modding ss vs 5.0

[hunt]

Originally Posted by MauriSSio

from what ive seen, the LS3 starts choking and running out of steam at only 6000rpm and really should be shifted by 6400 or so. so thats a 600rpm difference. The coyote benefits from removing the redline and increasing the shift point rpm

This mustang starts to "choke out" just a few hundred RPMs later.. What's your point?

[Coyotekiller]

Originally Posted by hunt

This mustang starts to "choke out" just a few hundred RPMs later.. What's your point?

That must be a dyno of a bone stock 5.0. If it had the boss manifold and proper tune it could make power all the way up to 7,800 rpm.

[hunt]

Well comparing apples to apples, that's stock vs stock. Do you have any dyno graphs of just the boss intake?

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Coyotekiller

Heads/cams make little difference to the coyote.

500+rwhp is attainable with a good h/c setup on the 5.0.

[cbass]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

500+rwhp is attainable with a good h/c setup on the 5.0.

H/C ?????

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by cbass

H/C ?????

heads and cams.

[goodtime]

Originally Posted by hunt

De-tuned and power from bolt ons aren't the same thing. Aren't cam/heads not worth much in the 5.0? What about intake/exhaust (other than LTs)? I'm not being facetious i'm actually curious.

They go hand-in-hand. You made reference to the 5.0 being maxed out from the factory which led to my statement of being de-tuned and gains to be had with bolt-on's.

Ported heads aren't worth much over the stock heads using the stock cams. Move into larger cams in combination with ported heads and there is between 40-50HP to be had. If I were in the market to do this, I would use the Boss heads and go with custom grind cams with phase lockouts or use the FRPP cams.

LT's will get you about 25WHP over the stock exhaust. CAI's on a N/A motor aren't worth much. 4-5HP at most.

Putting the right combination of parts together with the proper tune = the times I have run with my auto and it still has more in it with the stock long block.

This is no different than the LS3 for example. Wrong cam, head porting, etc. may not produce the best results. The disadvantage the LS3 has is no VVT. You are forced to running an aftermarket cam to get gains that a 5.0 can achieve with simply having a good tune without having to open a valve cover, worry with exhaust springs, etc...

Combine TiVCT with the head flow on the 5.0 and that is why you have a motor that is 1.2 liters less in displacement at least equaling what the LS3 can in output.

[goodtime]

Originally Posted by hunt

Well comparing apples to apples, that's stock vs stock. Do you have any dyno graphs of just the boss intake?

Here is a comparison of my 2011 with stock intake vs. Boss:

[cbass]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

500+rwhp is attainable with a good h/c setup on the 5.0.

Looks like the camaro can get 500 rwhp with a G6x3 cam. Doesn't look like headwork is needed to achieve that?

[cbass]

The disadvantage the LS3 has is no VVT. You are forced to running an aftermarket cam to get gains that a 5.0 can achieve with simply having a good tune without having to open a valve cover, worry with exhaust springs, etc...

I am a big fan of VVT, but I don't really see it as a disadvantage compared to the coyote. Like I showed the LS3 makes more hp up until 6200 rpm and then the coyote motor matches the peak hp output of the LS3, but at higher rpm. So even with VVT the LS3 beats the coyote for most of the rpm range and then the coyote manages to match peak power output of the LS3 from 6200-6500 rpm before dropping off. A very narrow range.

That's a benefit of the larger displacement with no practical disadvantages. Almost the same fuel economy and the same engine weight. Actually I think the LS3 is a few pounds lighter.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by cbass

Looks like the camaro can get 500 rwhp with a G6x3 cam. Doesn't look like headwork is needed to achieve that?

Displacement makes the difference, nobody is arguing that. Here is a dyno for a 5.0 with ported heads and cams



Those numbers would probably be a bit higher on your typical dynojet. My local dyno dynamics puts down about 6-7% less than our local dynojet.

Fact of the matter is though, the idea that cams and heads, "make little difference" for the 5.0 is just wrong. A good h/c setup is worth quite a bit. When talking n/a performance, displacement is king. On the other hand, 500rwhp in the 2011+ gt is going to be considerably more deadly on the track than 500rwhp in a fifth gen.

[cbass]

Fact of the matter is though, the idea that cams and heads, "make little difference" for the 5.0 is just wrong. A good h/c setup is worth quite a bit. When talking n/a performance, displacement is king. On the other hand, 500rwhp in the 2011+ gt is going to be considerably more deadly on the track than 500rwhp in a fifth gen.

I think heads and cams would always make a difference. There is a reason they cnc ported the boss heads and gave those motors more valve lift. However, can't you do a pretty good job tuning the stock cams on the coyote because the VVT allows for up to 50 degrees in duration tuning or something like that? Like I said before. I'm a big fan of VVT.

