"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. "

OK so your modified supercharged car can beat up on a 22 year old  Naturally Aspirated car with inferior technology running on skinny stock belted bias ply tires.  Ok.....  Second, I have a hard time believing that it's only minor bolt ons on those cobras.  You need a cage to go under 12's, so there's more to a "10 second" cobra than "minor bolt ons"  I suppose slicks are just a minor bolt on right?  What I don't get is how all of the sudden you're preaching about SUPERCHARGED cars, when you pretty much beat off to turbos.  Unlike you, I'm willing to give credit where credits due.  The '03-'04 cobras were badass cars and I often use them as an example as why vettes are so overated.  

Richard Holdener got over 900 h.p. from a '03 Cobra crate mill with a stock shortblock and unported heads using an off-the-shelf HP Turbo kit. I certainly have not "started preaching" supercharged cars to the exclusion of turbos. I will admit that I ALWAYS "preach" power adder cars over "all motor" because I hate leaving power on the table and because I'm biased towards true "steet" cars (not barely-idling race cars with licence plates that drink leaded VP C14 "gasoline" like it was mother's milk).

I have no doubt if Ford turboed the SVT Cobra, it would make even more midrange and top-end power than with an obsolete Eaton Roots-type blower. In fact, the next "Cobra" (the 2007 Shelby Cobra GT500) will feature a more efficient "screw" (Lysolm-type) compressor instead of a Roots!  But given the lower parasitic losses of turbocharging (also proven again by Holdener dyno tests published last fall in MM&FF), a properly engineered turbo system should significantly beat the "screw"  in both midrange and top end power.  Furthermore, a turbo Cammer wouldn't have the rpm limitations dictated by maximum "blower" speed concerns that pop up when the pulleys are changed.

Not every 10 sec. '03 Cobra is NHRA legal. They all should be. But the point is that the DOHC Cammer has lots of power to unlock with simple tuning and bolt-ons.  BTW, some folks turbocharging the SOHC 4.6 have found the 10s or better as well.  Not bad from 281 cubic inches!

Remember, the original points of contention were regarding the "obvious" superiority of the pushrod & two-valves-per-cylinder LS engines.  All I am saying is that there is more than one way to "skin the cat" and CC should give EQUAL TIME to Ford's way!

Finally, I compared the STOCK '03 Cobra to the SD Trans Am and the 70 1/2 Camaro.  BTW, the 1973 Super Duty T/A had "radial tuned suspension" including, GR70-15 radial tires.  Although tires are definitely stickier now, you can't really claim the Super Duty was hampered by "skinny stock belted bias ply tires."

Well, there are some in every crowd.  People opposed to change.  For those that are saying that they can't afford to convert to an LS1, well, they probably can't afford to do much anyway.  I'm not trying to be offensive toward anyone, so let me explain what I mean.

Street Rods and Hot Rods have always been about customizing and upgrading your ride to be better than the stocker sitting next to you at the light.  It's the same today as it was when it started.

I'm building a '57 Bel Air 2 door post.  Someone already hacked the frame for drag racing so there's no point in going for original.  So I'm aiming for a ear to ear grin inspiring driver.  There is nothing but a rolling chassis and body in need of much repair. 

I want 4-wheel disc brakes that don't require a vacuum pump, A/C, heat, CD player, full interior, sport suspension, rack and pinion steering, a strong running V8, 6-speed and the good looks of my Tri-Five.

I could have spent a fortune in trying to put it all together one piece at a time through various vendors, or, go the route I did.  I bought a wrecked '99 T/A WS6 with 50k for $4500.  I got everything I wanted and more for $10,000 less.  Plus now I'll have ABS and traction control. 

It's going to take some fabrication and a lot of grafting skills, but I'll have exactly what I want.  Besides, I thought the whole process of modifying and fabrication was part of being a craftsman.  A true Hot Rodder. 

-That's just one Soldier's opinion anyway.

By the way.  Anyone interested in finding a wrecked Fbody for an easy LS1 swap...  Here's where I got my '99 T/A WS6 for $4500

coolcarsales.com

You car sounds like it will be nice when you finish it. But I don't see how replacing one pushrod engine with a slightly different, newer pushrod engine is all that much "change."

I do agree that many fear change in that they don't want to read about anything but carbureted Chevrolets.  But since the mid-80s, both fuel injection and Ford have been making major inroads and deserve proper coverage in "Camaro Craft."

