Coyote vs ls motor's

[Butters916]

I meant as in todays cars, not muscle cars, every 1 had a 400hp car in the 60s , I meant camaro of the mid 70's until 2009 the camaro lt1,lt4,ls1 all had 350hp or less and no shit chevy puts the ls in everything that has nothing to do with my post, what my post states is facts all the chevy fan boys are pissed, they can deal with it, the coyote makes more power then 5.7 hemis,lt1 camaros, ls1 camaros, and same horsepower as ls6 motor and similar horsepower to a ls3, only the 7.0 liter and zr1 make more horsepower, pretty impressive if you ask me, esp when ford is doing it n/a 5.0 liters and chevy and the hemi is 5.7 and 6.0 liters, it takes chevys 7.0 liter to outpower it hmm wow 2.0 liters larger and makes more power no way!:burn: and were talking a LOW LOW BASE MODELV8 CAR A MUSTANG GT! not a saleen or cobra or shelby, its a mustang gt making camaro ss ,corvette, srt8 etc horsepower.

this coming from a guy whos h/c/i and bolt on 5.0 makes 360hp. My ls1 would make that with just bolt ons. Sounds like you really dont understand the competitions engine line up and who really cares what they do stock to stock? Most people that race dont leave there cars stock and that is when those extra cubes really shine.

 

[Formula51]

I meant as in todays cars, not muscle cars, every 1 had a 400hp car in the 60s , I meant camaro of the mid 70's until 2009 the camaro lt1,lt4,ls1 all had 350hp or less and no shit chevy puts the ls in everything that has nothing to do with my post, what my post states is facts all the chevy fan boys are pissed, they can deal with it, the coyote makes more power then 5.7 hemis,lt1 camaros, ls1 camaros, and same horsepower as ls6 motor and similar horsepower to a ls3, only the 7.0 liter and zr1 make more horsepower, pretty impressive if you ask me, esp when ford is doing it n/a 5.0 liters and chevy and the hemi is 5.7 and 6.0 liters, it takes chevys 7.0 liter to outpower it hmm wow 2.0 liters larger and makes more power no way!:burn: and were talking a LOW LOW BASE MODELV8 CAR A MUSTANG GT! not a saleen or cobra or shelby, its a mustang gt making camaro ss ,corvette, srt8 etc horsepower.

Well I think you all sounds like a bunch of idiots.

That being said, the new 5.0L is VERY impressove. The fact that it makes this kind of power in a $30k volume car is awesome!

As for horsepower per liter, the LSx engines have always had TONS of power potential left untapped from the factory. This is why they make so much power with basic bolt-on's, cam swaps, head work, etc. There are very few engines like that.

Therefore, its not that it "takes" GM X amount of liters to make Y amount of power, its that they "use" X amount of liters to make ONLY Y amount of power.

The beauty of this is that the engines respond like crazy to basic bolt-on's and cam swaps (the heads are pretty good from the factory these days).

The new 5.0L is truley a marvelous engine and so are the LSx engines. However, they are two different animals. The LSx is impressive in its simplicity, strength, power, and fuel efficiency. The 5.0L is impressive in its ingenuity (vvt, oil pan design,etc.), horsepower per liter, and ability to rev.

I'll take one of each please.......perhaps I will.

 

[ChiSVT]

The new Mustang isn't some beast, but IMO, it will be the best pony car offered for sometime. Not just in the HP department; exterior/interior styling, handling and refinement.

But as far as performance is concerned, I think it will easily run mid 12s. The car has awesome gearing and the power to weight ratio to pull it off.

2011 GT - 412hp@35XXlbs

2010 Camaro - 426hp@38xxlbs
2009 Challenger - 425hp@41xxlbs
2005 GTO - 400hp@37xxlbs

 

[Formula51]

The new Mustang isn't some beast, but IMO, it will be the best pony car offered for sometime. Not just in the HP department; exterior/interior styling, handling and refinement.

But as far as performance is concerned, I think it will easily run mid 12s. The car has awesome gearing and the power to weight ratio to pull it off.

2011 GT - 412hp@35XXlbs

2010 Camaro - 426hp@38xxlbs
2009 Challenger - 425hp@41xxlbs
2005 GTO - 400hp@37xxlbs

The 2011 GT is 3603 lbs. as far as we know right now. With 18" wheels and 235 series tires mind you.

I think the only thing holding the GT back from some awesome times in stock form will be tires.

