I still dont know how you call the camaro a bloated geo storm. and quicker than the mustang some years? I think the camaro's came out on top alot more than that. Whats to say alot of camaros wont trip the lights in single digits with chevy power. I know alot of them do. so, the means both cars have the same potential, given the same money.  

Actually, AmericanMuscle13 deserves props for "bloated Geo Storm." 

I think you're a little confused cuz you're arguing my point for me. I think the SN mustangs were a much better car than the 4th gen camaro.  As I've said a couple times already.  However, I'm not blind enough that I don't see the positive aspects of both sides.  ( unlike some people )  The LS1 is a great motor, and I'd take it over a 4.6 any day of the week.  You ever tried changing the spark plugs on a 4.6?  The mustangs of that era were also notorious for wheel hop and  weak suspension.  However, the camaro's had their own faults.  For one thing, I don't care what anybody says THEY'RE UGLY.  Always have been, always will be.  The only 4th gen i've ever liked was the #### Harrell edition with it's body mods.  As you said, they were also incredibly hard to work on compared to other cars, with the engine half in the cowl.  As far as who has better drag racing capabilities?  It's just like the old supercharger vs turbo debate.  Both can make quadruple digit power numbers, it's more a matter of choice.  ( if you think blowers can't make near as much power as turbos, take a look at a top fuel car) If you're a hardcore ford and turbo guy, fine do what you want.  Only place it matters what setup you like is where the rubber meets the road.

1. Spark plug changes in my SVT Cobra--as easy as a Hemi (no plugs under hot headers like with an SBC)

2. Turbos in top fuel--Outlawed by the NHRA for years. Before that,  nobody ever tried large enough turbos to support the working fluid flow requirements anyhow.  Oxygen content of nitromethane mitigates some of the inefficiency of roots blowers.  Top fuel is completely irrelevant to anything remotely streetable.

3. If the LS-series is so dominant, why does it take so many more cubes to equal the output of a comparable Ford Cammer.  Example. 2005 4.6 SOHC 3V makes 300 hp but it takes a 5.3 liter LS2 to equal it. Hmmm?  Can anybody say "NOT ENOUGH VALVE CURTAIN AREA?"

4. Let's just run cube-for-cube, straight up--LS v. DOHC or 3V Cammer (no spotting the pushrod camp any aftermarket heads or 60+ extra cubes.)  Anyone want to bet in a legit test (no GM shills like Jeff Smith in the mix) that two valves and pushrods will lose?

Ok, so I'm going to assume you don't like mopars either?  Their plugs are down on the bottom of the cylinder heads too.  Or maybe you've never actually seen an old mopar v8.  I'd hardly call a 4.6 spark plug swap easy when all the injector #### is in the way.  I also bet you didn't know that the ford 5.4 is a GM DESIGN.  Yep that's right, Ford bought the design from GM.

As for turbos vs. superchargers, if you look you'll see that I didn't say one was better than the other.  Or did you even really read through it.  Both have their ups and downs, and both are capable of 1000+ horsepower.  It's all a matter of taste.

The 4.6 simply lacks the power of the ls-series.  Sure, the 2005 motor makes 300 horse.  But what about the last 10 years where it made 260 horse or less?  Hardly impressive.  Not to mention the 5.3 is a truck motor, hardly optimized for power out put.  LS1 fbody's were putting out 320 horse, while mustangs were pushing 260.  Not to mention the ls1 made a bunch more torque.  

A shootout between motors? I think it'd be cool.  The only problem I can see is that Ford doesn't have any big displacement motors, so it'd make it hard for the gm side to use their best ones.  How about an LS6 vs 3v cammer? We all know who would lose.      

I'm with you on that  

The big advantage to a pushrod engine is it's compact design, not the flow characteristics of the heads. The 7 liter C5R engine is much smaller and lighter than the 5.0 "cammer".

Power to displacement is a rather silly way to compare engine performance. Racing engineers are looking for output to engine weight and in that arena the C5R is superior to the cammer. There's a reason the corvette has dominated the GTS class for several years.

I'm not even a Chevy guy, I drive a turbocharged Toyota.

Joe

Where to start? So much misinformation, so little time . . . .

The 5.3 Gen IV I referred to is going in the upcoming 2006 Monte Carlo and other GM CARS. Thus the comparison test I proposed is totally legit.

The  5.4 modular is nothing more than the 4.6 modular with a taller deck and more stroke. It is fully a Ford design.  The only arguably GM design owned by Ford is a recently discontinued Land Rover V8, which in the 1960s was the Buick 215, before GM sold all rights to it.  Certainly, everyone in the industry has learned from some things from GM  (e.g. canted valve cylinder heads, Kettering-style V8, thin-wall casting techniques, Delco starter, etc.) but using certain state-of-the-art features doesn't make the whole design a "GM design."

