Is 300~ horsepower 'fast' by todays standards? Or is

>>14179847
just looked it up and the new Z28 camaro has 505 horsepower, and the new Zl1 has almost 600


crazy shit I forget that we walk around with computers in our pockets everyday like it's nothing.

>>14179847
>be 1996
>V6 Mustang makes 150hp
>Mustang GT makes 215hp
>Mustang Cobra makes 305hp

>be 2016
>4cyl Ford Mustang makes 310hp
>Mustang GT Makes 435hp
>Mustang GT350 makes 525hp

Yes, times have changed.

Well it kind of depends on the weight of the car...

They need the horsepower to move the fat chasis around. Cars are slowly getting more powerful though.

Hp sells cars
Cars getting heavy

250hp v6 accord

Have more fun in 200hp brz

In 1990 a C4 ZR1 had 400HP and could easily go against almost any car in its class.

After that it dropped down to 300HP and stayed there until around 2002...

What the fuck happened?

>>14179863
>>14179866
I always thought the new camaros and mustangs and challengers were big fat ugly cars, when I was in high school. I look at them now and they're a lot smaller than they look in pictures and I'm only 5'10

like the C4 in the OP is a fucking tiny ass car, it's 4 feet tall and like sitting in an F1 car.

I think power/weight matters more than numbers.

300hp in a BRZ is quick, 300hp in a Camaro is slow.

My Z32 was about 350whp and it wasn't enough for me IMO. The top speed was enough for me but not quick enough.

>>14179886
>300hp in a camaro is slow

its really fucking not though. 0-60 in 5 sec stock quarter of 13 sec

very respectable for an old LS1 camaro.

my ls1 t/a feels pretty fast. last night i hit like 120mph in 3rd. and my car is a stock auto

>>14179917
I'd wager he was talking about the 300+hp V6 5th gen, mid 14 second car.

>>14179876
c4 zr1 had a custom DOHC V8 built by mercury. crazy expensive. those were 180mph cars

>>14179929
my friend just got a newer v6 mustang

>tfw 2010

lol 4.0l truck engine

that car would DREAM of a 14 sec

>>14179886
I know that. It's just that traditionally It was easy as taking a shit to make 350hp out of a 350. and shit just got exponentially more expensive as you go past 400 until you had something you could barely drive down the street, and 500-600hp was drag car and lamborghini and ferrari territory.

I was thinking about LS swapping my C3 because the old motor is going to shit and LS has always been the "end all be all" but starting out at around 300~hp is like spending a bunch of money just to start at the beginning again.

>>14179958
LS is also somewhat expensive to build. rotating assy is $3k or so

LS1 kind of behaves like a mild 350 from the factory. but much smoother idle and reliability from modern fuel injection

my LS1 seems to have no problems being at sustained 5000-6000 rpm

>>14179872
>>14179886
Brz shills fuck off

>>14179917
Modern camaro, not 90s Camaro.

>>14179938
It's not hard to get the 4.0 in the 14s at all, seeing as they run a 15 flat stock.

File: corvette_zr1_coupe_30.jpg (2MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1536px

>>14179932

Wasn't the DOHC built by lotus? wondered how powerful the C5 days could've been if GM let Lotus make special edition vettes.

>>14180010
>Modern camaro, not 90s Camaro.

why? a 90's camaro IS a "modern" camaro. it's just not the newest one. this isn't your iphone

>>14180012
>15 flat

so do my pickup trucks (4.3 s10 and 4.0l jeep 'manche)

and i'm sure a ranger 4.0l does too (even faster than both of mine) which is what that engine is from

>>14180031
it was designed by lotus and assembled by mercury marine (hand built)

>>14180033
>so do my pickup trucks (4.3 s10 and 4.0l jeep 'manche)
Lol, no they don't.

Both are 16s cars at best. My friend had a SCSB 4.3L 5spd S10, they're kinda quick off the line but aren't fast.

http://www.s10forum.com/forum/f107/stock-hp-and-1-4-mile-of-4-3l-v-6-a-191545/

Most Minivans and crossovers today are close to 300hp. 300hp is probably nothing to brag about unless your car is light as hell.

300hp in a 2500lb car is fast.
300hp in a 4000lb pigfat sedan is far from fast.