Evan Smith and some others that run on highly prepped tracks will get a GT with the optional 19" wheels and 255 PZero's to run some pretty awesome times though. I think it will be a car that takes skill to get down the track quick and many of us will not see super impressive times from stock cars at our local tracks with average drivers.

For that very reason, the Camaro and Mustang could be close in comparison tests. The very same reason the Camaro got close to the GT500 in some tests. Of all the things Ford has done right lately, I don't know why they wouldn't give the Mustang (GT and GT500) some real wheels/tires.:cuss:

 

[F8L BYT]

If you were talking about factory form, then yes, the power is close. The 5.0L is still far behind in terms of torque and torque curve though.

:lol1: Cause you have seen the dyno curve? :rollseyes You just lost your credibility because you are making shit up now

 

[swoosh_stang]

Of all the things Ford has done right lately, I don't know why they wouldn't give the Mustang (GT and GT500) some real wheels/tires.:cuss:

They should at least make a set of 9" wide wheels with 275's an option so that in the tests with Motortrend, Car & Driver, etc they can have a better shot at getting traction.

 

[ChiSVT]

For that very reason, the Camaro and Mustang could be close in comparison tests. The very same reason the Camaro got close to the GT500 in some tests. Of all the things Ford has done right lately, I don't know why they wouldn't give the Mustang (GT and GT500) some real wheels/tires.:cuss:

Well the GT500 is a completely different animal. The powerband created from the roots blower is ridiculous, a lot of off idle torque.

Even the powerband from N/A modulars is a lot different from pushrod motors. I've seen some of the Mach1 guys cut 1.7-1.8 short times with 245 width tires. Anyways, it's all speculation but I think it will be a consistent 12 second car.

 

[scn]

I'm talking about less moving parts on the top end, yes there are more cams/valves but less actual moving parts like pushrods etc. making it more efficient and less parasitic loss. Once again nice try but you fail

:lol1: Cause you have seen the dyno curve? :rollseyes You just lost your credibility because you are making shit up now

If you want to talk credibility, please address your above post. Your credibility was lost long ago in this thread.

 

[F8L BYT]

If you want to talk credibility, please address your above post. Your credibility was lost long ago in this thread.

Obviously there are more parts in the top heads, what I was referring to was more along the lines of 2v but its similar with the 4v. There are less unnecessary parts that create drag and cause parasitic loss. Pushrods are outdated plain and simple.

 

[Butters916]

Obviously there are more parts in the top heads, what I was referring to was more along the lines of 2v but its similar with the 4v. There are less unnecessary parts that create drag and cause parasitic loss. Pushrods are outdated plain and simple.

You dont think that (2) 24 inch timing chains cause parasitic loss? You really have no idea what your talking about and nobody is defending your post except you. Just admit that you were wrong.

 

[scn]

Obviously there are more parts in the top heads, what I was referring to was more along the lines of 2v but its similar with the 4v. There are less unnecessary parts that create drag and cause parasitic loss. Pushrods are outdated plain and simple.

And the hole gets deeper.

 

[Silver2003Cobra]

Haha, i love the morons saying 'old tech pushrods'.


Those old tech pushrods have been kicking fords ass for the last 15 years. HP, TQ, MPG, Weight, Footprint.

well, lets see.. 15 years would be from 1995 till 2010.. the Mustang GT in 1995 made 205 hp,
96 215 hp,
97/98 225 hp,
99/04 260 hp,
05/09 300 hp,
10 325 hp..

Cobra/Cobra R made
95 240 Cobra, Cobra R 300
96/98 305 hp
99 and 01 320 hp Cobra R 385
03/04 390 hp
05/09 500 hp
10 540 hp

Camaro made
95 275 hp
96/97 285 hp/ 97 Camaro SS/LT4 330 hp
98/00 305 hp Camaro SS 320 hp
01/02 315 hp Camaro SS 325 hp
03/09 000 hp CAUSE YOU COULDN'T BUY A F BODY, THEY WERE NOT MADE
10 Camaro 426 hp

so.. your saying that for 15 years, the F body out performed the Mustang? I think there just a LITTLE matter of 7 years that even the slowest Mustang out performed the fastest F body, cause there weren't any..

or are you going to start comparing the mid 20 for a base GT up to mid 40 grand for GT500 Mustang to the base priced mid 40 grand up to 100 grand ZR1 Corvette?

 

[czwalga00gt]

well, lets see.. 15 years would be from 1995 till 2010.. the Mustang GT in 1995 made 205 hp,
96 215 hp,
97/98 225 hp,
99/04 260 hp,
05/09 300 hp,
10 325 hp..

