RicksIroc86

well ive owned 3 camaros, 1 86 iroc 305, 1 87 305 TPI, and a 91 rs 305 tbi and i just bought an 89 mustang LX 5.0 and it is at the very minimum 1000 times faster than any of my camaros. so i am wondering if the 89 IROC with a 350 TPI is faster? i dont know anyone who has one so i cant check for sure. the mustang is stock beside 3.90 gears cold air intake, short tube headers and the mufflers cut out.i will always love gm but DAMN the ford 5.0 is outrageous

NO-GAS

Stock for stock I think the 350 would win by a little bit but mod for mod the mustang.

BlueIroc-Z

iTrader: (6)

Oops... nevermind.

Shadow Z

iTrader: (2)

It's the gears, Camaros were geared very low, plus the intake on the Stang. The 305 TPI's relied on that very little bit of torque they had down low in the RPM range, Tuned Port was just not designed to flow very well at all, and after around 4,500 RPM, forget it. If a modern TBI with a cold air intake and some gears were thrown on a 305, your Stang wouldn't seem fast. No doubt though, both nice cars.

RicksIroc86

well at least the camaro wins the styling and interior department

STRIKER911

iTrader: (1)

Short headers where stock on mustangs. My 86 gt had them, so did a few other parts cars. Mustangs where just built to go faster. The Camaro seemed to be better looking yes, but racers care very little about looks, so what does that tell you?

I looked up the history on both and you would think that the 305 being bigger would be faster, but my 89 would have had to go back to 1983 to beat a mustang in stock form. Pretty sad. I would never trade my Camaro for a stang, but I would still love to have another one. They are for sure smaller, but I wonder how much lighter too?

I was very disapointed in the performance of my Camaro. So much so, that I drive it very little.

STRIKER911

iTrader: (1)

Dont know about the Interior dep. My dash jumps all over the place. But hey, somethings got to be better right? Its the looks.

BlueIroc-Z

iTrader: (6)

In my opinion the Ford 5.0 and the Chevy/GM 305 are not really comparable. The Ford runs a 4" bore, while the 305 runs a 3.74" bore. The larger bore of the Ford naturally allows room for significantly larger valves and presumably other bore size related improvements to the heads. The 4" bore of the 5.0 gives it an "unfair" advantage over the 305. However, I would definitely concede that the 48 extra cubes of the 350 gives it an unfair advantage if substituted for the 305 in the Chevy vs. Ford comparison.

Again, in my opinion, the 305 was not intended to be the quintessential Chevy engine as far as mid-late gen small blocks go. That honor went to the 350. However, the 5.0 was the quintessential Ford motor of that generation. I hate to cite Wikipedia, but I did read something interesting on there, something that some probably already know. I believe the Trans Am racing series was limited to 5.0 liter displacement and back in the day "Chevy produced a special 302 engine." According to the article this was achieved by using a 3" stroke crank in a 4" bore block.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I think there are some valid reasons that prohibit the direct comparison of the Ford 5.0 to either the Chevy 305 or 350. Also, for the record, I know the OP was wanting to compare the 350 TPI version of the F-body to the 5.0 Mustang, but it seems a few people were thinking 305...

As for STRIKER911's disappointment in his Camaro's performance, I have this to say: C'mon man it's an LO3, wha'd you expect?

Also, I'm also not sure I entirely agree with NO-GAS's statement that "mod for mod" the 5.0 would out do the 350. Unless that is under the condition/assumption that the 350 would be retaining the TPI intake. It which case I would agree that the 5.0 definitely has the potential to outperform a 350 choked by TPI.

Ok... I think I'm done... Wait... One more thing, here's the link to the article I originally edited out, because it was 5.0 vs. 305 and irrelevant at the time. Seems more appropriate now.

Sorry for the long-winded mildly off topic and somewhat opinionated post.

EDIT:
I have something to redeem the off-topicness of my post and this thread in general. According to this site, in 1990 the 'Stang LX 5.0 ran a 14.9 1/4 mile, while in the same year the presumably 350 IROC ran a 14.4 in 1990. I say "presumably" cause it only says "IROC-Z" not 305 or 350, so in theory it could be either, but since it's a "fast" time I would infer 350. Also, those number aren't guaranteed accurate or anything like that. Read the disclaimer on the linked page.

