Mustang Evolution Forum banner

81 - 100 of 168 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
I think gladiator is right...
Mwahahahahhahahah

*sets down gas can*
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,800 Posts
Keep it civil. There is also a lot more than "I make X power with Y weight, I'm faster" which anyone who has ever been to a track will understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
The weights are essentially the same as previous generation. No weight advantage, but since the weight is more in the rear, it should improve handling and performance. I suspect that future models will lose weight from advances in materials over the next few years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
If it out performs the Boss who cares if it gained a few lbs? I thought only women complained about weight...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
Thats sad, really sad. Makes me happy with my 2012. What do you get when you take a GT mustang, give it independent suspension and an extra couple hundred pounds? A Camaro SS....

Good luck Ford. The new Cobra better have over 700hp lol.
+1

I bought my 2012 with a critical weight criteria. It had to be lighter or equal to my previous cars. It made it barely (5 pounds lighter !!!). I am glad I made the move, because it seems that it crossed the line now. I had 2 transams, but I may not purchase a second mustang. I am very satisfied with my Mustang as it is now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
+1

I bought my 2012 with a critical weight criteria. It had to be lighter or equal to my previous cars. It made it barely (5 pounds lighter !!!). I am glad I made the move, because it seems that it crossed the line now. I had 2 transams, but I may not purchase a second mustang. I am very satisfied with my Mustang as it is now.
I had a 95 Trans Am GT Lt1 5.7 L with the corvette engine I liked the car but the engineering was horrible changing the spark plugs was an all day affair ( very tight fit ) and once my fuel pump went and the rear axle had to be dropped to get to it what a joke.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,800 Posts
I had a 95 Trans Am GT Lt1 5.7 L with the corvette engine I liked the car but the engineering was horrible changing the spark plugs was an all day affair ( very tight fit ) and once my fuel pump went and the rear axle had to be dropped to get to it what a joke.
Please enlighten the rest of us on this "Trans Am GT". Also every V8 Camarobird came with the "Vette engine".
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,800 Posts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
lol, it is true that GM have abused of the 350 cubic inch block. That pic may just as well show a very old pickup with a GM 350 in it. It boasted 160 HP, a formidable powerhouse for the time :)

The Transam's from 93 to 2002 all had corvette engines. The engine previous to the present corvette engine. While my 94 had the LT1 V8, the LS1 was in corvettes. It is true that the early models had several flaws, but then my 2002 was a fine sports car, with most problems fixed. I bought one of the last cars produced, plant was just 50 miles from my home. In 2002, the engine was the LS1, one of the engines previously offered in corvettes. LS engines are still widely used in race cars (nascar style, there are many series and I am less familiar with these).

Camaro's of that era used the same V8 engines as the Transam's, but with diferent setups (factory ram air for example). I did not opt for these, but you could get the same for transams in aftermarket parts and some hood cosmetics.

Nonetheless, The LS1 was more than 10 years old when I bought my coyote, 2 years ago. Still, it is a favorite for moders and race teams even now. It is a 350 cu.inch V8, pushrod. Mine had 400 HP, but I am not a radical with power, it could give much more and has, in other machines. That engine is also a star in custom planes (civil projects).

True, changing the spark plugs was an adventure : you had to remove the conditionned air components to access spark plug #8, which was basically in the gloves compartment !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,586 Posts
It's not a "corvette engine" there are differences. Might as well call the 5.0 in the f150 a mustang engine then.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,586 Posts
That's what me and scottydsntknow where getting at with his " corvette engine " comment. the ls1 in the camaro/firebird is not the same as the ls6 in the c5 z06. Just as the ls1 in the base c5 is not the same as the one in the camaro/ firebird

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
That's what me and scottydsntknow where getting at with his " corvette engine " comment. the ls1 in the camaro/firebird is not the same as the ls6 in the c5 z06. Just as the ls1 in the base c5 is not the same as the one in the camaro/ firebird

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
That's not exactly true All 97-04 regular C5's had the exact same LS1 that the 98-02 Fbodies had. Over the years the cams changed slightly but the engine itself is the same. Although obviously the engine accessories were different (intake manifolds, EGR, TB's, Intake manifolds, exhaust, etc). With the exception some late model 02's had a LS6 block instead of the LS1 block.