Cobra/Cobra R made
95 240 Cobra, Cobra R 300
96/98 305 hp
99 and 01 320 hp Cobra R 385
03/04 390 hp
05/09 500 hp
10 540 hp

Camaro made
95 275 hp
96/97 285 hp/ 97 Camaro SS/LT4 330 hp
98/00 305 hp Camaro SS 320 hp
01/02 315 hp Camaro SS 325 hp
03/09 000 hp CAUSE YOU COULDN'T BUY A F BODY, THEY WERE NOT MADE
10 Camaro 426 hp

so.. your saying that for 15 years, the F body out performed the Mustang? I think there just a LITTLE matter of 7 years that even the slowest Mustang out performed the fastest F body, cause there weren't any..

or are you going to start comparing the mid 20 for a base GT up to mid 40 grand for GT500 Mustang to the base priced mid 40 grand up to 100 grand ZR1 Corvette?

No you **** nut, i'm saying the engines produced by GM were better than ford engines. You ****ing idiot you realize that when there were no fbodys made the Lsx engines still continued. :bash:


My 6.0 is physically smaller and weighs less than a 4.6 liter of the same year. You realize how ****ing sad that is... not to mention it gets better gas mileage. So please go ahead and tell me the pushrod engines are old and 'new technology' is great. If the OHC design is great i'm sure as hell FORD has no clue what the **** they are doing with this new technology.


Tell me in what ways have fords N/A engines have been beating the GM lsx engines.

 

[Formula51]

Well the GT500 is a completely different animal. The powerband created from the roots blower is ridiculous, a lot of off idle torque.

Absolutely, but it can be hooked up. Henessey's supercharged Camaro makes significantly more torque off idle than even the Super Snake and it hooks up pretty well with some sticky 305's. Same with the 295's on the CTS-V.

The GT500 needs some sticky 295's at a MINIMUM.

 

[F8L BYT]

No you **** nut, i'm saying the engines produced by GM were better than ford engines. You ****ing idiot you realize that when there were no fbodys made the Lsx engines still continued. :bash:


My 6.0 is physically smaller and weighs less than a 4.6 liter of the same year. You realize how ****ing sad that is... not to mention it gets better gas mileage. So please go ahead and tell me the pushrod engines are old and 'new technology' is great. If the OHC design is great i'm sure as hell FORD has no clue what the **** they are doing with this new technology.


Tell me in what ways have fords N/A engines have been beating the GM lsx engines.

How is that sad? And I don't know the gas mileage of the lsx motors but my 98 gets about 28 on average on the highway and has had a best of 30 and I doubt they are much better if they even are.

Plain and simple ford is still staying on par with their competition whether you want to admit it or not its true and they are doing it with a much smaller motor.

 

[Stew]

Actually the Mustang GT is rated 25 MPG highway, same as the Challenger R/T, the Camaro is 24. The thing is that the GT is better geared for performance than the Camaro (the Camaro way less agressive gearing to achieve it's mileage), also the automatic SS gives up 26 HP and utilizes MDS to achieve it's 24MPG, the new GT auto does niether.

That was me, I did that.

The press releases say the 2011 GT manual will get the same gas mileage as the 2010 GT manual. The 2011 GT has a 6 speed transmission.

The 2010 Camaro SS gets that same gas mileage (16/24) even though it makes more horsepower/torque, has larger/wider/heavier wheels and tires, larger and heavier brakes, and weighs 250-300lbs. more overall than the Mustang.

Gearing slightly favors the Camaro in terms of gas mileage as 6th gear looks like this:

Camaro: 3.45 x 0.57 = 1.97
Mustang: 3.31 x 0.65 = 2.15

Drag coefficients are basically identical:

Camaro: 0.35
Mustang: ~0.35 (all I can find is 0.38 for the 07-09 GT500 and a Ford quote that drag was reduced by 7% on the GT for 2011) Can anyone find an actual number for the 2010?

Thus, in my opinion, Ford's V8 gas mileage is behind that of the LSX engines. We can't be certain unless we ran the engines on a dyno or put them in identical cars and ran them on the same stretch of road. Power vs. gas mileage is how I judge efficiency. I don't care if you use a turbo, supercharger, SOHC, DOHC, pushrods, horizontal cylinders, etc. How much power do you make and how much gas does it take to make it. Unfortunately, this is a hard thing to accurately compare as no two cars are exactly alike.

 

[Cobra 6245]

What record, oem or aftermarket build? You talk about an aftermarket engine build then you state oem records, just curious as to why?