NO-GAS

My stock fox was supper slow and would spin the tires about halfway though first.But with CAI,mufflers,and timing bump it did alot better. now It has full boltons runs right around 8.8/8.9 on street tires in the 1/8.

ICESTORM

See some of the articles from the top magazines that have been downloaded and archived on this website. It seems the majority say a stock Stang is a bit faster from 0-60 than a Camaro. The Camaro kills the Stang in everything else including handling and looks.

STRIKER911

iTrader: (1)

As for STRIKER911's disappointment in his Camaro's performance, I have this to say: C'mon man it's an LO3, wha'd you expect?

Lol. I get your point, but thinking in terms of cubic inches Its a huge disappointment. When you have one car with a smaller motor you expect it to be a little slower. So you get in the car with the 2 inch bigger motor, & expect at least the same power. But no, you get the granny hot rod. I say "granny only because the lo3 was so badly detuned to save gas. Well I dont save much gas, & hopping it up (if I could afford) would only save more gas. Also if I wanted to save gas then I would have bought a Saturn, not a sports car or "hot rod". So what did GM leave me with? A slow gas guzling wana be hot rod.

92RS702

I have owned 2 mustangs[89lx and 90gt] and also 2 camaros and I hate to admit it but the mustangs are way faster and lets be real the styling isn't that bad.But I still wouldn't trade my Fbody for a Foxbody.

RicksIroc86

i think the fact that it has dual exaust from the factory plays in to it also, but the stock headers from my mustang were so tiny it was ridiculous so them definitly isnt an advantage.

InfernalVortex

iTrader: (4)

The 305 itself is a fuel economy/emissions engine. These smaller bore engines were meant to meet emissions and CAFE regs. Bigger bore = more power. It's just easier to hit those government regs with a larger stroke and smaller bore.

It is, by definition, a handicapped 350.

My L03 got 20 mpg in mostly city driving though? I think that's pretty efficient.

And remember, your choked out granny motor L03 still made more power than an 82 Z28 did. Those swirl port heads were specifically meant to give you V8 torque and great gas mileage and they are GREAT heads, they just dont make horsepower. Expecting them to is like trying to use a screwdriver to hammer a nail.

I may get some flack for this, but I honestly think that if the information were out there and available for people to make informed choices, a properly done TBI system would outperform a hopped up TBI at a drag strip. You'll get better fuel atomization in the very low RPM's where carbs just dont work as well, and then you get all the benefits of fuel injection (although with the drawbacks of a wet-flow system), but as long as you can get injectors that are big enough and fuel pressure high enough, it's just a matter of getting a throttle body that can flow enough air into your motor.

Anyway, you cant buy the base V8 and be mad that it's slow, that's not the point. It sounds great and gets pretty good gas mileage and is a wonderful street engine. Plenty of down low torque when you want it. It'd be great for mud-truckin probably.

And one last thing.. Displacement does not make horsepower. Displacement makes torque. Horsepower is how fast that motor can spin that torque. (HP = Torque x RPM basically) Your 305 makes more torque than that 302, it just cant spin it as fast.

BlueIroc-Z

iTrader: (6)

I agree with you there, as far as power per cube the 305 esp. in TBI form is a disappointment. But, like I said that has a lot to do with the bore size. And, another thing to think about is the induction setups of the two engines: the Ford 5.0 in '89 was running MPFI injection and a corresponding intake, while the LO3 is TBI.

And, as far as HP per cube disappointment don't forget the smogger 350's of the mid-late 70's like the 145HP L65 350.
I think you meant to say: "a properly done TBI system would outperform a hopped up TPI at a drag strip." I won't give you any flack for that. It is generally accepted that the TPI system is a weak point especially for the 350. If you could get a TBI setup that flowed better than the TPI you'd probably out perform it on the top end no problem.
I disagree. Displacement is the route to both increased torque and horsepower. Simplified, stroke makes torque and bore makes HP; both are an increase in displacement. A short stroke motor can spin faster than a long stroke motor, and therefore have the same HP, but will not have the torque. So, I agree with your statement about the 305 not being able to spin as fast as the 302, and make more torque (3.48 stroke on the 305, vs. 3" on the 302). I guess I just wanted to include the bit about stroke.

