Old cars that kick new car and FI a$$ - Page 2

Unit 5302 · 01-13-2001, 01:40 AM

Alrighty, I've seen my name mentioned, and I feel I must clear up some stuff here.

I disagree fully with all the old cars being quicker, or lasting longer than the EFI stuff. I love EFI, whenever somebody tells me they prefer the simplicity of carbs I laugh, because that means they just don't know much about EFI.

Old BB and the like can be setup to beat the Fox bodies, in stock to stock form, but not many of them. Sure your 428CJ's, LS6 454 Chevelle's and what not can really crank. Some are capable of blowing the 5.0's doors off when they are modded and the 5.0 isn't.

Back here in the real world, which is where I reside, the old BB's are good for about 60-70k before they begin getting tired, and the EFI cars run to 120-140k before you see the same reaction from them. My '87 GT gets 20/27 for fuel economy, should run high 13's, I've taken WS6's and SS's, but never by anything more than a car, blowing one away would be the mark of a 12 second car at least. My '87 weighs under 3100lbs, which is lighter than Mercdude at 3200, so I don't know where his numbers are coming from?

Anyway, lot's of people don't give the credit those old cars deserve, but they are by no means nearly as nice as the new ones. Not even close, not in the same ballpark.

My GT is so vastly superior to say a '69 Mach 1, which may actually beat me in the quarter when it's new, that the comparison is not even funny.

I've beaten the BB's, in fact I've never lost to one, even with 130,000+ miles on my 5.0, and there is no way you're going to get me to admit to their superiority.

I see that the new GT has been mentioned, it's the quickest Mustang GT ever produced. It outhandles, outaccelerates, and out top ends any GT Ford has ever put onto the road. The '99 Cobra with fix is arguably the quickest factory Ford Mustang ever produced, and would absolutely annihilate any other Mustang Ford has put on the road when tested across multiple road courses and driving scenerio's, from the 1/4, to the 0-100-0, to any test you can come up with. Even the mighty 93-94 Cobra R would fall to this car. (I don't even consider the new Cobra R to be a Mustang, it's a joke. $50k? What a laugh.)

That is where I stand, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I feel the owner of the new GT's perhaps have a bit too much ego, but certainly have the right to be proud of their cars, Ford has never made them better than they do today.

And you can quote me on that!

Unit 5302

Mercury · 01-13-2001, 02:01 AM

Miracle Max.

Oh the ones who speak bad of the 4.6 but know nothing. I'm not implying that you know nothing of the 4.6L thats just whats common around here.

People seem to detest or be scared of things they dont understand. Sure its physically big and bulky, sure it has only 281 cubes, but that 281 cubes can hang with every bit of 346 or 350 cubes that chevy puts out. Oh, by the way, what year is it that is the fastest stock GT. I've seen some MOd motors that will put a pushrodder in his place, especially while your getting ready to grab for third and hes just yanking it down into second. I love my brute 289, but I love the way those 4.6Liters of the 99 and newer scream. To bad you dont live around here, I'd see what ya got.

------------------
64 1/2 Red Mustang Coupe. 289, C4, 3:1 rear gear. Mallory duel point. Ported & Polished 65 heads shaved .01 with 351 windsor valves, high side of 10.5:1 comp, 1.7:1 sled rockers, blue wolverine lumpy cam, autolite 4100 Hipo 4 barrel. And to many others to list

2000 Perf Red Mustang GT. 5spd.

64 1/2 red 6cyl coupe. Auto. project car.

Rev · 01-13-2001, 02:40 AM

I seem to be in the enviable position of agreeing with most people on this thread. No one will disagree that a Holly carb is the easiest induction system to tune and the most versatile. They make a variety of parts to do anything anybody could want. No custom chips needed here. Tune any part of the carb any way you want it for just a few bucks in parts. Not so with EFI.

Don't get me wrong. For everyday driveability, dependability, and gas mileage, EFI can't be beat. That's what I drive daily.

For inexpensive power and backyard tunability, you can't beat a carb, especilly a Holly or a Demon.

Rev

------------------
'66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph
1/4 mi.

90dpscoupe · 01-13-2001, 02:53 AM

skyman, that 68 needs gears for the e-cam to get the full effects imo.

and unit, the 94-95 cobra-r would probaly edge out the 99-00 gt's, sorry to disagree, i do agree with just about everything else though. I know your not just talking 1/4, but my coupe can beat stock gt's depending on driver skill, in the 1/4.

and mercury, 70 mph is about when a (stock m6) would pull on me too.

------------------
90 lx coupe: Mac cold air fenderwell, accel supercoil,advncd ignition,3-core radiatr, FMS alum D/S, Black magic fan, 3.27grs, 3chbr flows.
Best time: 14.20(on 225/60/15 firehawks)
Best mph 97.80
Best 60' 2.1
next mods: subframes, 3.73's

Unit 5302 · 01-13-2001, 02:36 PM

90dpscoupe

You're right, a 94 Cobra R could most likely take a new GT, but if you'll look at what I posted again, it says the new Cobra would take it. With a 13.5 quarter mile time, it's arguably the fastest non race production Ford Mustang ever made.

94 Cobra R was rated at 5.2, and 13.8 @ 102(or something near 102)

I will certainly argue with a carb being easier to tune than EFI. What kind of position is that? EFI tunes itself! If you want to fine tune it, get an AFPR, that's 9 of 10 times all you need.

I will also dissent with the argument that a carb car is cheaper or easier to mod. I've been through this exact discussion in detail with a gung ho carb guy. He didn't have any replies after a detail price analysis of an 85GT vs 87GT for street/strip 12 second N/A car. I beat him. All forced induction mods are far and away more reliable on EFI cars than carbs. That mod alone makes a huge difference. in performance street applications.

The carb is inferior, any way you want to look at it. Just because some nimrods in high up racing NHRA, NASCAR, like to hold on to their ancient underperforming technology doesn't mean that it's actually better. It just means they are scared, and rightfully so, that new guys would take over the racing scene, and that the old timers that have refused to look into EFI would never be competitive.

MrWesson22 · 01-13-2001, 05:17 PM

Forced induction? You sure? I'd take a carbed nitrous motor over an EFI nitrous motor anyday. I know I'm not alone in this one... plate kits are wonderful on carbed engines.

------------------
Neal

69 stang
351C/4sp

MercDude · 01-13-2001, 06:02 PM

90dpscoupe, Ok... about the SS, i didn't pull all the way through second gear, i only went to 4k rpm (in an auto, every gear is VERY important).

Anyways, Unit, my factory weight rating was 2900lbs... i was just adding for gas/driver/etc, etc and what you said about BB not lasting just says how much you know about bb. You obviously have never been involved with old ford bb iron.... my father had a original 390 with 80K on it that would give you a run for your money. Don't write off things you don't know about. ALSO, i do know a fair amount about EFI... i have rebuilt a few EFI performance engines, so i do know some sh!t. EFI runs good if it's stock or is specifically designed for it, but any other sort of tampering will make the computer sh!t it's pants and then the engine requires much more modification to run descent. Even after the computer problems were solved, we had so many F!cking sensors go bad that it was hard to just keep the damn thing running right! SO **** that, i'll stick to my carb any day!

A 85 carbed engine is just a not so sophisticated/efficient EFI setup. The carbs still were half runned by computers (or so i've been told) and the emissions on them alone would snuff any benefactor out of a carb over a true EFI setup. That comparision is NOT a true carb vs. efi test.

------------------
'63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust,
'65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's

MiracleMax · 01-13-2001, 06:46 PM

Mercury, I see the potential in the motor. It doesn't have any pushrods to deal with. So that opens up huge possiblities in head design. As far as I can see the only thing that has to remain the same is the intake port flange? Valve angles, spacing, etc are wide open ( upto the limits of the bore) along with the shape and contour of the ports themselves. That means big improvements in cylinderhead flow. What I don't care for is the overall external dimensions of the motor. A Y-block is nice and so is a super long connecting rod, but I think they could have gotten by with a regular block design and shorter rods. This could have trimmed some inches off the motor. Theres no cam in the block so deck height could have been shortened, etc. I think the big reason for the big little engine is NVH stuff for the most part, emmissions on the second. This can be seen in the smallish 3.550 bore and 3.550 stroke. Its designed for hi-speed low octane operation and low emmissions.

3.550 bore = reduced crevice volume (emmisions), reduced surface area minimizes thermal transfer and, the amount of ign timing, as well as controling the flame front better. This is why SB's can get away with more compression. It also reduces frictional loses.

On the downside the smallish bore does need a OHC cylinder head because valve area is limited by it's confines which means a much more efficent port is needed to get the same amount of air through to the cylinder (better discharge coefficent from the valve)

Cobra guys have it easier, but the 2 valve motors with the FRRP heads and no porting are stuck around 450 hp (naturally aspirated) which is 1.6 hp per cubic inch. BTW a 5.0 making 1.6 hp is 483 hp. To do that N/A on a 5.0 takes a little work. So its the same with a 4.6 at 450 hp. And for the BB guys a 460 is making 736 hp. All things being equal all three motors are producing the same amount of work relative to thier bore sizes. To get 500 hp N/A they are gonna have to do some fancy work to get about 243 cfm out of the ports on a 4.6. Good luck anybody who wants to try

Skyman · 01-13-2001, 07:22 PM

Im sorry, but there is no factory 390 out there that will give a 5.0 a run for its money. The 390 was a dog unless highly moded. Its just not a good performance motor. Look what the 390 stangs ran... high 14's if driven well. Don't say it was old tires either, look at the trap speeds.

Skyler

------------------
-1989 Saleen Mustang #406-
TFS Heads, Edelbrock intake, E-303, 3.73's, 1 5/8 shortys, Offroad-H, 2chamber flows, 36psi FPR, 15degrees timing, 70mm tb, 73mm maf, 24lb inj, Crank pulley, MSD6A, Alum driveshaft.

On its way: Paxton Sn-89 with dyno tuning and long tubes.

Just added: B&M Ripper, Weldin Subframes, & Turn downs!
13.2@106mph

01-13-2001, 08:56 PM

Have you ever heard of the 401 horse 390 (tri-power) that was in the '61 Starliner (Galaxie)? If that 390 was in a Mustang it would run pretty damn good. But I know what you mean, those engines are made for torque.

97snakedriver · 01-14-2001, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Unit 5302:
90dpscoupe

You're right, a 94 Cobra R could most likely take a new GT, but if you'll look at what I posted again, it says the new Cobra would take it.

A what? There was a 93 R that the same motor as a 93 Cobra, but came stripped down and with some suspension tweeks. There was a 95 R with a 351 rated at 300 hp, but they seem to run a bit better then that, 13.5s.

Carbs + NOS is a nice combo. Those short fat runners with a central intake lends itself extremely well to both wet and dry kits. I would, however, somewhat hold judgement till we see the performance of the IMRC NOS system. That sucker has some promise.

As far as the 4.6, there are a couple of guys running in the 7s with a stock block, stock crank (rebalanced) and stock heads(ported + cams) Cobra motor. There aren't many production engines with that sort of power potential.

Unit 5302 · 01-14-2001, 06:02 AM

Okay, so you guys are going to base your argument on the sad notion that carbs are better because you can get bigger engines in the past with them? Well la de frickin dah!

When's the last time you took a look at a dyno sheet between an EFI motor and a carbed motor? See the difference? I do, the carb is jerky and rough, EFI is smooth and consistant. I'm not arguing the old BB's superior performance when modded up at the dragstrip, just the fact that they are well out of their league everywhere else.

Hehe, you must have awful luck with EFI cars, they usually go a good 100k before sensors start going out. Which is 1 1/2 times the quality lifespan of a performance BB. They are easy to diagnose with simple tests and a multitester, and require very very little maintainence. Course, then again, I've only owned 7 of them, so maybe I'm wrong? It's usually a fix of well under $100, and an afternoon of work to fix the electrical components, especially the EFI system stuff.

Obviously anybody who would come out and post the performance BB's as being long life motors has no clue whatsoever. To my credit, I'll put up information taken directly from my dad, owner of 427, 390, 428, 429, 460, and several others along the way, and my uncle owner of 428, 406, 390, 302 Boss, and several others. Together they've raced and rebuilt those engines again and again over a combined 70 years. If you get 70k on a performance BB, it NEEDS a rebuild. Saying anything more optimistic than that is just plain blind and misled.

So you hear the '85 was mostly run by a computer? Well sorry, but the holly 4bbl on the 85GT was the form of induction. Last time I checked a holly 4bbl was a carb, yes? Regardless of whether or not that car had emissions equipment on it, the carb was more expensive to get the same performance as the 87.

If you actually believe carbs are safer than EFI when handling N20, why is N20 so big now? It was a recipe for disaster back in the carbed days, but now we have guys running years on the giggle gas with no ill effects. If it wern't for EFI, N20 would still be relegated to the crazy nutballs who were more than willing to blow their motors.

I know some people on this board like the older stuff, but let's be real, if it was superior to the new stuff, they'd be building the old stuff again.

To actually argue the old cars can even try to hang with the new ones is ludicrious. A fricken Jaguar XJR luxury 6 seating type of car will show a 428 Mach 1 it's taillights. The new Cobra will do the same, so will the LS1's which would more than likely show the LS6 Chevelle what fast really is. About the only N/A BB cars that can maintain a closeness factor to the top performers today are the 427 Cobra, and a couple other mostly race cars.

Rev · 01-14-2001, 12:40 PM

Yes Unit, EFI cars "tune themselves", but for driveability and emissions as the goal. Not for max power. One has to get a chip burned for that. Can you do this in the back yard with your multimeter?

Rev

------------------
'66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph
1/4 mi.

90dpscoupe · 01-14-2001, 03:15 PM

He..hee..unit you said it dude, but one thing i have to say is the chevelle ls6 is capable of 13 flat or even dipping into 12's especially with the m-22 4spd, or whatever that tranny was, but the ls1 is far more reliable, economical, and can also run in the 12's with light mods.

And the 390 can be a badas$ motor, but heavily modded with a cam and 850DP carb, i'd be choking on the exhaust fumes, and a nos plate on the carb would probaly cause an engine fire. But im not dogging on it, a 390 fairlane is pretty nice though.

spinemup · 01-15-2001, 09:39 AM

wow Merc! a monte carlo sway bar? im sorry i bet your car is capable of some high g-forces. your argument is comparible to when cars where first built. "my horse and buggy is so much faster than your model t"..."all i have to do is feed my horse an im good to go" when you finally get to the track then you can post times. that camaro ss was probably talking on his cell phone and didn't even see you in your grandma car go flying by. nor did he care.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

01-13-2001, 01:40 AM	#16 (permalink)
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,235	Alrighty, I've seen my name mentioned, and I feel I must clear up some stuff here. I disagree fully with all the old cars being quicker, or lasting longer than the EFI stuff. I love EFI, whenever somebody tells me they prefer the simplicity of carbs I laugh, because that means they just don't know much about EFI. Old BB and the like can be setup to beat the Fox bodies, in stock to stock form, but not many of them. Sure your 428CJ's, LS6 454 Chevelle's and what not can really crank. Some are capable of blowing the 5.0's doors off when they are modded and the 5.0 isn't. Back here in the real world, which is where I reside, the old BB's are good for about 60-70k before they begin getting tired, and the EFI cars run to 120-140k before you see the same reaction from them. My '87 GT gets 20/27 for fuel economy, should run high 13's, I've taken WS6's and SS's, but never by anything more than a car, blowing one away would be the mark of a 12 second car at least. My '87 weighs under 3100lbs, which is lighter than Mercdude at 3200, so I don't know where his numbers are coming from? Anyway, lot's of people don't give the credit those old cars deserve, but they are by no means nearly as nice as the new ones. Not even close, not in the same ballpark. My GT is so vastly superior to say a '69 Mach 1, which may actually beat me in the quarter when it's new, that the comparison is not even funny. I've beaten the BB's, in fact I've never lost to one, even with 130,000+ miles on my 5.0, and there is no way you're going to get me to admit to their superiority. I see that the new GT has been mentioned, it's the quickest Mustang GT ever produced. It outhandles, outaccelerates, and out top ends any GT Ford has ever put onto the road. The '99 Cobra with fix is arguably the quickest factory Ford Mustang ever produced, and would absolutely annihilate any other Mustang Ford has put on the road when tested across multiple road courses and driving scenerio's, from the 1/4, to the 0-100-0, to any test you can come up with. Even the mighty 93-94 Cobra R would fall to this car. (I don't even consider the new Cobra R to be a Mustang, it's a joke. $50k? What a laugh.) That is where I stand, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I feel the owner of the new GT's perhaps have a bit too much ego, but certainly have the right to be proud of their cars, Ford has never made them better than they do today. And you can quote me on that! Unit 5302

01-13-2001, 02:01 AM	#17 (permalink)
Mercury The Redneck James Bond Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Fayetteville NC Posts: 1,707	Miracle Max. Oh the ones who speak bad of the 4.6 but know nothing. I'm not implying that you know nothing of the 4.6L thats just whats common around here. People seem to detest or be scared of things they dont understand. Sure its physically big and bulky, sure it has only 281 cubes, but that 281 cubes can hang with every bit of 346 or 350 cubes that chevy puts out. Oh, by the way, what year is it that is the fastest stock GT. I've seen some MOd motors that will put a pushrodder in his place, especially while your getting ready to grab for third and hes just yanking it down into second. I love my brute 289, but I love the way those 4.6Liters of the 99 and newer scream. To bad you dont live around here, I'd see what ya got. ------------------ 64 1/2 Red Mustang Coupe. 289, C4, 3:1 rear gear. Mallory duel point. Ported & Polished 65 heads shaved .01 with 351 windsor valves, high side of 10.5:1 comp, 1.7:1 sled rockers, blue wolverine lumpy cam, autolite 4100 Hipo 4 barrel. And to many others to list 2000 Perf Red Mustang GT. 5spd. 64 1/2 red 6cyl coupe. Auto. project car.

01-13-2001, 02:40 AM	#18 (permalink)
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	I seem to be in the enviable position of agreeing with most people on this thread. No one will disagree that a Holly carb is the easiest induction system to tune and the most versatile. They make a variety of parts to do anything anybody could want. No custom chips needed here. Tune any part of the carb any way you want it for just a few bucks in parts. Not so with EFI. Don't get me wrong. For everyday driveability, dependability, and gas mileage, EFI can't be beat. That's what I drive daily. For inexpensive power and backyard tunability, you can't beat a carb, especilly a Holly or a Demon. Rev ------------------ '66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph 1/4 mi.

01-13-2001, 02:53 AM	#19 (permalink)
90dpscoupe Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: sanantonio, Tx, usa Posts: 1,407	skyman, that 68 needs gears for the e-cam to get the full effects imo. and unit, the 94-95 cobra-r would probaly edge out the 99-00 gt's, sorry to disagree, i do agree with just about everything else though. I know your not just talking 1/4, but my coupe can beat stock gt's depending on driver skill, in the 1/4. and mercury, 70 mph is about when a (stock m6) would pull on me too. ------------------ 90 lx coupe: Mac cold air fenderwell, accel supercoil,advncd ignition,3-core radiatr, FMS alum D/S, Black magic fan, 3.27grs, 3chbr flows. Best time: 14.20(on 225/60/15 firehawks) Best mph 97.80 Best 60' 2.1 next mods: subframes, 3.73's

01-13-2001, 02:36 PM	#20 (permalink)
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,235	90dpscoupe You're right, a 94 Cobra R could most likely take a new GT, but if you'll look at what I posted again, it says the new Cobra would take it. With a 13.5 quarter mile time, it's arguably the fastest non race production Ford Mustang ever made. 94 Cobra R was rated at 5.2, and 13.8 @ 102(or something near 102) I will certainly argue with a carb being easier to tune than EFI. What kind of position is that? EFI tunes itself! If you want to fine tune it, get an AFPR, that's 9 of 10 times all you need. I will also dissent with the argument that a carb car is cheaper or easier to mod. I've been through this exact discussion in detail with a gung ho carb guy. He didn't have any replies after a detail price analysis of an 85GT vs 87GT for street/strip 12 second N/A car. I beat him. All forced induction mods are far and away more reliable on EFI cars than carbs. That mod alone makes a huge difference. in performance street applications. The carb is inferior, any way you want to look at it. Just because some nimrods in high up racing NHRA, NASCAR, like to hold on to their ancient underperforming technology doesn't mean that it's actually better. It just means they are scared, and rightfully so, that new guys would take over the racing scene, and that the old timers that have refused to look into EFI would never be competitive.

