Ls1 in cobra

Shangsta

Phat back
Established Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
6,289
Location
Seattle,Houston, South Africa
The Modular engines have pretty good BSFC, and I'd wager they are more efficient than the non-MDS LSXs with the same exact load, such as on an engine dyno.

F-Bodies got better mileage than the Mustangs even with the V6s. Chevy trucks are smaller and lighter, it isn't that hard to figure out why they get better mileage in some applications.

The LS1 wouldn't get the same mileage in a Mustang with a 5 speed and the 5.3 would get worse mileage in an F150.
Um the people that have done it get better milage. The mustang is lighter.....:read::idea:
 

forged5.4dohc

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
565
Location
hammond,la
f u for even letting the thought cross your mind.

if u want a pushrod in there put a bored and stroked 460 in there dammit!(and make 700+hp on motor alone)
 

EVO-lution

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
2,642
Location
Fairfield, Cali
You are absolutely going to destroy the value of the car, not to mention the eternal burning in your testicles of 80,000 SVTP members putting impotence curses on you. :lol:

Seriously though, don't do it.

The 32v engine you have makes the LS engine (technology-wise) look like a throwback to the troglodyte era.

Whats a troglodyte....lmao


Keep the 4V. you have a strong block to start a good build with. leave the chevy motors for the chevy's...although the cobra motor would be a cool swap in a chevy :-D
 

Shangsta

Phat back
Established Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
6,289
Location
Seattle,Houston, South Africa
The 5.4 GT super car engine wins! let's throw in the 500+HP NA Roush Yates 5.0 Modular DOHC motor in the Grand AM FR500 GT to end this LS1 VS Modular debate once and for all. LS1 fans:burn::burn::burn:

Yeah and that costs how much. Check out SAM's ls camaro 900hp at the wheel n/a soo um what was that about ending the debate:read:
 

SeankySnake

Member
Established Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
746
Location
East Coast
Damn, I can't remeber the last time I saw so much drama on one thread. How about bringing this thread back onto the orginal topic?
 

Ben99GT

Just a stock GT
Established Member
Joined
May 11, 2002
Messages
743
Location
MS
Um the people that have done it get better milage. The mustang is lighter.....:read::idea:

Aerodynamics and final drive ratio makes a bigger difference on fuel economy than weight, at least when the weight is close.

How many people do you know that have swapped an LS1 into a new edge Mustang with a 5-speed and gotten better mileage?

Also, in regards to weight...a quick google search shows
2002 Camaro SS - 3439 lbs
2003 Mustang Mach 1 - 3466 lbs
 

red03dave

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
500
Location
Arizona
Just had an LS1 in a '91 LX notch, it was a 5.3 truck motor with stock heads a good cam and longtubes, put down 365 through and auto and ran 12.5. But I sold it, needed the money. I say put that LS1 in that Cobra! Here in AZ you can get an LS2 truck block for a grand (6.0 liter) and then a six speed is only 1200, and guess what everything bolts right up...do it and put a blower on it!
 

Shangsta

Phat back
Established Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
6,289
Location
Seattle,Houston, South Africa
Aerodynamics and final drive ratio makes a bigger difference on fuel economy than weight, at least when the weight is close.

How many people do you know that have swapped an LS1 into a new edge Mustang with a 5-speed and gotten better mileage?

Also, in regards to weight...a quick google search shows
2002 Camaro SS - 3439 lbs
2003 Mustang Mach 1 - 3466 lbs
Hate to break it too your but the ls is a more efficient motor. Throw both on a engine dyno:rollseyes And your weight specs just proved my point, a f-body owns a mustang(2v, 4v doesnt matter) in fuel economy and donnu where you got those numbers but they are heavier than a stang
 

Ben99GT

Just a stock GT
Established Member
Joined
May 11, 2002
Messages
743
Location
MS
Hate to break it too your but the ls is a more efficient motor. Throw both on a engine dyno:rollseyes And your weight specs just proved my point, a f-body owns a mustang(2v, 4v doesnt matter) in fuel economy and donnu where you got those numbers but they are heavier than a stang

The numbers are from Ford and GM. It's what they weigh.

And why is it more efficient, because you say so?

Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. :bored:
 

Shangsta

Phat back
Established Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
6,289
Location
Seattle,Houston, South Africa
The numbers are from Ford and GM. It's what they weigh.

And why is it more efficient, because you say so?

Excuse me if I don't take your word for it. :bored:

I dont know how the concept is hard for you to grasp, a motor with 1.1L more displacement getting better mpg than a smaller motor is more efficient:rollseyes But thats fine you can continue to be an ignorant idiot if you want. Its not a some kind of top secret info, and engine is a air pump thats all it is. An ls1 just happens to be better at pumping air than the mod motor.
 

birdman941

Illiterate Proofreader
Established Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
2,710
Location
Ft. Myers, Fl
Interesting argument, but inaccurate.
As a general rule torque makes MPG and HP eats it.
Many times a V6 engine will get better fuel economy
than a 4 cylinder in an identically equipped vehicle.
Same can go for a V8 of different displacements.
Efficiency also has a hand in it.
The 4 cylinder has to work so hard to move the car,
it is not as efficient as the V6.
My old 2000 GT got 18 city MPG and 25 highway each time.
I swapped in an FRPP 2000 Cobra crate motor and trans,
it always got 20 city or better,
and has gotten a best of 31.5 MPG with its new owner.
The Cobra motor not only makes more torque,
it is more efficient.
My 5.4 32V New Edge is untuned, but got 25 highway on a trip.
My Mach 1 has gotten a best of 29.97 highway.
Once the car is tuned with the new built motor,
I am expecting 23-25 highway with over 400 lb./ft. torque.
 

Un4GivN

QuenchMyThirstw/Gasoline
Established Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
4,060
Location
Concord, NC
I dont know how the concept is hard for you to grasp, a motor with 1.1L more displacement getting better mpg than a smaller motor is more efficient:rollseyes But thats fine you can continue to be an ignorant idiot if you want. Its not a some kind of top secret info, and engine is a air pump thats all it is. An ls1 just happens to be better at pumping air than the mod motor.

Fuel mileage has a lot to do with gearing and other factors, not just efficiency (6spds in the ls1 cars > 5 spd in the Cobras.) The real definition of engine efficiency is how much power it makes in relation to CID. 317 lbft tq from a 281 cid engine is more efficient than a 346 cid engine making 340 lbft tq. Now, I'm sure the LS1 is underrated as well, but my bone stock 281 made 343bhp/tq while only rated at 320/317. Not saying the LS1 does or does not have more potential, but it is not a more efficient engine stock for stock. No arguement there.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top