gurkgurkgurk

stock for stock. the mustang will win. but my buddies 91 z28 runs circles around mustangs with only some bolt ons like. Lower control arms, borla muffler, msd box, cold air intake and air foil.

while my 86 iroc barely keeps up with mustangs and i have headers, y pipe, high flow cat, hooker muffler, corvette servo, and Accel coil.

unclesuperman

as for which one is faster in my exp. it has to do with the driver and the tranny.. i got an 89 camaro 305 my little brother has a 90 fox body. 5.0 mine is auto his is standard his beats mine my dad has a 91 305 standard tranny and runs laps around the mustang . cant tell if its the car or driver though and never will dad wont let anyone drive his car;( lol

laiky

If you took a "stock" 305 TPI and added a HSR and a decent exhaust and pitted it against a "stock" mustang i think there would be no arguing that the camaro is faster. The only real problem with the TPI camaros was TPI. Those motors were choked to 4500 rpm. The mustang had a better intake and exhaust from the factory, they would rev. My brothers L69 305 H.O. never had a problem with a mustang. It would pull through 6500 rpm. Look at the power curve of an otherwise stock 305/350 with the HSR. since Mustangs reved, they were popular with 5 speeds, another advantage.

79_T/A_guy

you and 25thanniversary mustang guy confuse me...i mean its just weird seeing a mustang owner/mustang guy on a f-body forum, however to each their own.

and thats all i have to say.

STRIKER911

iTrader: (1)

I have lots of parts ready to bolt on, but what keeps stumping me is the ol mighty secret to good heads, & an intake that will work good for cheap. I dont want to buy worlds 58cc, & I dont want to buy vortec, & make them fit. I hear good, & bad things about port/polish work on the stockers. Whats the darn secret? I hate to bolt on one part at a time, & pay to tune it 50 times.

I dont know where my origanal post went, but I also own a Mustang.

keeslinger31

In my opinion foxbodys are ugly and fast but can be made to look good. Thirdgens are sexy and slow but can be made fast.

Who doesnt have a foxbody?? lol Not too many people where i live have nice thirdgens i like to be different but not stick out.

RicksIroc86

well in my case i just switched over to mustang and i still hate ford and all the mustang forums ive checked out every other word is talkin **** about f bodys or GM in general so i stay here because i still like thirdgen camaro/TA better. this post came out wrong kind of also i was drunk as **** and it kinda sounds like im talkin **** but im not.

tony_cogliandro

iTrader: (3)

tastes great / less filling
tastes great / less filling
tastes great / less filling

RedHawkLB9

in my personal exp i have a 86 gt 5sp stock..and a modded auto 305 tpi


mods to the 305 tpi firebird are
edelbrock shorty headers/y pipe
CAI
descreened maf
3.73 gears


....and the firebird is about as fast as the mustang...dont forget that the 305 is threw a stock automatic

my LB9 bird would KILL my old AOD auto 5.0 mustang

1brd2brd3brd4

It's not the bore, its the stroke! 302 short stroke, quick rev/high rev get gone! 305 Long stroke slower to rev. the slower the rev the slower you come out the hole. Mutstangs (in stock form,foxbody) were stop light jumpers. quick to rev, light weight. And the larger valves persumable in the fords dont make a heck of a lot of differance since ford has suck small intake and exhauts ports when compared stock on stock with any Chevy engine. Dosent matter how big a valve is when whats on the other side of it cant let air in or out. Make sence? I read an article from 1984 where they compared the two and the camaro came out tops on most of the tests. However they also said that in the quarter mile it was a drivers race(stock on stock). Later I found a Car Craft from 1989 which said basically the same thing only they compared GT to an IROC 350 and a Ninja.....go figure........Bang for the buck went to the GT but better over all, refined performance through out went to the IROC

Also throw out the whole "350 has more cubic inches" Whinny BS(not saying that to you personaly, but its the excuse mustang guys like to use) Because there is a hell of a weight differance that 48 cubes IS NOT going to make up. It kinda equils out if anything. Take any fox body (ask any Mustang guy to do this.....he wont) set it on the scales right after the F-body rolls off and add weight to the lightest car to put them both at the same weight(And I know its a factor ford did a better job with) Then se if the ford guy will run you and what the outcome is

P.S the Ninja whooped them both in the 1/4.......big surprise!

