Heads/Cam ls1 Trans am vs. Supercharged Mustang GT

[Chris17psi]

That T/A looks like it's wearing some of those expensive-ass Fikse rims....anyone else?

[c24balla]

why stop recording every time the T/A pulls?

[avexhype]

@c24balla all races were stopped at 120 ish, no need to go faster on a public hwy plus it was enough to see whoever was winning.

[mike88g1]

373s will make the top speed decrease from stock im sure that pny didnt have much left even the owner says so

[bttawfiq]

@mike88g1 True, but imagine though his 5th gear had 0.83 ratio not the stock 0.62-0.67 Mustangs usually come with, I bet he could pull 150-160 in 5th at 6000-6500rpms, and that would be awesome!! this is what the TKOII 600 was made for (or is it 500?)

[mike88g1]

@bttawfiq i dnt know. I hqd a 2000 gt with 3.73 gears a4 everthing else was stock. I topped at 135 and thats that. I hqve a ls1 ws6 ram air with the stock 3.23 gears and the 2 overdrive gear ratios i go north of 150 all the time.

[1911harbinger]

I think we can all agree mustangs suck

[JMopar11]

With 373s you're not runnin outta gear at 125 now way

[avexhype]

@JMopar11 Do you know what your saying? I sure was, i had to shut down at redline in 4th gear. Tremec t-45 and 26" tall tires, speedo was cal'd for the 3.73s as well. thats the way it is.

[JMopar11]

@avexhype Lol ya you shut it at 4th so you have the first t-45 ever built without 5th?

[avexhype]

@JMopar11 lol dude, do some research. Ofcourse it has 5th gear but thats not the point. Anyone would be stupid to race a boosted STOCK ford 4.6 motor in a tall ass 5th gear especially with rwhp north of 400. That would just be asking for the motor to grenade and spray shrapnel and oil all over the interstate with all the heat buildup in the motor causing detonation/knock/other nasty shit, its not built to handle any of that. So the smart thing to do is shut down in 4th its as simple as that.

[2VModularPowerHouse]

@avexhype This JMopar11 is an idiot good luck in life



[TheAcg917]

What all do you have done to that trans am its tight man i got one just like ? ??

[Texarmageddon]

OHV- street friendly powerband, can be lightweight and have a smaller packing due to it being integrated INTO the block. Yet, has horrible flexibility when it comes to new designs.

OHC- Has better design flexbility, less reciprocating mass, Higher rpms.. which at times aren't always useful.. too many things to consider mate..

[Feenyxxx95]

@Texarmageddon Also I want to agree with your comparison between the two. Except the sad thing is, ford has barely taken advantage of the higher rev advantage of a ohc design, yet they did make the low end sacrifice..... The 5.0 granted has responded with a meatier band than i've ever seen from a ford ohc. Yet their peak power is barely higher than that of ls based ohv engines until finally this year with the 5.0 making peak at around 7k. Only took a decade and a half.

[Texarmageddon]

@Feenyxxx95 Taking a stance on a higher rev advantage isn't a simple task nor a wise one. The price of the mustangs would shoot up and reliability becomes a huge issue as the rpms increase higher and higher when using cheap materials... You have to remember the OHV is an inherently cheaper design than the OHC so this MAY allow the company room to make a stronger valvetrain/bottom end capable of holding a sustained Higher rpm range. its all money in their eyes..

[Feenyxxx95]

@Texarmageddon That's a very good point. Which kinda goes back to what I was saying to that other guy about the ohv being a cheaper package for the factory to build. What you said here though is a great point. 

[Xsalvaz]

mustang destroyed and always will

[ballenb17]

i don't understand. my stock engine ls1 trans am with full slp exhaust can barely pull a stock '03 cobra, so why does this cammed badass have trouble with a supercharged gt. dur

[Feenyxxx95]

@ballenb17 easy, stock cobras don't dyno 420+ to the wheels, and they weigh a couple hundred lbs more. Don't get a 8 psi stock eaton m112 with a higher boost centrifugal confused.

[ssmpatton]

Dumbest Fucking races I've seen.....why don't you start out at 120 next time and see who stops faster. 65roll....gimme a break!

[tadubs]

LS1'S FOR SOME STRANGE REASON ARE BETTER BUILT ENGINES EVEN COMPARED TO THE NOW 6.2 OF THE CAMARO WHY IS THAT????

[Feenyxxx95]

@tadubs They're not, it just looks that way because of the car they sit in, a better comparison is the c5 base model vette and a 07+ c6 base model, ls1 vs ls3, the c6 would destroy the c5. The new camaro ss is a pig at almost 2 tons. So it makes the ls3 look like shit. On the dyno a really good running ls1 will dyno 310-325 rwhp in a 01-02 6 speed f body. and a good running ls3 in a 2010 camaro will dyno 380-390 rwhp.