Usually that is correct, but there is a replacement for displacement and that is RPM and happens to be where the mustang motor shines. Just not stock. According to Ford and from the dynos I have seen it is true after 6500 rpm the hp falls fast because of the intake. It seems the boss intake is the solution:

Coyote cannot make power any higher than 6,500--the intake manifold shuts it down. This one (the Boss 302 intake) won't shut it down until 7,750. And the reason that I picked 7,750 is that there are actually... you've seen the torque curves on Coyote, there are three very distinct peaks, wiggles in the curve, and I call those 'teeth on a sprocket' So they are tuning modes of the runner; if you change the length of the runner enough, you can actually move one whole tooth."

Read more: http://www.mustang50magazine.com/tec...#ixzz1t0tK4am4

Hp is hp and at the strip it doesn't matter where you make it even if it's at high rpm and the higher the rpm the more hp you can make from less displacement. You are going to be in the lower rpm's for a very short time at the strip and then it will all be high rpm's. However, since most of my driving is on the street and not the strip I prefer the motor with more hp in the lower rpms. Having a big advantages at below 3 or 4K rpm makes me enjoy an engine more while driving daily. It's just the types of motors I tend to like based on how I use cars. Your preference may vary.

500rwhp is going to be more deadly in a 2011+ mustang because it is lighter than a camaro and because the live axle is a better setup for drag racing. It suffers over pot holes in ride quality, but shines at the strip.

[sschevybear11]

Ran a guys new '12 auto with 3.15's at the track 2 times saturday. He ran 13.22@109.5 and 13.09@110.2. 2K miles and bone stock. Impressive but still a drivers race with an SS.

[Coyotekiller]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Displacement makes the difference, nobody is arguing that. Here is a dyno for a 5.0 with ported heads and cams



Those numbers would probably be a bit higher on your typical dynojet. My local dyno dynamics puts down about 6-7% less than our local dynojet.

Fact of the matter is though, the idea that cams and heads, "make little difference" for the 5.0 is just wrong. A good h/c setup is worth quite a bit. When talking n/a performance, displacement is king. On the other hand, 500rwhp in the 2011+ gt is going to be considerably more deadly on the track than 500rwhp in a fifth gen.

I'll let you tell that to the guy that installed $4000 worth of heads and cams and only gained 50 peak horsepower. He cars has full bolt ons and this is the first internal work he'd had done to the car. He was livid about it too.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Displacement makes the difference, nobody is arguing that. Here is a dyno for a 5.0 with ported heads and cams



Those numbers would probably be a bit higher on your typical dynojet. My local dyno dynamics puts down about 6-7% less than our local dynojet.

Fact of the matter is though, the idea that cams and heads, "make little difference" for the 5.0 is just wrong. A good h/c setup is worth quite a bit. When talking n/a performance, displacement is king. On the other hand, 500rwhp in the 2011+ gt is going to be considerably more deadly on the track than 500rwhp in a fifth gen.

from the site that pic came from

The Mustang enthusiast is going to have to realize that the red line on your tachometer just means "keep going" after these items are installed. The Coyote engine will be very happy at 6,500rpm+ once all of the induction items are installed and it will love every minute of it. If 3,000rpm grunt is what the end user is looking for, install a Whipple.

unfortunately i agree. after all that expense you are left with a very peaky ricer engine. for the money and driveability, i would rather put a blower on it.

they wouldn't even post hp figures below 4000 rpm. going by the curve on the graph, i bet it's pretty terrible.

[MauriSSio]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Displacement makes the difference, nobody is arguing that. Here is a dyno for a 5.0 with ported heads and cams



Those numbers would probably be a bit higher on your typical dynojet. My local dyno dynamics puts down about 6-7% less than our local dynojet.

Fact of the matter is though, the idea that cams and heads, "make little difference" for the 5.0 is just wrong. A good h/c setup is worth quite a bit. When talking n/a performance, displacement is king. On the other hand, 500rwhp in the 2011+ gt is going to be considerably more deadly on the track than 500rwhp in a fifth gen.

i agree. Ive seen way too many races with light bolt-on 5.0's vs cammed camaros end up with the LS3 camaro either getting pulled or barely running even at best.

[goodtime]

Originally Posted by big hammer

from the site that pic came from



unfortunately i agree. after all that expense you are left with a very peaky ricer engine. for the money and driveability, i would rather put a blower on it.

they wouldn't even post hp figures below 4000 rpm. going by the curve on the graph, i bet it's pretty terrible.

LOL @ calling the 5.0 a "ricer" motor.

I guess my 11.00@124 pass, bolt-on only, stock long block, 5.0 is nothing more than ricer material..... Find me another bolt-on only 2010+ LS3 Camaro SS that can match it.

Originally Posted by MauriSSio

i agree. Ive seen way too many races with light bolt-on 5.0's vs cammed camaros end up with the LS3 camaro either getting pulled or barely running even at best.