InfernalVortex

iTrader: (4)

How fast a motor spins depends on the cam, valvetrain, and a good rotating assembly balance, not the stroke. This thread goes into it in far more detail than I will bother:

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/engi...t-fiction.html

But yes, I did mean that I think TBI is a better system than TPI. It's just that people rarely use the TBI as a basis for a performance platform so the knowledge and aftermarket support just isnt there, which I think is a real shame.

keeslinger31

STRIKER911

iTrader: (1)

Also throw out the whole "350 has more cubic inches" Whinny BS(not saying that to you personaly, but its the excuse mustang guys like to use) Because there is a hell of a weight differance that 48 cubes IS NOT going to make up. It kinda equils out if anything. Take any fox body (ask any Mustang guy to do this.....he wont) set it on the scales right after the F-body rolls off and add weight to the lightest car to put them both at the same weight(And I know its a factor ford did a better job with) Then se if the ford guy will run you and what the outcome is

That would be a worthless race cause the mustang would weigh more, & have less cubes . Now wonder they wont do it lol.


But yes, I did mean that I think TBI is a better system than TPI. It's just that people rarely use the TBI as a basis for a performance platform so the knowledge and aftermarket support just isnt there, which I think is a real shame.[/quote]

For sure this is the reason I am stumped. I guess I need to forget the idea of building a 400hp/tq lo3 on the cheep. Darn computer tuning is the worst part. If I just knew someone to help tune. I mean even If I wanted to buy the stuff to tune, then I would have to learn so much more then I wanted to know about a motor no one likes. I mean if I buy stuff to tune then why not make some money back and tune for others, but who is willing to pay anything to tune their lo3?

BlueIroc-Z

iTrader: (6)

I disagree, it's not how high you can rev off the line. It's how much torque you make off the line. Given two identical engines one with a short stroke and one with long, the long stoke motor will out torque the short down low. The more torque down low the quicker you come off the line. Higher revs and HP will give you better top end.
Yes, it does make sense. I don't really know anything about Ford engines, except the little I have read to try and make somewhat educated posts in this thread. For that matter, I'm definitely not an engine guru in general. That's why I made sure to indicate that what I was saying was opinion, not necessarily fact, cause I couldn't remember where I had heard or read those things. But, there is more to influence head flowrates than port size alone. I do agree that I may/probably have over exaggerated the impact that a 4" bore has on an otherwise stock engine. Especially given that in the 5.0 vs. 5.0 article I linked to has the 'maro @ 230hp which is 5 more than the 'stang anyway. It must be in the powerband or something. Maybe the 'stang is able to carry a more decent amount of torque up higher in the RPM range...?
I guess one could take the power numbers of either car and divide them by their respective weights to see if it really does negate the extra power of the 350. Using the curb weights given in the article I referenced in one of my earlier posts the 'stang has a HP/lb of .0716 and the 350 'maro has .0738 so yeah, they are pretty close. Almost exactly the same as the 'stang vs. the 305 'maro @ .0693. And, those are just based on peak numbers and stuff, like I said before maybe the 'stang has a flatter torque curve that extends further up in the RPMs. Also, there are a bunch of other variable to consider in the 1/4 like gear ratio, traction, etc...
Thanks for the reference. Yeah, like I said probably gave too much emphasis on the whole 4" bore thing, especially with regards to a stock engine. Perhaps I would revise that statement to say: A short stroke motor can make the same HP as a long stroke one, it just has to rev higher to get there, and won't have the same peak torque numbers.

Shadow Z

iTrader: (2)

If any of that was true, then that means you're doubting a car that can run high 6's at almost 200 miles per hours in the quarter mile. Scheid diesel motor sports has what I believe is the first diesel to break into the 6's. It's powered by a Cummins, which are known to struggle just to get to 4,000 RPM's. Banks also has a diesel running nearly 200 miles per hour, those are both VERY highly modified Engines, including the Duramax, but I am almost positive neither have ever seen 6,000 RPM. So as someone else mentioned, it comes down to the RPM in which you're making the most torque, and the gear ratios, to get the most efficient launch possible.