>>14179876

It's sad that it takes the intervention of a foreign manufacturer to make an american car not suck

except for chrysler, no company was ever able to truly save it

>>14180084
JZA80s, R34s, Camaros etc were all closer to 4000lbs than to 2500.

>>14179876
the DOHC LT5 was also PEAKY as fuck due to the Vtec type system it had.
it made very low amount of torque below 3K rpm that made it feel Doggy.

not to mention it was like 10X more expensive to assemble than an LS1

>>14180087
>wat is viper

Wat?

>>14180084
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/chrysler-buys-luxury-automaker-lamborghini

>>14180093

So why wasn't there any real competition from the Viper this time around? The old GTS-R did okay in Europe. The one time I saw a Viper in an FIA event, it didn't even last 5% of the race

>>14180087
>It's sad that it takes the intervention of a foreign manufacturer to make an american car not suck

What are you even talking about? a lot of manufacturers had help from other companies when designing cars and they wouldn't have existed if it weren't so. its almost impossible to make a car without SOME foreign intervention.

The new Supra is being built with help from BMW

A lot of Italian cars had help from the Germans
(Pagani Lamborghini come to mind)

Koenigsegg used a Ford modular engine in their first car.

The GT-R R35 had its transmission designed by a third party company called Warnerborg which is headquartered in the US

So many TVR's Land-rovers and MGs had engines built by Buick which Rover licensed.

all of these cars would've sucked and been unreliable otherwise.

>>14180126
You mean aside from the ACR setting production car lap records again like the previous gen?

>>14179847
300hp at the wheels or flywheel?

i consider anything above 200hp at the wheels to be quick and anything over 300hp to be 'fast'

Sure a modern v6 might get to 100/60 in 5 seconds BUT try turning a corner in one

>>14180446
>BUT try turning a corner in one
A V6 Mustang pulls .96G and outlaps a STi, stop being stupid.

>>14180456
i meant a v6 crapry/acrappord

File: cantturnmustangtsukuba.jpg (107KB, 362x536px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 362x536px

>>14180456
>A V6 Mustang pulls .96G and outlaps a STi, stop being stupid
roflmao, sure thing

by the way, lateral G has nothing at all to do with anything

>2002 sti
>1:04.95

>v8 mustang
>pic related

inb4 damage control goal post moving

300 hp is the new 250hp. Which used to be quite a lot

>>14180427
>warnerborg

kek

>>14180477
250hp was only alot back in the pre 90's

Fuck my OLD 6banger made 220hp+ stock

File: STi lap.png (342KB, 703x304px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 703x304px

>>14180472
>by the way, lateral G has nothing at all to do with anything
It's a display of mechanical grip stupid.

>>14179911
How much turbo lag you have? you running what like 18psi?

>>14180519
what, driving around in a circle with a radius of 200 yards? it means nothing at all, certainly has no relevance to a cars ability to turn.

>>14179886
ehh until you want a high speed car. then you NEED the power since wind resistance squares and gets reatrded difficult to push through. HP/weight is fun for a track, but if you want to have fun running at high speeds you need HP and the weight matters a lot less. I mean the veyron weighed 4k lbs.

And if you want to not be a complete faggot, SUSPENSION/Traction design trumps weight all day. it's why the GTR can handle so god damn well and weigh what it does.

File: Mustang lap.png (344KB, 618x305px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 618x305px

>>14180519

>>14180535
scooby doo fags on pooicide watch

>>14180525
No I was only running 14-14.5psi on stock M/T turbos sadly. Very little lag

>>14180525
Not him but I've owned a lot of Z turbos. You can run 15 psi on pump, with a nistune, boost controller, full exhaust and intake and hit 400whp. My buddy did e85, full exhaust, intake, intercoolers, nustune, injectors. The engine and turbos 100% stock and it did 500whp. I think the record is like 540whp or something on stock engine and turbos. Just breather and fuel mods. That engine was a beast, just had some oil problems that can be fixed.

File: mpgs may surprise you.png (60KB, 706x391px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 706x391px

>>14180528
>how much grip a car can hold through a steady state corner has nothing to do with it's ability to turn

Do you listen to the shit that spews out of your mouth?

Next thing you'll say is

>at least it gets gud emm pee gees

>>14180566
>how much lateral force a car generates going around a massive flat circle with a radius of 100 yards has nothing to do with its ability to turn
im glad you agree

the hellcat charger gets like what, .94g around a skid pad? its a 2000kg boat that literally cant turn for shit. goes to show skidpad ratings mean nothing

File: tumblr_mt6ey2mM8D1rr0aw0o1_1280.jpg (437KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1024x683px

300 hp is more than enough in a relatively light rwd car.

>>14180564
Yeah there are some mean Zs out there, the local specialist has one that is running 11s at 6000ft on stock turbos and has built a mean 875-900whp 10s Z here.

>>14180599
What state are you in?

>>14180609
New Mexico. You?

>>14180553
Interesting I ran 14psi with a JWT ecu, seemed pretty laggy compared to other turbo cars ive driven. Only other mods were intake,catback exhaust, and injectors and a few deletes. Never had it on a dyno or anything, really should of thinking back I live like 30 mins from RDZ which ive been told is one of the best Nissan performance shops in the country

>>14179847
300bhp hasn't gotten any slower; everything else is just faster. It's still more than enough to have fun with, and always will be.

Might seem obvious, but it's worth stating.

File: IMG_20131023_161935_555.jpg (2MB, 1836x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1836x3264px

>>14180613
I did 310whp at 10.5psi with intake exhaust and lightweight flywheel on 91 octane sadly I was never able to redyno at 14. I am assuming 350ish based on other Z dynos I have seen with same boost and mods.

>>14180612
Texas

Friend of mine used to have a 330whp s14 that was around 2,600lbs

that car was fast as balls. The same 330whp in a 3500+lb car would be a little bland

>>14180642
Should come check out the All out call out here in June, saw quite a few Texans here last time.

>>14180613
JWT sucks dick. well the ecu. Buy a nistune and get it tuned properly. the JWT is just a nistune that is pretuned for safety based on mods. It's a scam. Also I've never really heard of RDZ. the best z people are concept z, Z1, Houston Z, Specialty. Those guys are top of the top for Z knowledge.

>>14180671
Yeah I am choosing between Nistune and Haltech but right now I am no where close to that seeing as how I have had the engine out forever.
I use NM Imports because they are close and specialize in Zs, it also does not hurt they were highly recommend by CZP

>>14180696
Haltech is only necessary for over about 900whp. The nistune will literally do everything you need until then.

Yeah if Coz over a CZP recommends someone you can trust them. I use kyle at IPP for a lot of parts since he's local. he's been around forever. And Dane at Houston Z is one of the top 5 Z tuners out there.

But yeah, you gotta use whose close.

>>14180446
>i consider anything above 200hp at the wheels to be quick and anything over 300hp to be 'fast'
That was what I used to think but clearly times have changed.

>>14180477
The new Camaros v8s have around almost 450 hp, so I'd say 450hp is the new 300hp. I mean, the v6s have 325ish which is LS1 territory alone. (I am very aware that new camaros are much heavier but that's aside the point)

>>14180616
That's what I was thinking. I'm just trying to decide on new bench marks because a teenage girl in her new v6 Camaro/Mustang is just as fast/faster than the old LS1 generation cars.

>>14180717
>That was what I used to think but clearly times have changed.
cars are so fucking heavy now that anything under 1500kg is considered 'light' and 'performance' cars are like 1600-1800 its fucking retarded

>>14180705
Well it will be a pretty damn high hp build. Local guy had E85 with GT2871Rs with 9.1:1 at 705whp, I planned on doing a 9.5:1 with GT2871Rs I had but I had to sell them sadly. Now I am planning a 10 or 10.5:1 high boost GTX turbo build somewhere 800whp give or take. Who knows no may get to 600whp and say its enough.

>>14180757
Those GTX's are awesome. Our shop is hoping to do a 1000whp one. It's being built right now but it will be a while. Dude is in and out of the country all the time.

>>14180775
Yeah same with this shop its a 10.5:1 high boost nitrous Z in the works they are hoping for over 1000whp. What I need to find is someone who can build a VG around here. They use Napa to build all their VGs but I'm just not sure about Napa doing it.

>>14179847
Power to weight + gearing + being able to put that power to the ground = speed

Peak factory claimed bhp means fuck all when your car weights damn near 4000 lbs and the chassis is a wet noodle.

>>14180819
people don't use bhp anymore dude and haven't for almost 50 years...

