Which is easier/cheaper to make fast (with support mods like rear end) ? Let's compare the best years and trim levels of each group. Like I know that a 'maro tends to be lighter than a Trans AM for example, and certain years of the 5.0 were better than others.

Obviously 5.0 stuff is going to be way older and more likely to be ragged out than recent LS1 stuff, but let's say our hypothetical cars are both in good shape and completely stock.

6/13/2006 1:49:24 PM

well... stock for stock any year LS1 will blow away a 5.0... of course a good 5.0 car can be had cheaper than a good LS1 car

6/13/2006 2:08:33 PM

LS1 is probably gonna be the easiest one to mod on the cheap. The 5.0 your going to get cheaper, but you'd have to mod a lot more just to catch up to that LS1.

Or you can go LT1 and middle of the road it. Not as expensive as LS1 though modding will probably cost you about the same, but not as much of a loss in stock hp as going to a 5.0.

6/13/2006 2:14:45 PM

haha is this serious? an LS1 will dust a stock 5.0 parts for a 5.0 will be cheaper than parts, but as said the LS1 might be cheaper to mod to the same power level due to its headstart.

6/13/2006 2:59:39 PM

an LT1 would be cheaper and easier... let alone an LS1

6/13/2006 5:38:57 PM

depends on hp levels

mustang can run 500 hp with a turbo and arp head studs
and anything else you feel like doing to lower the boost will only extent the longevity
mustangs crack blocks over 500whp


a camaro almost requires pistons to be boosted because if the much higher compression
but the ls1 block is stronger so if you through rods and pistons at you can have 700 hp easy with a good tune and a big enough turbo/supercharger.

i have heard stock ls1 rods are pretty beastly too. but the high compression will require high octane or meth injection or something to keep detonation in check. imho


the 4.6 has a bullet proof block once you through rods and pistons at it you're straight for 1000+hp
no one has blown a built 4.6 on a decent tune (always some other failure that causes major detonation)
but stock ones bend rods in a heart beat (400-450 whp)


early fox mustangs also can weigh almost 600 lbs less than a camaro (notchbacks).

i prefer the seating position in a mustang and the mustang rear end options too.


ohh and my entire post is based on the assuption of a power adder
N/A you'll have to put a 351 in a mustang to get even close to an ls1


[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 6:28 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2006 6:24:49 PM

Quote :

" N/A you'll have to put a 351 in a mustang to get even close to an ls1 "

not true. sure, a built 351 will do it, but all the same you can stay at the stock 302 ci mark and with a good set of aluminum heads (AFR 185 usually), a decent cam profile with a lift somewhere in the mid .500 range, and a good upper and lower intake manifold, and full bolt ons you can beat LS1s. The possibilities are only enhanced from there if the motor is stroked out some.

6/13/2006 6:34:54 PM

but you can build a 600hp n/a ls1 and its nearly impossible to do that w/o around 400 cubes
or a ridiculesly expensive valve train.

i was talking a built ls1

yeah i've seen 450 hp 331s & 347s near 500 (4 bolt blocks)


[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 6:49 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2006 6:45:40 PM

ls1 by far...and you can get em cheap as hell these days

plus you would be driving around in a newer/nicer car

6/13/2006 6:52:51 PM

as ugly as a fox is... i like them better than fbodys

and i like being able to see the front of the car

but i'd take a t.a. or formula firebird anyday

6/13/2006 6:59:15 PM

ive been told the LS2 is the same shit as the LS1 but a better block overall. Couldnt exactly tell you why but this info came by way of Jeff at CAM so im pretty sure hes right.



so fuck it, same deal, better block, go for the LS2

6/13/2006 7:14:22 PM

^ more money

6/13/2006 7:25:09 PM

Oh jeez, i don't have time right now, but I'll chime in here shortly.

6/13/2006 7:54:41 PM

^^ah, good point

6/13/2006 8:44:33 PM

Quote :

"but i'd take a t.a. or formula firebird anyday"

want mine?

6/13/2006 9:36:22 PM

A lot of stock weight heads/cam 5.0's get beaten by bone stock ls1 fbodies, so that's as easy as you can get.
How fast do you want to go? if we are talking 600rwhp, 5.0 would be cheaper, but you're going to be building engine/tranny/rear/suspension for either one. 400rwhp, ls1 would probably be cheaper.