There is no "injector ####" in the way of changing spark plugs on the Cobra 4.6.

I love MoPar. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hemi pulled an upset in the 5.3, Navigator 5.4, Hemi shootout. 

BTW, LS1 Camaros were pushing up daisies while SVT Cobra Mustangs made 390 h.p.  The point is that you are too selective in your comparisions. Clearly, GM lost the horsepower race in the 1980s to the 5.0 Mustang.   GM did outpower the Blue Oval from 1993-1995.   Ford achieved some parity with the DOHC 4.6 SVT Cobra, but cost, numbers and tepid factory gearing kept GM ahead in the cheap seats.   The LS engine did help GM, but not enough to save the F-bodies.   No Camaro/Firebird since maybe 1969 could match the Terminator Cobra off the showroom floor. 

In trucks, its even worse for GM.  For 27 straight years, Ford has been number one in sales.  Ford's PowerStroke Diesel wastes GM's Isuzu-built Duramax in all tests of acceleration and towing (I just read the test in  Primedia's new Diesel mag). GM has NEVER produced a sport truck that would run with the 5.4 Lightning.  Not even the weak "peanut port" SS 454.  

Your proposed LS6 vs 3V shootout proves my point. To win, GM has to "cheat" with more cubes and deprive Ford of its best Cammer engines.  If we aren't going to compare cube-for-cube, then why not let Ford start with the 5.4 GT (550 h.p.) engine?  That'd be about as meaningful.

Chevy "dominated" GTS recently because none of the other factories are throwing millions of dollars at the class.  Viper's factory team quit GTS while on top, before the factory Corvettes ever won a single race,  and Ford decided that it would rather DOMINATE Trans Am  (Rocketsport's Trans Am Jaguars are powered by Ford).  [Jack Roush did, of course, win GTS/GTO at Daytona for TEN STRAIGHT YEARS, so perhaps Ford didn't feel it had anything left to prove]  Pontiac "dominated" the GrandAm Daytona Prototype class this year at the Rolex 24 not because their engines are "smaller and lighter," but because they spent money on development while Ford's underfunded Multimatic effort took races off last year and failed to update its chassis and aero package.

Certainly any racing engineer is going to be concerned by power-to-weight. But does anyone seriously think that one would purposefully pick a two- valve pushrod mill unless there was some rules or marketing advantage?   How many pushrod engines run in IRL or in F1, or in WRC, or in the Prototype sport car class?  Surely if it were as simple as you suggest, somebody would be running a lightweight pushrod engine in each of these.

Why would we compare a $14,000 5.0 Cammer to a $30,000+ C5R 7L?

I have no problem factoring in engine weight in a fair comparison test.

"...But does anyone seriously think that one would purposefully pick a two- valve pushrod mill unless there was some rules or marketing advantage?   How many pushrod engines run in IRL or in F1, or in WRC, or in the Prototype sport car class?  Surely if it were as simple as you suggest, somebody would be running a lightweight pushrod engine in each of these."

You don't see pushrod engines in any of those classes because they impose heavy displacement limits. It's a matter of rule book engineering. The pushrod engine's strength is it's ability to combine a small external size with a large internal volume. They hamstring that strength by setting a very low maximum displacement. There's not much incentive for using an engine design if you can't take advantage of it's primary strength.

In the GTS class they don't really have displacement restrictions, they limit RPM instead. This gives a significant advantage to pushrod engines. Notice that the dominant cars over the last decade have been large pushrod engines in a field composed mostly of OHC engines.

"Why would we compare a $14,000 5.0 Cammer to a $30,000+ C5R 7L?

I selected the cammer because the 5.0 cammer is the best production based naturally aspirated OHC engine in Ford's stable right now. If you want we can compare a 3 valve 4.6 with an LS1. I believe the 3 valve weighs in ~520lbs compared to ~460lbs for the LS1. That's 60 less pounds and 50 more horsepower for the LS1. Does that make the modular motor bad? No, but it does illustrate that the LSX is a competitive design.

Joe

you said "in trucks, it's even worse for GM.  For 27 straight years, Ford has been number one in sales."

Actually, that's not true.  Ford sells more trucks than Chevy, and more than GMC.  But it does not sell more than GM.  GMC and Chevrolet truck sales combined, GM outsells Ford in trucks.

