWYZ721 said:
My only thought is that OHC tech (which is still very new) will pay off for ford.

As much of a 16 pushrod fanatic I am ..... I must say I agree with you on this. They haven't invested all this money for nothing. I think the Ford GT will be a joke in the future ..... but only time will tell. Anyway, we better stop modular talking before Grady opens up a can!!!

How could we keep up with an LS1 with the same power?

Pokageek

Active Member

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member

SWYZ721

Member

pleasehelp

New Member

Monsterbishi

Member

final5-0

Mustang Master

DougNuts

Zero Signal

Active Member

broken_joke

Member

final5-0

Mustang Master

blksn955.o

SWYZ721

Member

SeventyMach1

Keep it lubed .... keep it straight .... and keep

Similar threads

How could we keep up with an LS1 with the same power?

Active Member

Advanced Member

Member

New Member

Member

Mustang Master

Active Member

Member

Mustang Master

Member

Keep it lubed .... keep it straight .... and keep

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency