Old cars that kick new car and FI a$$

[MrWesson22]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Tom351]

I think we have established that anything with a V-8 can be bada$$ it is just a matter of personal preference.


------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

My 351W Fastback

[Jaydee]

I was fortunate enough to have grown up during the muscle car era, owned a few (69 GTX 440/4 speed, 67 Chevelle 396/350) and trust me these cars could run hard. The way to make them run is no different than the ways we use to make our stangs run hard now - add the right parts, give it some traction and take the time to tune and refine your combo so that you can use all of the power that you are making. Owning both an 87 5.0 and an original 1965 289/271 K code, I get to live on both sides of the fence. In any race between these cars the 5.0 would beat the snot out of the old HiPo any day of the week, it handles and stops much better, gets better gas mileage, and is a lot more comfortable as a day in, day out driver. It was also very easy to get this car into the 13's with just simple bolt on's. The HiPo car however provides a driving experience that 5.0 could never, ever match. The unique sound, smell and feel of the old solid lifter engine at idle and under acceleration, the feel of the quick ratio manual steering, the 60's style driving position etc. - this car provides an awesome interactive driving experience and demands a high level of your concentration every time you drive it - hard to describe unless you have had the chance to put down some miles in one. I love both cars and both have their strong points, but when it comes down to pure performance, technology rules. The late model EFI cars possess incredible potential and as can be seen by the sheer number of 11 and 12 second cars on the streets, can easily be modified to do things that the old cars can only dream about.

------------------
1965 K code coupe - numbers matching - restoration ongoing. 1987 LX notch, stock heads and intake, typical bolt on's 13.89@100.25

[Unit 5302]

I completely agree with Jaydee. Old cars can be really cool, and a blast to drive. I'm not disputing that, or the fact that with the right parts the carbed BB's are the quickest cars on the dragstrip.

This post however started with the notion that old carbed cars were superior to the EFI cars in the performance department, I'm assuming in stock or near stock form. My name was dragged into the topic and I felt significantly misinterpreted. I like the old cars the Mach 1's, my uncles awesome Boss 302, which he is going to sell, but I would never trade EFI for a carb.

Rev, yes EFI equipped can be tuned for more performance, right in your garage with tricks such as adjusting the TPS. Also, the computer "learns" your driving habits, so if you reset it and run the crap out of it, it will tune to be a little more agressive. Open loop cycles are not tuned for emissions and driveability, they are tuned for performance and little rich to avoid burning the car down, but if you want to tempt fate, you could always add and AFPR and fine tune your car for performance.

[MercDude]

Has anyone thought about the numbers everyone throws around? Think for a sec...
Where do you get the numbers for new production car stats? MotorTrend? Car and Driver? Or any other 'off the shelf' magazine? These magazines are in the buisiness to MAKE MONEY. They have perfect setups for every test they might possibly want to run. Professional drivers that have honed their quick-shifts to an artform. In addition, do you actually think that the factory (whichever it may be) graciously "donates" these cars for tests, knowing that they will be run against other cars of diffrent makes -and that the results will profoundly affect sales- without a little tweaking? Perhaps a superchip for a quicker 0-60 time or upgraded shocks for faster slalom times? The automakers view this as a invaluable part of their products' advertisement and image... because everyone treats the numbers as scientific law. My point? It has been proven, time and again, that this happens... and that the stats are one thing, real life another. Before you next praise the new generation of motorsport technology keep in mind that although stats sported by the latest motor mag might be faster than a btchin' 65 falcon or someone else's hot rod 68 chevelle... these stats are not necessarily the truth. The truth is what your eyes and experience tell you.


------------------
'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

[97snakedriver]

MercDude- Actually its the other way round. Back in the day car makers would give car mags a particular car to test. And low and behold they started giving them ringers. Now the car rags usually acquire their test cars in a more random fashion.

However new or old I don't go by magizine performance numbers. I don't consider myself a great driver, but stock I managed to beat the published numbers for my car in C&D, R&T, ect by a several tenths, both 0-60 and 1/4 mile without powershifting.