01-13-2001, 05:17 PM	#21 (permalink)
MrWesson22 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Dacula, GA Posts: 73	Forced induction? You sure? I'd take a carbed nitrous motor over an EFI nitrous motor anyday. I know I'm not alone in this one... plate kits are wonderful on carbed engines. ------------------ Neal 69 stang 351C/4sp

01-13-2001, 06:02 PM	#22 (permalink)
MercDude Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: CA, US Posts: 113	90dpscoupe, Ok... about the SS, i didn't pull all the way through second gear, i only went to 4k rpm (in an auto, every gear is VERY important). Anyways, Unit, my factory weight rating was 2900lbs... i was just adding for gas/driver/etc, etc and what you said about BB not lasting just says how much you know about bb. You obviously have never been involved with old ford bb iron.... my father had a original 390 with 80K on it that would give you a run for your money. Don't write off things you don't know about. ALSO, i do know a fair amount about EFI... i have rebuilt a few EFI performance engines, so i do know some sh!t. EFI runs good if it's stock or is specifically designed for it, but any other sort of tampering will make the computer sh!t it's pants and then the engine requires much more modification to run descent. Even after the computer problems were solved, we had so many F!cking sensors go bad that it was hard to just keep the damn thing running right! SO **** that, i'll stick to my carb any day! A 85 carbed engine is just a not so sophisticated/efficient EFI setup. The carbs still were half runned by computers (or so i've been told) and the emissions on them alone would snuff any benefactor out of a carb over a true EFI setup. That comparision is NOT a true carb vs. efi test. ------------------ '63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust, '65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's

01-13-2001, 06:46 PM	#23 (permalink)
MiracleMax Registered Member Join Date: Apr 1999 Location: Hayes, Va, USA Posts: 798	Mercury, I see the potential in the motor. It doesn't have any pushrods to deal with. So that opens up huge possiblities in head design. As far as I can see the only thing that has to remain the same is the intake port flange? Valve angles, spacing, etc are wide open ( upto the limits of the bore) along with the shape and contour of the ports themselves. That means big improvements in cylinderhead flow. What I don't care for is the overall external dimensions of the motor. A Y-block is nice and so is a super long connecting rod, but I think they could have gotten by with a regular block design and shorter rods. This could have trimmed some inches off the motor. Theres no cam in the block so deck height could have been shortened, etc. I think the big reason for the big little engine is NVH stuff for the most part, emmissions on the second. This can be seen in the smallish 3.550 bore and 3.550 stroke. Its designed for hi-speed low octane operation and low emmissions. 3.550 bore = reduced crevice volume (emmisions), reduced surface area minimizes thermal transfer and, the amount of ign timing, as well as controling the flame front better. This is why SB's can get away with more compression. It also reduces frictional loses. On the downside the smallish bore does need a OHC cylinder head because valve area is limited by it's confines which means a much more efficent port is needed to get the same amount of air through to the cylinder (better discharge coefficent from the valve) Cobra guys have it easier, but the 2 valve motors with the FRRP heads and no porting are stuck around 450 hp (naturally aspirated) which is 1.6 hp per cubic inch. BTW a 5.0 making 1.6 hp is 483 hp. To do that N/A on a 5.0 takes a little work. So its the same with a 4.6 at 450 hp. And for the BB guys a 460 is making 736 hp. All things being equal all three motors are producing the same amount of work relative to thier bore sizes. To get 500 hp N/A they are gonna have to do some fancy work to get about 243 cfm out of the ports on a 4.6. Good luck anybody who wants to try

01-13-2001, 07:22 PM	#24 (permalink)
Skyman I need 110mph Trap Speed! Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: So, CA Posts: 4,315	Im sorry, but there is no factory 390 out there that will give a 5.0 a run for its money. The 390 was a dog unless highly moded. Its just not a good performance motor. Look what the 390 stangs ran... high 14's if driven well. Don't say it was old tires either, look at the trap speeds. Skyler ------------------ -1989 Saleen Mustang #406- TFS Heads, Edelbrock intake, E-303, 3.73's, 1 5/8 shortys, Offroad-H, 2chamber flows, 36psi FPR, 15degrees timing, 70mm tb, 73mm maf, 24lb inj, Crank pulley, MSD6A, Alum driveshaft. On its way: Paxton Sn-89 with dyno tuning and long tubes. Just added: B&M Ripper, Weldin Subframes, & Turn downs! 13.2@106mph

01-13-2001, 08:56 PM	#25 (permalink)
88GT5.013.02 Posts: n/a	Have you ever heard of the 401 horse 390 (tri-power) that was in the '61 Starliner (Galaxie)? If that 390 was in a Mustang it would run pretty damn good. But I know what you mean, those engines are made for torque.