>>14180834
They still use it in bongland for some reason

>>14180819
>Gearing
This is a big one, I went from 3.69 (someone correct me if I am wrong on that number) to 4.10s in my 90TT and wow did it feel like a big difference

>>14180817
ewwww napa....Bad call. They need to find a proper machine shop. Kyle sells blocks at IPP. I HIGHLY recommend those. I used to order them before I found a local machine shop to do our customers. Were doing 1000whp with no nitrous at all. Well that's the plan. We've been close before and that was WAY before the GTX came out. We have a few 700whp builds going on. It's a fun year!

File: BHP.png (8KB, 586x176px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 586x176px

>>14180834
>>14180839
What are you idiots talking about, cars are still rated at the engine.

>>14180860
I was refering to how people talk about the hp their car makes. I haven't heard anyone mention anything but wheel horsepower for ages.

>>14180871
>I haven't heard anyone mention anything but wheel horsepower for ages.
Where have you been? People quote the factory claimed numbers for their cars all the time, even here.

>>14180860

this (>>14180871)

also I thought they started using NET horsepower in the 70's I was always told that like it was common knowledge.

or did they mean they stopped measuring it as an engine alone and started measuring it with it in the car or what???

>>14180854
They recently started using a local guy but he won't touch an engine for a regular person you have to be a shop and even then expect 2-3 months. He won't even return my voicemail, I spoke to one local shop who seems decent and has good reviews...just not with VGs he has.never built a VG.
Yeah they have a non nitrous Z pushing 900whp now the customer on the 10.5:1 however wanted it.

>>14180891
>also I thought they started using NET horsepower in the 70's I was always told that like it was common knowledge.
>or did they mean they stopped measuring it as an engine alone and started measuring it with it in the car or what???
NET hp was the engine with no accessories, even the newest SAE standards are still on an engine stand with accessories and catalysts in place.

File: shruggingman.jpg (191KB, 1000x566px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1000x566px

>>14180886
>Where have you been?

irl with my friends and acquaintances.

>>14180909
So your friends just never talk about cars?

Protip: when some casual says "can you believe the new ecoboost mustang has 310hp, just a few years ago the V8s were making 300hp" they're not referring to whp.

>>14180905
I thought GROSS was the engine with no accessories or transmission.

So net is accessories and transmission? Or just accessories and the flywheel?

The new V8 manual Camaro makes 10hp more than the automatic, my 82 Corvette is rated 200hp and was criticized with being offered in only a "torque sapping automatic" so I don't know what the FUCK you're talking about dude I thought they've been measuring at the wheels sense at least then...

>>14180925
I like how you're all pissed off that someone has a different experience than you in the same hobby.

All my friends are gearheads :)

>>14180931
Gross was no accessories and included other tricks like headers and no air cleaner assemblies and advanced ignition timing.

>So net is accessories and transmission? Or just accessories and the flywheel?
Just the flywheel.

>my 82 Corvette is rated 200hp and was criticized with being offered in only a "torque sapping automatic" so I don't know what the FUCK you're talking about dude I thought they've been measuring at the wheels sense at least then...
Nah, when manufacturers spout hp numbers it's always at the flywheel/engine.

I had a modded 5.0LX and it put down 220whp and 280wtq, it was rated at 225hp and 300tq at the flywheel stock.

File: 1429607028261.jpg (23KB, 249x214px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 249x214px

>>14180925
>can you believe the new ecoboost mustang has 310hp, just a few years ago the V8s were making 300hp

lmao, sounds like you have around with 14 year olds

>>14180986
huh. alright. So I guess when people are talking about WHP they have some serious fast machines.

>>14180964
>my friends don't talk about cars and their hp levels their rated at
>they only discuss cars that they've seen dyno sheets for
Some gearheads, or you're just full of shit/don't know what you're talking about.

>>14181008
It's shit I hear around here, so yeah it probably was a 14 year old. But that's actually more boomer-tier.

>>14180964
I don't know about that guy, but generally when someone just says "horsepower," they mean at the crank. Factories and media outlets report it this way, so it's still the standard for most people. If someone means whp, they'll say "wheel horsepower" or "at the wheels" because it sounds more impressive. The main exception is if someone's talking about the results from a dyno test.