The HP rating difference between F bodies and Corvettes (305 base F body, 320 F body with ram air (which doesn't do anything unless your going 120+), and 345 C5) has been proven to be manufactured numbers for GM to sell more of the expensive cars. Its been dyno proven time after time that any stock LS1 regardless of year puts down roughly 300 to the wheels. Only difference is the 01+ models with the LS6 intake put down slightly more.

With that being said I never understand why people refer to their F bodies as having "Corvette engines" while its the same engine as the corvette its the stock engine that came in their car from the factory. From the way some people say that it can almost sound like GM offered a F body LS1 and a Corvette LS1 and they paid for the Corvette LS1 in their F body which isn't the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
lol, it is true that GM have abused of the 350 cubic inch block. That pic may just as well show a very old pickup with a GM 350 in it. It boasted 160 HP, a formidable powerhouse for the time :)

The Transam's from 93 to 2002 all had corvette engines. The engine previous to the present corvette engine. While my 94 had the LT1 V8, the LS1 was in corvettes. It is true that the early models had several flaws, but then my 2002 was a fine sports car, with most problems fixed. I bought one of the last cars produced, plant was just 50 miles from my home. In 2002, the engine was the LS1, one of the engines previously offered in corvettes. LS engines are still widely used in race cars (nascar style, there are many series and I am less familiar with these).
The LT1's and LS1's were in both F bodies and Corvettes. The first year GM introduced the engines they were only offered in the Corvettes but after that it was the same engine (regardless of what car). And for what its worth the LS1 is not 350 c.i. its only 346 and is basically a different engine from a standard Chevy 350.

92-96 Corvettes = LT1
93-97 F bodies = LT1
97-04 Corvettes = LS1
98-02 F bodies = LS1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
Thanks for historic info regarding GM's V8, I have just learned why my summer 2002 Transam was so much different. It also had a lighter, much stronger driving shaft to actually use the torque and power, too (larger, empty aluminium shaft, racing style instead of the tiny steel shear pin). A good thing, because I had lost 2 driving shafts before that. Also lost 1 transmission on each transam (with the new shaft), and 'bent' the 1994 (not rigid enough for the increased power, driver door would not close, windshield cracked :) ).

Production plant at BoisBriand Qc was shutdown at the end of august 2002.

But they could keep the weight at roughly 3575 lbs, all along.

The Mustang has always been a light car, and it was even lighter in those days. This is why a less potent engine did not prevent them from being as quick as the stronger Transams, although the latter had higher top speeds, with few add-ons.

The Mustang had already gained back some weight in 2011, but the coyote was a clear win and compensated, so that I consider the 2011-2014 Mustang to be the current defender for the best pony car around. When I was shopping, I rapidly eliminated the chryslers (good cars, but 2 tons !!!!).

Now, the Mustang is apparently catching up weight (closer to 2 tons ...) , and I feel like the present Mustangs will be missed and become a want-to-have item on this market. If the weight gain does not come with independent rear suspension, The Mustang will not prevail as the best choice, which it is currently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,586 Posts
Which makes it different and not a " corvette engine" like I said then if that's the case f150's have " mustang engines " lol. I think it's stupid to say it has a corvette engine

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,769 Posts
Which makes it different and not a " corvette engine" like I said then if that's the case f150's have " mustang engines " lol. I think it's stupid to say it has a corvette engine

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Mustang Evolution mobile app

I would agree, and I own a '95 T/A. Never have I ever told anyone I have a Corvette engine. As much as I would like to add fuel rail covers, the only ones you can even find anymore say Corvette on them. First, they don't fit the F-Body LT1, second, even if they did, I wouldn't put them on since they don't say Trans Am, Pontiac, LT1, or something else specific to my car.
 
81 - 100 of 168 Posts
Top