[murfballsz]

T/A needs driver mod. damn nice sounding car though and they both move out.

[NuthinLikeMe]

Fast 2v for being supercharged. Pushrod motors are hard to beat! My old full exhaust, intake, tune and gears LS1 WS6 non cam or heads made 360 rwhp.

[NuthinLikeMe]

Fast 2v for being supercharged. Pushrod motors are hard to beat!

[ilovechevy1]

wich brings us to our next point kiddies....dont fuck with LS1's.......with a cam and headers only you can make 400 RWHP...so for 800 dollars you can make a 13 year old eangine more powerful than fords brand new DOHC coyote 5.0...the 98-2002 F bodies are the best bang for your buck performance car out there...factory they put down around 300 RWHP ( they where underated at 305) and there are cam only F bodies out there running into the 10's with only cam..exhaust ..lid ..drag radials and gears

[hemiowner105]

@ilovechevy1 best bang for the buck that will prolly ever come along!

[Feenyxxx95]

@ilovechevy1 and like a famous mustang magazine editor once said "but gee uncle henry, it only has one camshaft!" Don't care what ford fanboys wanna think. GM's tighter packaged cheaper to build pushrod motor is and always will be one of the best motors around. Not taking away from the 5.0 and 4.6 dohc's. They are great motors. But instead of fanboys bragging about the smaller engine. Learn how a motor works first. You have the important part. Better flow from the top end. Learn something boys

[testy462]

@Feenyxxx95 Apparently you haven't seen/heard of the new 5.0L engine... just as much power as the vaunted LS3 with far less displacement (more power actually in the boss version).

Ford must have finally decided it wasn't enough to outsell the camaro every single year (forever) and finally decided to win the stock vs stock horsepower war. According to hot rod (otherwise known as "chevy rod") the stock 5.0L (non boss) heads outflow a ported yates D head... YIKES!

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 After reading your post Thoroughly, I've come to only one conclusion. You didn't read a bit of my or the guys post I replied too, cause if you did, your reply would have been constructed completely differently. Read the guy who's post I replied too, and then my own. Then read yours and make some sense out of it for me.. cause I surely can't. You say shit like I haven't heard of the 5.0 when I clearly mention it. And for what reasons its smaller displacement makes similar power.

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 Let me spell it out for you. Your 5.0 coyote has 32 valve variable timing, 4 cam shafts, and 11:0.1 compression. You damn well better make close to the same horse as a 16 valve single cam 6.2 ls3, for a package that damn expensive to build. GM's smaller exterior sized engine is cheaper to build, easier to work on. Just needs few more cubes to make up for your 5.0's DOHC heads flowing capabilitys but in much more expensive build form from the factory.

[testy462]

@Feenyxxx95 funny... its more expensive, but somehow the car isn't eh?

Even in regular GT form the coyote outperforms the LS3 in every measure. In boss form it simply embarasses it, all with 1.2 LITERS less displacement.

So its just under 1/3 bigger, with less power, and a weaker curve...I think you proved everyone else's point, OHC is the superior engine.

BTW, from the way you speak you haven't ever worked on a LS equipped car. They are a PITA to work on.

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 An overhead cam development project is more expensive than a tighter package overhead valve project period. Its a company decision on how they are going to please the bean counters and produce a similar product. Whether its from ohc heads or larger displaced pushrods, they get the job done in similar fashion except in the pig ass heavy camaro. Has nothing to do with what engine is better. Thats just fanyboy talk. That's basically all i'm trying to say.

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 and by the way, I'm thoroughly impressed by the new 5.0, as I said I wasn't trying to take away from it, but for now, the LS1 is and has been one hell of a bang for your buck. And will be for years to come. Choice and preference is one thing. The fact that you can get 300+ rwhp stock for under 10 grand can't be denied as something good for enthusiasts. You may even find me on a vid defending mustangs. I go by truth before I go by fanboy blind loyalty.

[testy462]

@Feenyxxx95 so your not a fanboy,but can't admit the superiority of the DOHC setup compared to the old pushrod setups of GM. GM is doing the same thing dodge has started... the only way they can make more power is to keep making it bigger and bigger.

its OK, just wait till the 6.0L+ based coyote variant thats in the works. Can you say 500+ horsepower n/a?

BTW, apparently with all the added costs of design and build of the DOHC setup, Ford can still sell more cars for a better profit.

