04-12-2014, 11:26 PM | #155 |
Drives: 2018 Mustang GT Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Mobile Al
Posts: 750
|
|
04-13-2014, 06:31 AM | #156 | |
Drives: Buick Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 154
|
Quote:
It would seem GM was targeting Ford, not the other way around.. The GT500 is no longer in production , so technically there is no current ZL1 competitor. Although there are probably still some 600 cars at dealers.. |
|
04-13-2014, 10:16 AM | #157 | |
Just a car guy
Drives: 2016 Durango R/T AWD Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Wheeling, IL
Posts: 808
|
Quote:
In addition, the GT500 has a 2.3L Supercharger with a 5.8L motor. The ZL1 has a 1.9L Supercharger with a 6.2L Engine. Same amount of displacement when matching up both the engine size and Supercharger size. Also, the GT500 runs 15PSI where as the ZL1 runs 9 PSI (Some say 10PSI max on the stock setup) so, there really is not a big difference between both cars. The ZL1 has cubes and is a Pushrod vs. a smaller Modular motor. ZL1 also has a 9:0:1 compression ratio vs. the GT500's 8:5:1. As we know, the higher the compression, the less boost that is needed to make power. Granted, the GT500 makes more power, but, as LOWDOWN mentioned, Ford doesn't have anything that beats Chevy HP vs. HP in stock for with equal displacement, but, the engines with blowers are the exact same size and the GT500 makes over 80 more HP. Let's not start comparing the number of valves, VVTC, V-Tec, etc. We are talking Pushrod vs. Modular with equal displacement. I found this on C5. http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=300151 So, with a smaller pulley running 13-14 PSI, the ZL1 puts down roughly 560-570 RWHP. That is still less power than a STOCK GT500 makes with a 2PSI difference. See my point?
__________________
2016 Durango R/T AWD
2014 5.0 - Ported CobraJet Manifold - SCJ Mono-Blade TB - Kooks 1-3/4" LT Headers - Kooks O/R H-pipe - Custom Intake - McLeod clutch line - Borla S-Type Axle Backs - AED Tuned - 443 RWHP / 388 RWTQ - GONE 05 GT - Sold 03 Cobra - Gone (Never Forgotten) |
|
04-13-2014, 04:20 PM | #158 | |||
Downright Upright
Drives: Daily Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cruisin'...
Posts: 4,145
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Seeing your point? Not really. You're discounting-eliminating a few important factors... An engine is an AIR PUMP. Allow more air to pass through it, and it will, with fuel added and burned, make more power. No? So YOU can discount "the number of valves, VVTC, V-Tec, etc.", but they happen to be prime contributors to what power an engine will ultimately make. BTW, you left out "flow rate (cfm) @ max rpm" which is kinda important, too. No? And more valves generally allow more flow, and OHC generally revs higher with its attendant fewer moving parts. No? Last edited by LOWDOWN; 04-13-2014 at 06:09 PM. |
|||
04-13-2014, 05:20 PM | #159 |
Downright Upright
Drives: Daily Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cruisin'...
Posts: 4,145
|
If you care to compare specs, here's the GM story:
http://www.chevrolet.com/performance...gines/ls9.html ...and here's the Trinity tale: http://www.mustangandfords.com/news/...8/viewall.html For those concerned about me fouling the water by mentioning the Raptor 6.2, perhaps we'll share this, together, from the above article: Nor could they move over to the bigger architecture of the 6.2 V-8 as found in the SVT Raptor. That engine is too large for the Mustang engine compartment, plus it would be prohibitively expensive to design a better breathing Four-Valve cylinder head for it, as well. As with all things involving motorsports, "Speed costs. How fast did you wanna go?!" |
04-13-2014, 05:32 PM | #160 | |
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 6,989
|
Quote:
How can we not discuss number of valves and cams? That completely changes the way an engine makes power. |
|
04-13-2014, 09:22 PM | #161 | |
Thread Mover
Drives: a Monte Carlo Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sierra Nevada
Posts: 490
|
Quote:
After searching youtube I found that most stock 13-14 GT500's are putting down 600whp+ vs 520-550whp for ZR1's on a chassis dyno.
__________________
In the market for something fast |
|
04-13-2014, 09:24 PM | #162 | |
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 6,989
|
Quote:
Either way, if the engine is SAE rated, it can't be underrated much if at all. |
|
04-13-2014, 11:00 PM | #163 | |
Thread Mover
Drives: a Monte Carlo Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sierra Nevada
Posts: 490
|
Quote:
They were the old 2011-12 5.4L's with the tiny non-TVS blowers that were rated at 550hp and put down 521whp and 522whp at redline during the same dyno day a 2011 5.0L put down 365whp. There are countless other GT500's that have around 7% drive train loss as well. So either they have lowest reported drive train loss of just about everything out there or these hand built mod motors are making more power then advertised. I'm not trying to argue as I think the LS9 is one bad mofo of an engine, just disappointed when I see so many vids of them making 520-530whp from a engine that rated at 638hp
__________________
In the market for something fast |
|
04-13-2014, 11:11 PM | #164 | |
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 6,989
|
Quote:
|
|
04-14-2014, 12:07 AM | #165 | ||
Thread Mover
Drives: a Monte Carlo Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sierra Nevada
Posts: 490
|
Quote:
Quote:
They were the 550hp 2011-12 models which had a lot of upgrades over the previous 540hp engine.
__________________
In the market for something fast |
||
04-14-2014, 02:02 AM | #166 |
Drives: 2015 SS 1LE Red Hot, 1970 Chevelle Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 6,989
|
|
04-14-2014, 09:16 AM | #167 | ||||
corner barstool sitter
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 19 WRX Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 6,990
|
Quote:
Fun math . . . an 11.0 second car accelerates toward the traps at an average of 0.68g. Quote:
I'm not sure which approach to light load fuel economy is best - a relatively large-displacement engine with cylinder deactivation that's big enough to run on half its cylinders, or a slightly smaller displacement engine with different gearing, or an engine with small enough displacement that it needs forced induction for high-load situations. Maybe something in between. I'm not particularly on board with the complexity, weight, and drivability issues associated with hybrid solutions. Quote:
Those deficiencies you note can be tuned out even in the earlier S197's with little more than a better (read in part, wider) choice of wheel & tire sizes, better shock/strut damping, and a bit more roll stiffness. And brake pads with more 'bite' Nothing that Ford couldn't do (or couldn't have done), except they chose not to. Back when I bought my 2008 (and there was no choice to make other than "V6/GT/GT500, pick one", it was with full acknowledgement that I was about to buy a blank canvas before I even went near a dealership. Same way that it was for the '79 Malibu I had before, and the '72 Pinto before that. Exactly the same kinds of mods, even. What the factory fails to do, you just do as a DIY. Quote:
Norm |
||||
04-14-2014, 09:50 AM | #168 | |
Drives: 2010 SS, 2000 Pontiac Formula Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Missouri
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
Im not complaining im just pointing out that you say not to compare old gen to new gen, and then do just that by comparing GMs new 6.2 to fords old 6.2. How do I seem to know whats happening at Ford? I have my guesses as do everyone else, but no one besides the guys at Ford know whats going on. |
|
|
|