>>14181043
Yeah, watch the Top gear with the '08 GT500. Hammond is sorely disappointed when they put his '68 on the rollers. Also, it shows that even though the GT500 is rated at 500hp it only puts down 440ish whp IIRC.

>>14181043
Thank god, someone else with common sense.

>>14181124
First part of that post is for
>>14181016

>>14180578
>can't turn
It obviously can, look at its mechanical grip
It's not light and has body roll but it can still turn just fine

>>14180031
Behan one of the Lotus engineers who now works at Lingenfelter recently built a gen 3 LT5 using the left over prototype parts and diagrams they were working on back in the 90s. The goal back then was 475bhp. They were able to hit 528hp on the engine dyno. For comparison the gen 2 engine made 440hp on the engine dyno. Only two of the gen 3 higher lift cams survived so they were forced to use gen 1 cams. They think there is another 30hp with the different cams.

>>14179958
I put a cammed lq9 and t56 in my C3. It was a lot of money, time, and frustration dealing with the wiring. Totally worth it, but it would have been cheaper and easier just to buy a 383 crate motor.

>>14180648
I had no clue s chassis was that light? Is this for real?

>>14181480
really? I read these and they said you can do it for $1500 (no tranny)

http://ls1tech.com/forums/conversions-hybrids/1075693-my-budget-ls-engine-swap-guide-1500-a.html

http://ls1tech.com/forums/conversions-hybrids/1166879-quick-cheap-5-3-swap-into-1990-silverado.html


the first one says they sell premade harnesses (not cheap) so you don't have to bother

>>14181670

modding harnesses are a bitch and extremely time consuming, but if you know how to do it you can save a good chunk of cash

a 193hp e36 328i does 0-60 in about 6.5 secs and is one of the best cheap hooning cars with great price/performance so even sub 200hp can be nice

>remember reading magazines in elementary school with my bro
>oh man that Impreza has 300hp!

thread reminded me of that time
whether it was or not 300hp seemed like a big deal to the magazine and us at the time all the big bad V8s and top turbo imports seemed to have it

200hp was like a decently quick car

>14 years later
>wow that Impreza still only has 300hp

top kek Subaru

yeah Id say 300 is the new 200

File: eghatch.jpg (31KB, 452x303px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 452x303px

>>14179847
My roomate dropped a B18 into a CRX that puts down like 210 hp.

Feels like a rocketship.

The horses are just getting fatter now, OP.

>>14180092

But the Weabs here fap over turdo lag and high RPM.

So what if it barely any more revs?, IT'S COMPLICATED AND EFFICIENT!!!!!

>>14180091
What does that tell you?

>>14180427
Pro tip: The sprayed plasma cylinder liner is a technology directly licensed from Ford.

>>14182209

There was a K24 swapped CRX, gutted, lightweight fuel cell, and caged on Craigslist, Professionally done track car.

I can only imagine how fun and insane that shit would have been.

i have 280 in a shy of 3400lb car and it's way more than enough for me

>>14182290
Probably the best way to get into amateur rally desu

>>14179847
Doesn't matter when the people with real high hp and torque won't ever use it. They always pussy out and will not push it.

>>14182363
This

A bmw x1 turbo diesel with 220hp or so at the crank feels fast enough for a daily driver city car.

It depends on the application.
If you live somewhere rural with big wide open stretches of road and do a lot of highway driving, 200hp isn't shit. But for short bursts of acceleration in a city where it always rains, its fun.

Then again, when it comes to comparisons, 300-400 is the average now for a sports car. You put a turbo on a naturaly aspirated v8 pushing 350 stock and you can get to 500 with one step. There are a lot more possibilities now than 20 years ago I guess.

I remember that top gear episode when Jeremy tested a 1000hp r33 tuned by jun or some other jap tuner, and claimed they spent £150k on the engine to get it to that figure.

You could probably take a modern v6 or v8, and get to 1000hp with only a couple thousand or so, considering you do some work yourself like the manifolds and shit.

>>14179876
the ZR1 had 375hp in '91 and cost $60k or twice the price of the base Corvette.

>>14179872
>Have more fun in 200hp brz

It's hard to put a number on fun.