[Jaydee]

MercDude - I take it that you don't really believe what you read when your looking at the times posted in various mags for the new stangs, camaros etc. Well your probably right. Its an old trick by the auto manufacturers to "enhance" the performance of the cars they release to the magazines for testing. In the old days, "stock" cars were given to magazines with increased cubic inches, bumped compression and blue printed motors were common occurances in the game. Pontiac slipping in warmed over 421's into otherwise stock GTO's back in 1964 for the infamous Car and Driver Pontiac GTO Vs Ferrari GTO comparison test is probabbly the most famous case of this. It is not beyond the imagination that some of this slight of hand would still occur today. The ultimate truth in performance however can be found at your local drag strip. I frequent both E-Town in N.J and Lebanon Valley in N.Y. and routinely see stock LS1 camaro's run consistiant low to mid 13's and high 12's with minor bolt on's as well as 5.0's and mod motor cars running anywhere from 10's to 14's depending on their level of mods. I became a believer when my 87 5.0 ran 14.4's bone stock with 2.73 gears while spinning the tires badly and 13.8's with simple bolt on's, 3.55's and a slipping clutch. Believe me, I love the old iron, I grew up with it, owned it (still do), modified it and beat the **** out of it and I plan to have my old HiPo until they stick me in the ground. But I firmly believe that there has never been an easier breed of car to modify to run hard than a late model stang or LS1. It is not hard to create a throughly streetable car capable of running in the 11 or 12 second zone that will still get you home at 20+ mpg with the a/c on.

[MrWesson22]

Going fast reliably in a "modern muscle car" is definately easier, but honestly, what would yall rather be in cruise night? A 69 boss 429 or a 99 mustang cobra? I'm willing to bet 3 out of 4 would say the boss. And, we all know that classic cars get the chicks! My first car was a 90 lx 5.0 vert, and I loved it, but it just didn't compare to the thrill and enjoyment I get from driving and working on my 69. As cool as fox body cars are, to me they're still cookie cutter cars. When was the last time you drove more than 20 miles anywhere and didn't see at least one 87-93 mustang? I like em, they're just nothing special, but a 69... it's another story. This is all just my humble opinion, of course. Give me old iron over new muscle anyday!

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

69 stang
351C/4sp

[MiracleMax]

I can Rev, it's called an Extender. So all of a sudden the 14.7 A/F ratio just went out the window for a comfy for power 13:1 . The only clear cut advantage a carb has over efi is the gain from latent cooling when the fuel evaporates into a gas. If you built Identical motors except for the fuel delivery device, The average torque number would be higher with the efi car due to better fuel distribution as it revved. Ergo, the car would accelerate better and in drag racing a fat torque curve is better than peak power. Now if we where racing at a superspeedway then yeah the carbed motor would catch-up and pass the efi motor. I suppose it depends on how you go about grabing the bull by the horns? For me I like small blocks and EFI. Although I would dearly love to have a 70' Mach 1 replete with 428 CJ, drag pack and shaker hood. Be nice to own and cruise every once and while. For regular street duty I'll take my beloved LX pony.

As far as the cookie cutter thing. Ponder this! In 30 years all those fox cars out there will be thrashed, bashed, cut and crunched up. Just like alot of old muscle cars. Which by then will be about as common as a dusenberg, 57 Bel Air, whatt have you (guess I'll be rattgling my cane at some young whippersanpper and his Formazaustivolvbmw or whatever things settle down to and talking about the good ol days when a 5.0 Fox car was the poopoo). My LX 5.0 will be a classic (and don't think it won't they already have resto parts!) worth a few pennies for the same reason all the old muscle is. "Yeah when I was growing up 5.0's where the stink. Man wished I'd had tha chance to own one". Then it's yeah I got one, and for the right price... Scratch that. They'll be burying me in my LX, I can't part with it. This thing has even out lived my first true luv

[MercDude]

The carb makes more HP and the EFI makes more torque... it's just the differences in induction system... but for backyard mechanics, carbs are easier to get running fast!

------------------
'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

[Tom351]

I love to take out EFI stangs and f-body's, but my favorite kill is also my easiest. I love to emabarass those ricer punk dorks cruising w/ their cheezy girlfriend, acting like they have a Formula One car on the street.
Roasting those guys feel almost like a public service by putting them in their place. I race against stangs to see who is faster, I race against ricers to show them how stupid they are.

------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W ,Trick Flow Aluminum Heads, Edelbrock TorkerII, Comp. Cam, Performance Automatic C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

My 351W Fastback