25thmustang

Stock 5.0 vs stock L98...

There needs to be more to this then that.

A stock 93 GT vert with an AOD, 2.73s and power everything, will get stomped by a stock L98. A stock 87 LX notch with no power options, a 5-speed, 3.08s and a damn good driver, should run with, or walk on an L98.

Basically this comparison is not easy to give an outcome. There are a lot of variables that will affect it.

You own the one you prefer is basically what it boils down to. Both can be made fast and done cheap!

Fionnla

I hear all the time on this site about how faster the Mustang were than the Camaro in the 1980's. Well, I guess the Mustang GT was off the show room floor, but not much. My boy had a 1984 Camaro Z-28 coupe with the L69 HO motor, 5 speed trans, and 3.73 gears from factory. He installed a performance exhaust and Cat, no headers, and a dual snorkel air cleaner. It really opened up the little 305. He beat up on more than one Mustang back then. One was my nephew who had an 86 Mustang that had headers and performance air cleaner, I believe from the factory. So those H.O. 305's would run ok if a little prep was done. They were chocked down from the factory. There were other Camaro's and Trans-AM's that ran pretty good back then. A lot of people think of the Camaro's performance in the 80's with the LG4 & LO3 motor, both was pretty sick for performance. Just my little piece on the subject.

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

Just FYI, the size of the bore has very little meaning when it comes to power. Displacement is what you want. You will change your gearing to accommodate the RPM to which the "displacement" is making the power. The 305 is limited not because of bore size, but because it is an under-valved engine. It suffers from valve shrouding whereas the larger bore of the 350 does not suffer as much (same heads and valvetrain angle). However, both are under-valved engines, as is the Ford or any other 2 valve overhead motor. The LS1 has a 3.9" bore but has a much better valve angle which reduces shrouding when compared to GenI and II small blocks (15 degree vs 23 degree), and is as a result a much more efficient engine. However, it to is still considered an under-valved engine. A longer stroke motor has a faster piston speed and just makes its power lower in the RPM range. Power is power no matter where it is made in the curve. The time to rev an engine is negligible. Diesels don't rev past 4k because of combustion physics and other IC engine parameters. You want displacement with all other parts being euqal. It is free power, given the same engine parts. For a generic example, look at GM's truck line of engines. The 4.8, 5.3, and 6.0 are all the same basic engine with differing displacements. Sharing the same bore the 4.8 and 5.3 make differing peak power at different RPM points, due to the change in displacement, yet will both run up to 6k rpm with ease. All three engines are all under-valved. The 6.0 uses a larger bore to help alleviate the shrouding problem, yet uses the same stroke as an LS1. More power, just lower in the curve, better suited for its application.

Looking at the old Ford 5.0, the newer Modular 4.6 motors have tiny bores relative to its stroke (3.5" to 3.5"), yet make big power. Their lack of torque (compared to a traditional 350) has nothing to do with bore to stroke ratio, but instead its displacement. Likewise, its power can be chalked up to using a properly valved head with minimal shrouding (4 valves vs 2 valves).

fly89gta

iTrader: (1)

Yeah because adding a $1000 aftermarket intake is certainly comparing apples to apples. There have been quite a few stock notchbacks to dip into the low 14's in stock trim, no L69 is doing that.


Guys, it's going to come down to condition and driver. A well running L98 and a well running Foxbody will be a damn good race...both have had factory freaks that have run quicker than the norm....unfortunately these cars are old so to find a bone stock, well running example of each is getting harder and harder to find.

RedHawkLB9

This debate will go on forever lol


but the 350,302,305 with the right combo of H/C/I..can all kick ***......nothin better then an american small block V8

Bullydawg

iTrader: (7)

Amen!

laiky

The point is if the TPI motor could rev, it would be an even match.

Fink

yeah but jump a few years into 93 when the camaro had an lt1. they will blow the doors off a fox body.... ive done it plenty ha.