How do I know this?  I work in a plant that builds Tundras, and we have monthly industry communication meetings.           

But if there were NO ARTIFICIAL LIMITS on RPM or displacement and no corporate/marketing politics, what racing engineer would pick a pushrod mill over a modern multivalve cammer of equivalent cubes?  NOONE who wanted to stay employed!   My point is that the pushrod advocates always want to compare engines of DIFFERENT displacements to tilt the outcome in their favor.

Instead, major sanctioning bodies like NHRA, NASCAR and others keep pushrod engines in the game with outright bans on cammers or restrictions on size or breathing ability.  These policies have disadvantaged American manufacturers because they inhibit technological trickledown to the street and the showroom.

Sure, I'd love for Ford to do an affordable Schubeck-style DOHC cammer conversion for the ancient 460, so Kaase could build a 800-cube pushrod-slaying monster and answer this question once and for all (I know this wouldn't fit in any production Mustang so save the smaller-n-lighter response), but where would anybody race such an "ultimate" V8?

With respect to production engines, if power-adder DOHC V8s can hit around 1000 h.p. with decent economy and reasonable torque on factory shortblocks, I don't know why everybody thinks an aluminum cam-in-block lump is the second coming!

A report from the enemy camp! 

I HATE TOYOTA!  DIE TOYOTA DIE!

I love to smoke wussy Tundras in my PowerStroke Ford!

But I do stand corrected.

First off, I think that putting the 5.3 in a fwd monte carlo is stupid.  And yes I think the GTO looks like a warmed over gran prix.  I think GM has it's head so far up it's ass right now it needs a glass belly button so it can see.  Bet you didn't see that coming.

Anybody see where the spark plugs go on this baby?

As far as Fbody vs mustang, you're a little off.  I'm not familiar with a "terminator" cobra, but there are fbody's that'll out run one that are newer than '69.  First example 73-74 Super Duty 455 Trans am.  If you're unfamiliar, they were low 13 second cars on factory tires in the 70's.  And what about the firehawks?  '70 z28?  The mustang was a great car back then, but it sure wasn't the fastest car on the block.  Right now, Ford is making the only muscle car left.  (nope the ugly ass charger and GTO don't count, too expensive for one thing)  The new mustang is gorgeous, and my buddy who works at a Ford dealership says they can't keep them on the showroom floor.  Not quite how the GTO sales are going. 

When it comes to trucks, there is no substitute for ford.  Chevy trucks are made for the citiots who don't even use their 4wd.  The Isuzu Duradump is no match for a powerstroke either.  Or a Cummins for that matter.  Now if only dodge could make a decent tranny.  Speaking of trucks, did you know that the lightning is dead?  The srt-10 is pissin on it's grave right now.

I don't understand how GM has to "cheat".  How is it depriving Ford of it's best cammer motors?  There's the 4.6, 5.0, and 5.4 as far as I know.  If your talking about 427 sock motor, then hell yeah they're #### badass.  But I kinda doubt you even know what i'm talkin about.  If you're going to compare motors though, comparing a supercharged 550 horse all aluminum motor, to an NA motor seems kind of ridiculous.  All other things equal, the forced induction motor will always win.

Dude, you take off that little cover that says
"V8 32 Valve"  to reach the plugs.  It has nothing to do with the fuel injectors. Unplug the coils packs and you're golden. EZ!

Last time I looked,  the back plugs on a GEO-CamaroStorm/Fireturd were hiding somewhere under the windshield.  

The 5.3 Monte isn't my cup of tea, but it's not "stupid."   Cadillac has proven that 300 h.p. works in FWD with proper torque management.  Not building any RWD cars with a back seat (other than Cadillacs and the slow-selling Aussie Goat)-- now that's stupid. But Chevy's got to play the hand dealt by corporate.

There are '03-04 Cobras in the tens with minor bolt-ons.  And a stocker would give a rare and smoggy SD Trans Am (I know them well) or a '70 1/2 Camaro morning sickness. 

Firehawks were built by SLP, not GM. I guess then we should start including rare Saleens and Roushs as "factory."  One of Saleen's 351Ws would rip an LS1 a new one.

On GM "cheating:" In a three-way GM/Ford/MoPar shootout, I objected to giving up 6/10ths of a liter to GM.  GM should bring cubes within +/- 10 of everyone else. Then we are really testing how well the cam/head designs work, not comparing a big mill to a smaller one.  How is that unfair?

The Aussie GTO sells about as well as its parent--GM's Holden division-- has won Aussie V8 Supercar championships in the past couple of years . . . . In other words, it doesn't! (heh, heh, heh)