It's all about where you live when racing which is at the top of the RPM train.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by goodtime

LOL @ calling the 5.0 a "ricer" motor.

I guess my 11.00@124 pass, bolt-on only, stock long block, 5.0 is nothing more than ricer material..... Find me another bolt-on only 2010+ LS3 Camaro SS that can match it.

keep up the good work. you're getting closer to the old bolt on ls1's.

[goodtime]

Originally Posted by big hammer

keep up the good work. you're getting closer to the old bolt on ls1's.

Here is the list from ls1:

Board ID - 1/4 ET @ MPH (60ft), Yr & Type of car, Converter/Clutch, Gear, Race Weight, Date
RUQWIKR -------- 10.685 @ 122.91 (1.37), 01 Formula T400, ATI4600, 4.56, 3060, 03/08
Project_SS ----- 10.866 @ 122.14 (1.45), 98 Camaro SS A4, TCI4400, 3.73, 2840, 03/07
Magnus --------- 10.987 @ 119.31 (1.42), 97 Firebird A4, YPT4400, 4.10, 2920, 12/04
Promod1955 ----- 11.030 @ 124.18 (1.45), 00 Camaro SS A4, YPT4400, 3.73, 3085, 04/09


Looks like I would fit in at #4. I am 500+ lbs. heavier then those cars. Not sure what DA those times were run in. I was at 1,400' above SL.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by big hammer

keep up the good work. you're getting closer to the old bolt on ls1's.

Where does he fit compared to your bolt on times, or are you just talking the talk like usual? Is he allowed to do 400+ lbs of weight reduction and a stalled auto like a few of the ls1 cars listed above?

You're probably the only person on the planet to believe a 5.0l v8 making 510rwhp @ 7,500rpm all motor is a, "ricer" motor.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Where does he fit compared to your bolt on times?

You're probably the only person on the planet to believe a 5.0l v8 making 510rwhp @ 7,500rpm all motor is a, "ricer" motor.

It is a bit peaky. At 5k rpm it is only making ~380 rwhp. My H/C car is making right under 450rwhp at 5k rpm. ~70rwhp behind. My car is at 7200rpm rev limiter. So I am not revving quite as high...but all around I would say the ls3 is a bit better in H/C form if revving high with a large cam.

I wouldnt call the 5.0 ricer...somewhere in between...probably the best of both worlds honestly.

No trash talking here...

[MauriSSio]

Originally Posted by big hammer

...unfortunately i agree. after all that expense you are left with a very peaky ricer engine. for the money and driveability, i would rather put a blower on it.

they wouldn't even post hp figures below 4000 rpm. going by the curve on the graph, i bet it's pretty terrible.

thats funny, the 5.0 makes the same or morque torque than a 5.7 LS1, AAAAND revs higher (faster).....

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by MauriSSio

thats funny, the 5.0 makes the same or morque torque than a 5.7 LS1, AAAAND revs higher (faster).....

And has 4 cams and 32 valves and is physically larger AAAND has TI-VCT. Let alone being designed 15 years later. Displacement is only one part of the equation.

Different approach...both are great.

[cbass]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

It is a bit peaky. At 5k rpm it is only making ~380 rwhp. My H/C car is making right under 450rwhp at 5k rpm. ~70rwhp behind. My car is at 7200rpm rev limiter. So I am not revving quite as high...but all around I would say the ls3 is a bit better in H/C form if revving high with a large cam.

I wouldnt call the 5.0 ricer...somewhere in between...probably the best of both worlds honestly.

No trash talking here...

When compared to the competition the coyote motor is peaky. That's just the truth. When compared to all motors on the roads, then it's still a 5.0 L V8 so compared to those motors it's a different story. Out of the camaro and Challenger it is the smallest motor with the least hp with the hp peak at higher rpm. Those are just facts on the motor.

Remember the coyote vs LS3 dyno chart? Well here is a LS3 vs a 392 HEMI. I like the 6.4L Dodge motor much better than the LS3.



The problem with the SRT8 Challenger with the 392 is it's around 45K, which is more than I am willing to spend. That and a car is more than just the motor so although it's my favorite motor it's not my choice out of the mustang, camaro and challenger based on other factors.

But when it comes to just engines my choice is...

1. 392 HEMI
2. LS3
3. Coyote

[MauriSSio]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

And has 4 cams and 32 valves and is physically larger AAAND has TI-VCT. Let alone being designed 15 years later. Displacement is only one part of the equation.

Different approach...both are great.

i know you want to come in and defend everything LS (i used to own an LS1 Camaro BTW) but power is power. tq is tq, and hes labeling the 5.0 a peaky ricer engine. this has nothing to do with valves, cams or age of engine. im talking about the power output,perceptions and putting it into perspective