[testy462]

@Feenyxxx95 So far as the LS1, for its time it was pretty advanced and was one hell of a bang for the buck, just a simple cam swap and boltons making good power, but its far from the god motor most LS1 fanboy's make it out to be. The best part about it was a set of factory heads that flow more like aluminum aftermarket stuff, letting you make power on the stock motor + a new cam. Good thing for Ford they started with the heads this time.

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 There is nothing to admit. OHC has better flowing heads, but the physical size of the motor is much larger in only a liter in smaller displacement. The 6.2 ls3 is a larger variant than most ls based v8's. But its still smaller than even the 4.6 dohc. Even if only slightly, Fuel economy is still the same, I personally witnessed an 02 firehawk get 32 mpg from houston texas to dayton ohio. My old 98 cobra was lucky to see high 20's.

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 Ford can produce their 6.0 dohc, but in the same fashion as already is, gm builds a liter larger, that is smaller, same fuel economy, and produces the same power with a better torque curve. LS7, that is now 5 years old. And will already have matched a 6.0 dohc. This isn't an attempt to say which is better Its an attempt to get you to understand companies can reach the same goal regardless of your head design. Imo neither is superior Keep an eye on GM's upcoming 5.5 direct injection ohv

[testy462]

@Feenyxxx95 Thanks for pointing that out. All of this is done, on smaller displacement, with NO direct injection. Can't imagine what it can do with that.

Who gives a ripe shit if the actual deminsions of the engine are the same? What does that have to do with anything. Hell, if your talking car size, your still in the (vastly) inferior area with the new camaro (WHAT a pig!) and there are already coyote swaps in 3000 pound foxbodys, so its apparently small enough.

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 The point of it is since you keep saying "bigger displacement" when that doesn't even matter either. The fact is of course an engine with ohc will flow better than ohv. But it doesn't make it a superior engine just because of its head design. The smaller dimension ohv makes for a tighter package while the displacement means absolutely dick. You use a gigantic ohc engine, gm uses a larger displaced ohv. They get the job done in similar fashion.

[Texarmageddon]

@Feenyxxx95 The actual size of the engine doesn't really matter. The amount of flow that can be put into one chamber is crucial.. Hence, to say displacement means dick.... you must be crazy.. Displacement is nothing more than the number of cylindersx 3.14 x bore x stroke.. Just because it is ohc.. doesn't mean it will flow better.. Especially in a 2 valve setup.. now where power is made or tq curve between OHC vs OHV.. The OHV does a way better job than the OHC in street applications..

[Feenyxxx95]

@Texarmageddon yeah I was a bit out of line with that displacement comment. But a 32 valve head that doesn't flow better than a pushrod 2v out of the factory, is a hunk of shit quite honestly. SOHC I understand Doesn't take full advantage of its smaller displacement ohc design. The 32 valve does however. Which is where my displacement comment stemmed from. Physical engine size doesn't matter to the average joe, but it sure matters when you're the one pulling the thing out of the car.

[Texarmageddon]

@Feenyxxx95 lol size doesn't matter.... weight matters when pulling out... Yet, if you have a cherry picker ..... i think it cares more than you do

[testy462]

@Feenyxxx95 And as stated before, try arguing with anyone that has actually done it (rather than make it up as your doing) and their gonna laugh in your face. Hell, its a nightmare just to change the plugs on a LS1 Fbody, let alone pull the engine. I think it took me 20 minutes (maybe?) on my car.

Like I said, it takes chevy more displacement to make less power... so congrats. On top of that, they have a heavier car with less room in the engine bay.. win again.

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 Its not hard, and if you think i'm making it up that's on you, but I can asure you its not hard to tie a cherry picker to the frame, unbolt the kmember with wheels on and all, lift the car up and roll the motor out. I've done it 4 times in the past 10 years and all 4 times it was done within 30-45 minutes. So scoot on along with your 2v mustang gt. 32 valves 4 cams, variable valve timing, to make less power than 16 valves single cam ohv I think is what you meant.

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 although I can agree with you about the plug change. Without headers I can vouch for it being an all day job. And good job with that impressive 260 ft lbs btw. I see how it was table top flat now. An old friends h22a4 prelude had a torque curve similar to that lol. Thats one meaty table top flat curve man. Well at least the table top flat part.

[testy462]

@Feenyxxx95 And you have to bring a freaking SEVEN liter ultra expensive LS7 to combat an engine with a liter less displacement?

No doubt GM got their shit together alot sooner than ford, with the LS engines making great power with minimal mods, but it was only a matter of ford deciding it didn't need to make more/as much power as the competition to outsell them (and they didn't, look at mustang vs fbody sales). someone at ford finally got off their ass and decided to beat GM.and they did.