[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 10:16 PM. Reason : s]

6/13/2006 10:15:57 PM

this is gonna turn into another ford chevy battle. all i know is that it takes a good $1500 buck to put a ragged 5.0 in the high 12s to low 13s. that mean you have about 4500-6000 in the car it self where as the ls1 stock is gonna cost you round about 8500 for a good car. just personal opionion though. i have my mustang in the mid 12s on street tires and i have about 7000 in the car itself with the new motor and mods and all that shit.

6/14/2006 12:03:04 AM

if you look around a bit you can find a built 9-10 sec fox for 15-20 allready done but whats the fun in that?

[Edited on June 14, 2006 at 12:25 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2006 12:24:59 AM

^true. build your oun shit. always fun

6/14/2006 10:20:11 AM

bolt ons and a cam in an LS1 and run 11's, call it a day

6/14/2006 11:28:00 AM

I good camaro with the lt1 or ls1 is gona be at least 6000..
you can get a good mustang with some mods, since its hard to find one not modded for around 3000 to 4000.

The 5.0 has 49 less cubes than the camaro.. of course the 350 is going to be more stout from the factory.. but what the mustang loses to the cubes it makes up for in the wieght.. mustangs are certainly factory lighter.

If your looking for something that can burnout, bark 2 and 3rd, turn heads, run a mid 12s quarter mile and look good while doing it all.. and will run about 6000 when done.. get a mustang.

You might have 60-100 more horsepower with the camaro, but its still gona cost you nearly 8000 doing the work on your own.

Then theres doing the work on your own.. the mustang is easy to get to everything.. the camaro alittle harder, and the TA or Firebird engines are shuved back making it a pain in the ass to do alot.

6/14/2006 11:41:29 AM

the LS1 is going to cost more than 8000, no way around it. and ploter is right, F-body has part of the engine back under the dash, making it harder to work on.

6/14/2006 2:02:54 PM

no shit its gonna cost more for a LS1, its 5 years newer.

6/14/2006 2:11:38 PM

Quote :

"sumfoo1 All American 10575 Posts user info edit post if you look around a bit you can find a built 9-10 sec fox for 15-20 allready done but whats the fun in that?"

The whole point of any of this shit is for the adrenaline rush ego boost of doing all this on the street. Who cares how you arrive at the result. It's the difference between growing your own yay or buying it, same damn thing. Kids that need fast cars to "live" need a reality check.

6/14/2006 2:15:32 PM

[/quote]

Quote :

"F-body has part of the engine back under the dash, making it harder to work on"

gayness

6/14/2006 2:19:48 PM

put an ls1 in a fox

6/15/2006 12:00:17 AM

all i really need to have a good time is to turn a wrench, so which one is going to break more often? thats the one for me.

6/15/2006 12:09:08 AM

^^ brand crossers piss me off more than anything

6/15/2006 1:46:44 AM

why the fuck would you put an LS1 into a fox body? There are so many better chassis for it. There are kits you can buy to put them in Rx-7s

6/15/2006 1:50:52 AM

irs = bad w/ big motor

6/15/2006 2:05:14 AM

One of the guys at the bodyshop I used to work at had a Fox Body he had dropped an LS1 into. The Camaro/Chevelle guys hated him and the couple Ford/Mustang guys hated him too.

6/15/2006 9:17:18 AM

if you like turning wrenches, it probably comes down to which one has cheaper parts and which one is easier to work on (accessability)...

6/15/2006 10:25:32 AM

GO LS1; you will be very happy!

6/15/2006 11:01:45 AM

2.3 turbo!!!

http://www.turbomustangs.com/smf/index.php?topic=52199.0

fab up some piping engine management and fuel and you have 400 hp and 200lbs less weight than either

holset turbos are cheap (diesel turbos)

6/15/2006 5:44:25 PM

did someone say something about using a 5.0 for a 347 stroker? i smell powwwwwweeeeerrrrrr


basically, when it comes down to it in the early 90's mustangs are neaderthal, reliable, and cheap to build up. camaros are pushing the envelope on tech, electronics bit the dust and were more expensive to fix, mods were expensive, not so much now, at the expense of more power

and yes, when you need to pull the engine, an hour or so on a mustang, as opposed the good part of a day taking the car off the engine on an f body is a hugee difference

Quote :

"in soviet russia, you pull car off engine"

[Edited on June 17, 2006 at 11:03 AM. Reason : blah]

6/17/2006 11:00:55 AM

people are running in the high 500 and low 600's all the time on completely stock LS1 engines. all it takes is a supercharger that can be had for around $5K and you're there...To my knowledge no 5.0 can be built to the 600hp mark for around $5K.