Sponsored Links

01-14-2001, 06:02 AM	#27 (permalink)
Unit 5302 Registered Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 5,235	Okay, so you guys are going to base your argument on the sad notion that carbs are better because you can get bigger engines in the past with them? Well la de frickin dah! When's the last time you took a look at a dyno sheet between an EFI motor and a carbed motor? See the difference? I do, the carb is jerky and rough, EFI is smooth and consistant. I'm not arguing the old BB's superior performance when modded up at the dragstrip, just the fact that they are well out of their league everywhere else. Hehe, you must have awful luck with EFI cars, they usually go a good 100k before sensors start going out. Which is 1 1/2 times the quality lifespan of a performance BB. They are easy to diagnose with simple tests and a multitester, and require very very little maintainence. Course, then again, I've only owned 7 of them, so maybe I'm wrong? It's usually a fix of well under $100, and an afternoon of work to fix the electrical components, especially the EFI system stuff. Obviously anybody who would come out and post the performance BB's as being long life motors has no clue whatsoever. To my credit, I'll put up information taken directly from my dad, owner of 427, 390, 428, 429, 460, and several others along the way, and my uncle owner of 428, 406, 390, 302 Boss, and several others. Together they've raced and rebuilt those engines again and again over a combined 70 years. If you get 70k on a performance BB, it NEEDS a rebuild. Saying anything more optimistic than that is just plain blind and misled. So you hear the '85 was mostly run by a computer? Well sorry, but the holly 4bbl on the 85GT was the form of induction. Last time I checked a holly 4bbl was a carb, yes? Regardless of whether or not that car had emissions equipment on it, the carb was more expensive to get the same performance as the 87. If you actually believe carbs are safer than EFI when handling N20, why is N20 so big now? It was a recipe for disaster back in the carbed days, but now we have guys running years on the giggle gas with no ill effects. If it wern't for EFI, N20 would still be relegated to the crazy nutballs who were more than willing to blow their motors. I know some people on this board like the older stuff, but let's be real, if it was superior to the new stuff, they'd be building the old stuff again. To actually argue the old cars can even try to hang with the new ones is ludicrious. A fricken Jaguar XJR luxury 6 seating type of car will show a 428 Mach 1 it's taillights. The new Cobra will do the same, so will the LS1's which would more than likely show the LS6 Chevelle what fast really is. About the only N/A BB cars that can maintain a closeness factor to the top performers today are the 427 Cobra, and a couple other mostly race cars.

01-14-2001, 12:40 PM	#28 (permalink)
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	Yes Unit, EFI cars "tune themselves", but for driveability and emissions as the goal. Not for max power. One has to get a chip burned for that. Can you do this in the back yard with your multimeter? Rev ------------------ '66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph 1/4 mi.

01-14-2001, 03:15 PM	#29 (permalink)
90dpscoupe Registered Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: sanantonio, Tx, usa Posts: 1,407	He..hee..unit you said it dude, but one thing i have to say is the chevelle ls6 is capable of 13 flat or even dipping into 12's especially with the m-22 4spd, or whatever that tranny was, but the ls1 is far more reliable, economical, and can also run in the 12's with light mods. And the 390 can be a badas$ motor, but heavily modded with a cam and 850DP carb, i'd be choking on the exhaust fumes, and a nos plate on the carb would probaly cause an engine fire. But im not dogging on it, a 390 fairlane is pretty nice though.

01-15-2001, 09:39 AM	#30 (permalink)
spinemup Registered Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: middleboro,ma, usa Posts: 734	wow Merc! a monte carlo sway bar? im sorry i bet your car is capable of some high g-forces. your argument is comparible to when cars where first built. "my horse and buggy is so much faster than your model t"..."all i have to do is feed my horse an im good to go" when you finally get to the track then you can post times. that camaro ss was probably talking on his cell phone and didn't even see you in your grandma car go flying by. nor did he care.