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 you keep bringing the point up of a "less displaced" engine with ohc performing as well as a higher displaced ohv engine like its surprising to you. It makes it seem you don't truly understand what you're even talking about because if you did it'd be no surprise. I don't care what shit says on paper. If you truly understand how these engines meet their goals it'd be no surprise the ohc can make similar peak power as a larger displaced ohv. But look at the torque curves NA.

[testy462]

@Feenyxxx95 Have you looked at the TQ curves N/A? Look at the new 5.0. Hell, look at the poor old 2v 4.6L. Even with a aftermarket cam, mine didn't have a 20 ft/lb difference from 2600 RPM to 5K, flat as a table.

You can cry about it all you want, but what they are doing is called efficiency. Its a more efficient engine design. So far as this dimension myth, first of all who cares, and second of all, go look in any F-body car... your thoughts looking in there is GEE! How small it is? lol

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 I've seen both and neither of the torque curves i've seen were flat as a table unless they were under boost. My buddies 01 GT's torque curve was laughable until he put his paxton on. He admitted it himself. Your's probably flattened out "because" of the cams in yours. And the funny thing, after we had pulled my 98 cobra's motor back in 2000, And then we pulled an lt1 and an ls1 shortly after, with em on the stand that was exactly our expression. "damn,, they're smaller than I imagined

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 lol my buddy just helped me realize something, You actually think the 4.6 sohc has a decent torque curve? lol.... K I'm done here, you win. You're clearly blindly biased to even say it let alone think it. I bet you thought yours felt "torquey" when you first bought it too, me and my buddy both looked at each other our first time out in his and after he let out of it, we both said, this thing needs some work asap. Then we seen the dyno graph and his face turned red. Embarassment sucks.

[testy462]

@Feenyxxx95 Acutally, it got worse down low with the cams, as I went with a fairly agressive grind.

Just pulling out the old dyno sheet, it exceeded 260 ft/lbs from 2500 RPM all the way to 5400~ RPM. Not too bad for a car making 280 RWHP peak. And thats just a poor little 2v.

Face it, Chevy is behind the times. They have one car that's actually setup decently, and its way out of the price range of the typical enthusiast (vette). The camaro is a overpriced retro pig.

[Feenyxxx95]

@testy462 and btw, I also agree about the camaro, I myself can't stand it personally, but the engine that sits in it i'm perfectly fine with. I prefer the TA, and the vette as far as gm is concerned. With ford I'd only own cobras until the 5.0 came out, cause I am one of those types if im gonna run ohc, I may as well have a 4v. Although I've not owned a mustang since early 2001. And it was a 98 cobra. Which I adored until I parted ways with it. My only beef is the silly ass "displacement" debate

[95supraguy]

dude in the trans am doesn't know how to shift

[Trans22Am]

Yep good run if u ask me. That bird sound mean as fuck. lovin the Stang too.

[TITFCUKER]

LS1s are engines touched by the hand of god

[bge9198]

Sounds like the Trans Am needs a Tick master cylinder. Makes shifting like butter.

[crazyc1123]

Both nice cars. T/A driver shifts like my grandma though

[Microbombs]

@crazyc1123

No crap learn how to shift

[2000GTP]

That's a pretty even match up- basically whoever got the jump wins, but not by much- good racin:)

[DynamicTheRapper]

Nice video man. Good lookin cars

[DRIFTking95M]

where did the sparkles at the trans am come from at 0:13?????

[recniabsal]

I think the guy in the Trans Am can shift a little faster than that. There was a pause inbetween shifts. Unless his clutch is slipping or he had some reason not to speed shift.

[01WS6ICK]

wat state are u from?? id like to race u

[suprbird]

both nice cars....

[bbrice5798]

Nice runs. I like close races.  That LS1 heads and cam wasn't too bad either.

[ls1jorge]

the black Ls1 in this video is formula, base body of a v6 with ls1 factory package.

[ls1jorge]

after 12years the Ls1 still wins :)

[cleancutyellow]

Man i love LS1s.....

[GTMustang2k]

damn man the GT does good up against a heads cam ls1! i need me a supercharger... lmao

[2115will]

nice races

[tucubanito305]

long tubes give u a lot of top end and more if you are on boost!!

[tucubanito305]

ur welcome bro ur car is running hard when u run this trams am were you at 430rwhp??

[avexhype]

@tucubanito305 i had more like 420 or so, i didnt have my longtubes at the time. the 433 was with the long tubes

[tucubanito305]

awesome run man fast cars for shure but u got him on the last run...fast 2v!!!

[avexhype]

@tucubanito305 yup got him by a hood! thanks

[Mustang2160]

@avexhype you woulda had him good if you guys went from a dig. nice run tho. wheat throttle body and intake manifold you have on there?