Al has built a few dohc 5.5 I believe one was aproaching 600rwhp which would be close to 125hp/liter. I do know that andy 5.5 put down 550rwhp. Point being, would one be able to do that with the new dohc 5.0? 500rwhp out of the new 5.0 in an engine build?

I would say anything is possible. People keep refering to cubic inches like it is the only main factor to consider and it is because engines are like pumps and a larger engine can take in more air at a time but, technology is probably the biggest factor in all of this. Look at common four door cars like a Toyota Camry its v6 makes 268 hp and honestly its sad to admit but this car would bust a 64 GTO with a 389 big block stock for stock and the curb weight on a camry is almost 3600 pounds right on target with the GTO. So see the connection between technology and horsepower? This is 2010 cubic inches do help but technology can help close that gap.

 

[GTSpartan]

Actually the Mustang GT is rated 25 MPG highway, same as the Challenger R/T, the Camaro is 24. The thing is that the GT is better geared for performance than the Camaro (the Camaro way less agressive gearing to achieve it's mileage), also the automatic SS gives up 26 HP and utilizes MDS to achieve it's 24MPG, the new GT auto does niether.

Do you know what rear gears Ford bases their mileage calculations on? If I am not misstaken, I think they have a few more options than the Camaro, which would impact the ratings, as I believe you can get a base GT with 2.73's.

 

[mustangmanjeff]

That's great Ford has a small block motor finally over 400 hp n/a it only took Ford 40 years to do it. After every other auto manufacturer has already been there done that, you guys are just the last ones to the party. Sad thing is this mustang weighs over 3600 lbs and is still only making around 400 hp. Quote me on this "The 2011 mustang gt is not going to blow away the competition it will run the same quarter times as ls2 gto's, 03-04 cobras, trans ams, and camaros."

It's ok because ford mustang is 5.0 liters making 400hp n/a in a base v8 gt for $28-$30k, and the other " so called " cars doing it with 400hp are doing it with high end $50-60k cars, I understand why all u chevy fanboys are mad go on cry a chevy forum, yeah the mustang might be 3,600lbs, but thats still ligther the the gto and new camaro and those cars are have 6.0 liter engines the ford is not only 200-400lbs ligther then them cars its got same horsepower with 1.0 liter smaller and those are high end cars vs a base gt I guess u cant get that in ur head lol

 

[mustangmanjeff]

this coming from a guy whos h/c/i and bolt on 5.0 makes 360hp. My ls1 would make that with just bolt ons. Sounds like you really dont understand the competitions engine line up and who really cares what they do stock to stock? Most people that race dont leave there cars stock and that is when those extra cubes really shine.

I dont care about stock either Im not stock and I smoke bolt on or stock ls1's so think again buddy,and when I Had less power i destroyed stock or bolt on lt1's, yes with bolt ons u make more power because the larger motor we kno this, Im just lol that all the chevy nutswingers are on a mustang forum bitching to prove the camaro gm/ chevy is better, yes alot of them are they have the larger motors, I just find it funny and understand why the chevy guys are pissed, chevys 5.7 liter and 6.0 in the gto / camaro/ camaros make the same or less horsepower and are high end models and are heavier,the gt mustang is a base model v8 car, and yeah who cares stock mod the new 5.0 and see what numbers it makes as well

this coming from a guy whos h/c/i and bolt on 5.0 makes 360hp. My ls1 would make that with just bolt ons.

Yes it would to each there own I like corvettes, but camaros are junk anything after 1969 camaro is a ugly and tractor sounding shitbox, and horsepower isnt everything,like u said I can mod my car any amount of money can get me 500hp easily to with a blower on my setup for another $3k and shit on alot of ls1s, but the simple fact I think mustangs look 100x better then ur ugly catfish so I dont care,always some 1 faster, but whats funny go look up some old threads of my, Ive raced about 4 diff stock bolt on or modded lt1 slowmaros and smoked them and those are 5.7 liters, and i smoke stock ls1's and ive raced bolt on camaros and beat them, only camaros I lose to are cammed or cars with more then bolt ons, ive even raced a bolt on c5 auto vette that made same power as me and i destryoed it and about a 1 year ago I posted race of me vs a stock c5 z06 and I had him up to about 130 and of course his cars top end destroyed my and then blew by me..


but dude I dont care about ur ugly catfish I kno what chevys do, I use to own a 98 transam to btw, I just cant stand how they look and sound, the mustang might be smaller engine but mods take care of the horsepower diff like u said right who cares about stock? and they look and sound better. and I rather own a transam or pontiac gt/ gxp over any shitbox ls camaro ugly turd