None of this rebuts my original point that IF CC is going to focus on engines introduced after 1990 (which inevitably it will, if simply because of attrition), then it should give at least EQUAL TIME to Ford's Modular Cammers!

It is alot of change, the fuel injection, the power curves, and the whole appearance. BTW, you compared a SVT cobra to a LS1. So what it makes 390 h.p. wasn't it supercharged? with ram-air, the LS1 made 350 h.p. so what do think it could of done with a supercharger?  

Not very much until the compression is lowered. The best forced induction, stock block LS engine test I've seen is the 700 hp range.  I also note that the rear mount turbo guy from Utah is on his second LS bullet (cracked the aluminum block on the first one) Unless you run on race gas or alcohol, high compression, cast piston LS engines are on the ragged edge at 7-9 psi.

Comparing a 346 cube engine to a 281 cube plant is less than informative. 

 Comparing a forced induction engine to a natural asperated is also less than informative. Maybe the production blocks and internals dont work as well with forced induction is because they weren't built too... interesting concept huh?

This is exactly why CC needs to do a budget BIG-CUBE turbo series.  It's EZ to build a boost-friendly shortblock. There's no mystery, except in the minds of some CC readers who can't get beyond carbs-on-an-all-motor small block as THE way to make cheap power.

Back in about 1978, Gray Baskerville ran a story in Hot Rod about a guy deep in the ELEVENS using nothing more than a non-intercooled small turbo sucking through a cheap holley on a BONE STOCK SMOGGER Ford 302 (no Cleveland heads or anything!).  Cheap tech has kept marching forward but "American" performance magazines like CC haven't kept pace. 

As far as GM's LesS V8, all I have ever asked for is fair comparisons and equal time for Ford's Modular Cammers.  I would be happy if CC only covered old junkyard engines as long as it was fair to Ford.  But if CC is going to run stories on more expensive newer engines, then it should cover MoPar's new Hemi and Ford's Cammers in at least equal measure to GM's "fantastic" Gen III/IV.  During the Jeff Smith days, this wasn't happening.  

I am right there with you.  Being a woman, there isn't anything I don' t love about hod rodding.  In fact you could have not said it better myself.  There is something for everyone, not everyone likes the same and the idea is to have fun making the dream in your head become a reality whether its original or custom, Ford, Chevy, or Toyota.  

With all due respect, I love classic Fords, so when I decided to sample the new stuff out there I considered Ford, along with Chrysler, and GM products. Unfortunately for Ford, and most likely why New Fords are not as popular in CC, Is the fact that the mod motors are as big as the 429 460 motors of yore, yet make a fraction of the power and torque without some kind of power adder. Also they are not as simple to play with as a pushrod design (not that I'm afraid, I just have to ask why) Combine that with the archaic suspension of the sn95 chassis, and the fact that the all new Mustang still has an archaic solid axle, and Thats when I left the showroom. The only thing wrong with Chrysler is no manual gearboxes are offered with their rwd cars. So that left the GTO. Heavy though it is, it comes with irs, a suspension that actually works on a bumpy road,  a compact simple engine design that makes good power with a torque curve (rather than a spike, like a ford) a manual gearbox and HEAVY DISCOUNTS from GM. (less than a new GT) Sounds like a winner to me.  

Look, the cammer vs pushrod debate has gone on ad nauseum.  I agree that a multivalve head has more curtain area thana 2V head.  Look at GM's LT-5 if you want to compare a cammer to a similar GM product.

Why did GM kill it.  Cost and complexity.  There are guys making 900HP out of an N/A LT-5 also.

What did GM want.  They had a target HP level and a target price.  The 2V cam in head motor made the target HP levels GM wanted for considerably less than a complex mutli-valve motor. 

Ford put all its eggs in the modular basket.  You seem to have kept particularly quiet about the HP monster the Mustang became in the 96 and later model years.  Remember the class action suit on the Cobras.

You try to cit ehte stock Cobra which need a power adder to get any real power out of the modular motor.  The thing N/A is still a big motor (in physical size) with not enough torque.  Great, its a bit smaller displacement wise than an Ls1 and it still underpowered....

I'm not making any excuses for the mistakes of GM styling or GM executives.  There is plenty of apochryphal information on the reason for the F-Body demise, the cloing of St Therese, etc... 

Here is a novel concept.  You keep jumping in every single Ls1 thread and saying ls1s don't belong in CC.  Then when someone debates it.  You suggest that Ford mod motors need equal coverage.