6/17/2006 3:21:48 PM

Quote :

"To my knowledge"

5.0 + hellion or HP turbo kit
not to mention the area under the curve will make a supercharged ls1 run to mama
+ if you add the extra 3 grand in initial purchase price you can get a build bottom end.

Quote :

"It is completely stock from the throttle body down to the oil pan (stock heads, stock intake manifold, stock cam, stock bottom end) with an AEM EMS, Snow Performance Alcohol injection kit, and a Cartech single turbo kit with a T61 (.68 exhaust) The car has catylitic converters on it still with chambered flow master mufflers. The dyno pulls were done at 13 psi and the final numbers were 489RWHP and 591RWTQ. Very surprised with the results on a stock engine. Will get thew dyno sheet uploaded if i can find a computer with a scanner."

blow masters and cats kill hp and torque on a turbo car... he could have 550hp to the wheels and some ridicules toque (turbo would spool much faster) with proper exhaust.

[Edited on June 17, 2006 at 5:07 PM. Reason : simply put: 8.XX:1 compression stock = more boost]

6/17/2006 5:06:41 PM

546hp 611ftlb's the stock ignition isn't cutting it i'll have to step it up on that but i'm very pleased , the combo is twisted wedge heads (secret grind cam) and an explorer shortblock with a masterpower t70 .81ar. good times

*similar car fixed exhaust*

[Edited on June 17, 2006 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2006 5:16:09 PM

I was in the car tonight when my buddy's '02 Z28 with intake, exhaust, throttle body, and gutted cats pulled like two carlengths on a 93 5.0 mustang with heads, cam, header, exhaust, chip. We had 2 passangers and he had 0.

The Z28 also pulled on a 98 C5 with intake and catback.

I think that answers this question, at least from my perspective.

6/18/2006 1:41:56 AM

LS-1s make the stupid power with little effort but the 302 Ford motors are damn near bulletproof stock.

6/18/2006 10:08:46 AM

I have a stang, and I love it. But, Ive been dealing with some country ole timers who are stuck in the 60s and all they drive are big block chevys...Ive come across odd differences each company has when designing their motors and such.. I actually think sometimes that the chevys are designed alittle more logical. (60s gen. BBC) ie. oil sump in rear of motor, better for when the wheels come off the ground. Heavy duty distributor gear, a hell of alot tougher looking than the fords. Bellhousing has alot of ripples in it, as apose to a smooth rounder time..makes me believe its stronger. . theres more but I forget. Now I dont know if the same thought is passed down from generation or not, or from design team leader to the next..but one thing... if you get a LT1 or earlier LS1 you have to be careful about when it rains. They've been know to have fires on top of the engine.. I think its either because it causes a short with the crappy ignition setup or it might be because of the fuel setup squirting on the ignition.. Im not a chevy owner so I cant give you the correct terms and labels but it gives you the gist. Do some research. The ford will be cheaper and loads of fun. If you have 6k into it you probably will have more than enough power to do anything. The chevy will mostly likely have more potential, but you'll have to pay for it. But, if you remember the 350 has 49 more cubes, yet these two cars are considered in the same class.

6/18/2006 10:47:48 AM

again i reiterate n/a more cubes = more power

going with forced induction though you have an 8:1 motor vs. a 10.5:1 i think (its at least in the ballpark) which means you can run tons more boost with the same effective compression ratio.
just use studded heads and comteck gaskets

6/18/2006 11:37:33 AM

^^ 5.0 Fox mustangs have rear sump oil pans, as do all the Ford trucks. The chevys do use a few more head bolts on the small block than does Ford, though...

6/18/2006 1:35:58 PM