>>14179847
An R34 GT-R is still faster than 90% of things you'll meet on the road.
It just won't be able to touch modern fast cars

>>14182363
speak for yourself

>>14182461
>1000 HP out of a modern v6 with 2 grand

Lmao

File: 1408813666775.jpg (11KB, 181x249px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 181x249px

What the fuck is even the point of 300 hp in appliance sedans? Is it another one of those things where Americans vastly overestimate the power required for a task, in this case accelerating to 70 mph on highway ramps, like when they defend buying one ton pickups to occasionally tow their ATV?

File: Screen Shot 2013-10-09 at 10.30.42 AM.png (268KB, 1064x584px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1064x584px

>>14183482
the average american adds 300lbs to the gross weight of a vehicle

File: 1452000079284.jpg (62KB, 566x626px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 566x626px

>all these retards saying stupid shit like "200 HP in a 2500lbs car is fast tho" "cars are just getting heavier hurr"


Not what I was talking about. Any idiot knows a S or a civic with a 300hp is fast, no fucking shit retards. All the classic "fast" cars like LS1s, Corvettes, Terminators, Supras, GTRs etc not one of them weighed less than 3000lbs. The only lightweight cars I can even think of with decent hp are WRXs and foxbodies.

I don't give a shit if your faggot sub-3000lbs shitbox is "fast with a k20/ls1 swap DUDE HOONIGAN DUDE MONSTER ENERGY DUDE SNAPBACKS LMAO"

That Toyota V6 made it so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZeLJuNUR_c

Shit, I feel like most new cars come with more horsepower than they did around the 1990s/early 2000s.

>>14183482
It's really nice having power in a daily driver. Why do you hate horsepower? Are you some kind of communist?

My rental V6 Impala has 305 horsepower. What a time to be alive.

>>14187739
Those impalas are so shitty though.

>>14179847

The last 5 years or so has seen an amazing explosion of horsepower. We are living in a golden age.
That said, we're really past the point that it's usable on the street. My Mk VII Golf TDI can cruise comfortably at 90mph, and gets there quick enough. My 320hp 928 S4 can roast the tires and sprint with anything built before 2008 or so. It's as fast as I need.

That said, the current HP mark for most manufacturers is 500. 392 Mopars are just under, Camaros are there, Mustangs are just short at 430-something I think. MB has been at 500 for years with the SLs and of course the Viper 500hp mark was the standard for a long time. I'd say 400 is the new 300... 300 isn't the new 200... maybe the new 270.

>>14179847
Cars are also pigfat now. Torque numbers get smaller as tinier engines make more power.
300 is still decent when you're getting 22+ mpg, but I can make that kind of power for $700

>>14180482
I don't know if its the same Borg-Warner that made transmissions in the 60s and 70s

>15 - 20 years ago if you had 250 HP you were fast

;_:

What happened, where did it all go so wrong?

>foxbody was king of the streets back in the '80s and into the '90s
>a fully built 302 can hardly hold any more power without stressing the factory block than a bolt on DOHC 5.0


Yeah, we've come quite a long ways huh.

>>14188785
cars were slow back then. The fastest cars back then are slower than mid tier sports cars today.

>>14190798
>The fastest cars back then are slower than mid tier sports cars today.
That's wrong though, faggot.

>>14190823
No it's not. Look at >>14179862. A lot of fast cars back then had 300-400 HP. Now V6 family sedans are approaching 300 HP and entry level sports cars are pushing 300-450 HP.

File: 100_0079.jpg (130KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1024x768px

>>14190859
Funny. >>14179862 was me. And I used to own a jellybean Cobra.

There were cars much faster than the Cobra in the '90s, unless now you want to back peddle to "attainable sports cars".

>>14180566
>dat fucking gas mileage
Every time I'm driving my 2.5i Slowbaru and I think to myself that maybe I should get an STi I'm immediately reminded that I may as well be driving a big block Camaro if I'm only going to get 16 mpg.

>>14181543
Well they have the all the torsional rigidity of a wet noodle so I believe it.

>>14179847
people are just jaded
600 hp will not make them blink

>>14190886
Ford really dropped the ball with the 4.6 OHC engines by sticking with 2 valves per cylinder. If the Japs can do 4 valves per cylinder with SOHC than there's no reason Ford couldn't have. Just imagine how great that whole engine series could have been with an actually efficient combustion chamber design.

>>14190899
My Cobra was DOHC 305hp 300tq, Lincoln used the DOHC 4.6L all the way back in '93.

>>14190892
This