Most of the recent comments in here about the LS1 are based on the comments in print in CC asking for responses to the point they brought up, and asking folks to get on this forum and respond to that point.  If you want mod motor coverage by all means start a thread, but geez who don't you get off your uninformed anti-ls1 kick

If you can get a Goat for less than a new GT, then you should probably buy it while you still can.  Who knows how long GM will keep importing the slow-selling GTO.  

Of course you will miss out on the ALL NEW Mustang! (no "SN 95" carryover)

BTW, Primedia's auto industry newspaper, Wards, ranks the World's 10 Best Engines every year.  In 2005, Wards again put Ford's Cammers in the exclusive Top-10 club:

When voting the 3V SOHC one of the best, they said

"Ford Motor *** new 4.6L SOHC V-8 is special.

Wide-open throttle brings the V-8 basso-bellow you expect – and want – but Ford engineers wisely knew there should be a limit to the sheer decibel output. There’s none of the “are-the-exhaust-manifolds-falling-off” bawl that shreds the eardrums when demanding full power from GM’s new LS 6L V-8 in the Corvette, for example."

"[N]obody in the automotive world delivers 300 hp for the Mustang GT’s $24,995 base price, meaning Ford’s stellar 4.6L V-8 is the unqualified performance bargain of 2005. Ford’s painstaking blend of new technology and muscle-engine emotion has evolved the 4.6L into one of the industry’s most exciting small-displacement V-8s."

Commenting on why the LesS V8 didn't make the cut, Wards wrote:

"6L OHV V-8 (Chevrolet Corvette)
400 hp/400 lb.-ft.
For: Big numbers.
Against: Startlingly loud and ragged; not doing small-block any favors.
Bottom line: Pep Boys bait."

Modular engines can make good naturally aspirated power, but  they come alive with power adders.  There's absolutely nothing dishonorable about using forced induction.

Cammers are smoother and more balanced for a given power/torque output than a comparable "pushrod" engine.  In multivalve applications, this is maximized because more valve area allows the camshafts to be milder in stock applications (and allow for awesome breathing when modified!).  Less valvetrain mass also has many obvious advantages.  

RWHP of the '03-04 SVT Cobra exceeded the "429 460 motors of yore."

The upcoming Shelby Cobra GT500 will pump out "in excess of 450 hp" from only 331 cubes, with a full factory warranty, four seats and daily driver manners.   Just wait until we get some turbos on one!

Not true. I've never said the LesS V8 should not be in CC.

 I have said that I think most readers probably aren't ready for ANY "new-style" engines, but if CC wants to push them, then they should give EQUAL TIME to Ford's CAMMERS and should also do stories on DC's NEW HEMI.

This morning I read a new test of a naturally-aspirated, modest compression, streetable 460+ horsepower 2001 Cobra in a non-Primedia magazine, so I take exception to your "underpowered" suggestion.

Certainly, given similar displacements, a DOHC four-valve engine will almost always beat a two-valver.  GM crutches the LesS with more cubes and bigger cams.  But considering that GM is almost the only automaker in the world still trying to slide by with pushrods in two-valve wedge engines (DC's rapidly fading Magnum is the only other that comes to mind), market competitiveness suggests the future belongs to cammers.   Even GM's Trailblazer 6 is a four-valve DOHC with excellent power output, I might add.

Unless one is trying to shoehorn one into an early Mustang, the "physical size" of Ford's cammers is irrelevant. 

I've never said that the Cammer is superior to a 460 as a Car Craft engine.  People build smaller-cube mills for better combinations of mileage, performance and handling.  Certainly Ford's cammer is competitive on these factors.  In fact, Ford recently went 1-2 in the opening round of the Grand Am cup at Daytona using 5.0 DOHC Cammers. http://www.fordracingparts.com/announcements/news14.asp  If the engine is such a pregnant lump, how could it be a winning races right out of the box?

The LesS V8 is certainly better than an SBC in some aspects and worse in others.  I'm sure it's a fine engine for those who want FARM TRACTOR levels of NVH and anvil-simple technology.   But for those who want to live in the 21st Century and have it all--awesome underhood looks, killer power, bulletproof reliability, decent economy and emissions, and huge potential, the CAMMER's the one.  

On the LT-5: It's about as relevant as a Cosworth Vega to what we're discussing. No budget Car Crafter is going to have access to either one of these rare engines.

All I ask is if CC is going to do the LesS that it give the Cammer and the Hemi equal time.   You want a boring, "me-too" LesS in your hooptie, then knock yourself out.

Hey, are you referring to me being an LS-1 basher? You should have read my post a little better.