1brd2brd3brd4

Ok....I have seen some good points and some not so good......Really, comparing a desiel? Anyway. Every one complains that TPI's dont REV.......which kind of sures up my point. Also why would anyone build a stroker motor? Just think about that for a minute. And yes I understand the torque factor but torque is useless if the other guy is gone. And also the weight vs Hp you kind of reitterated my point with your findings on power to weight ratios. The 48 extra cubes dont make enough differance to matter because of the weight because of the ratio. Just think about it........I may not be 100% right........but I dont think I am too far off base. If Cubic inches and displacemet were as important as every one thinks(No replacement for displacement) Then a small block could never out run a Big block and a 302 could never out run a 350..........Thats my point. we're not talking numbers on paper. We are talking reallity, experiance. About what we know, not what someone has told us. Throw a little bit a reason in your head and rattle it around for a little while( Thats just colorful talk, not an insult to anyone)

whitedevilTA

iTrader: (8)

I skipped a lot of this post but I can say that stock for stock, a foxbody is quicker, but they WILL NEVER make over 300 whp on the dyno modded. Too small cubes. a 350 modded will make awesome power however. I have had tons of freinds with fox's and when they do heads and cam and make 270 whp, they sell the 302 and buy a 347. I made 225 rwhp with a cam only 305 tpi. They can be woken up good with a few mods. I used to rape 5.0 stangs with my 305/5 speed (now I have an LM7/6 speed, so they are no competition, lol). But an Fbody is a great platform....better suspension and styling, just with a shotty 80's engine. If you want to go fast, pull that POS out and put a real motor in!

CharcoalBird

iTrader: (4)

Many of you are making excuses. SURE if you changed out the TPI for something better it'll outperform a mustang...but stock for stock the mustang is faster(305 anyway, 350 would have been a good race). Put an aftermarket vs. aftermarket on the both cars and there's no telling. I have to say that is the BIGGEST and dumbest excuse I have ever heard because your putting aftermarket parts on the f-body but not the VS car.

WHITEDEVIL, I disagree completely. Both cars have made the 300mark plus no problem, only thing is making it into the upper hundred numbers.

FINK, we're talking about 3rd gens here....not 4th gen LT1 cars. More excuses.

It really is a driver's race. There is a video though of a guy here who posted up his race vs. a fox stang. He says he is stock but he has the G92 gears and his pulls on the stang no problem. Don't remember if he has a 305 or a 350. Maybe he'll post up.

whitedevilTA

iTrader: (8)

I exagerated a little.....You can get over 300 whp on a 5.0, but it is NOT EASY. I have SO many freinds that have tried and failed. They read up on builds that are supposedly "proven" for a said horsepower, and they always come up short. It really is a fact, theres no replacement for displacement. A bigger engine will always respond better to mods. Just an example, put a cam in an LS1, easy 400 RWHP, but put a cam in the 05+ mustangs smaller 4.6 and your lucky to make 350 whp. (I own a 2008 shelby GT and a 1986 trans am so I am not biased, trust me, haha!)

Just saying, a 350 is an amazing engine and while stock for stock they are equal, a 302 will never match the power that can be had with an N/A 350. It's not unheard of to make 500+ flywheel HP on a well built all motor 350....good luck making that on a 302 though

They are both awesome cars and I had to own one of each. I love each one for there own seperate things. If you have to compare them though, at least give the F-body's a chance and put the 5.0 against the 5.7 TPI. The 1/4 times are very close.

tpivette89

too bad the L98 was never offered with a manual trans tho. wouldve been interesting to the see the outcome of a 350/5speed
3rdgen vs a 302/5speed Fox

InfernalVortex

iTrader: (4)

Larger displacement makes more torque naturally. That means you can tune an engine to make more horsepower on the high end because you have all that extra low end torque you can sacrifice.

You can put a massive solid lifter cam in a 305 and rev it to 9k all day long and make tons of power with the right heads... but you wouldn't be able to drive it on the street very well. Or you could build a 383 and put a lumpy cam in it, and make the same peak numbers and still have enough low end torque to daily drive it.

More displacement means more potential for practical horsepower since you dont have to work as hard to get those peak numbers. You can still get them with smaller engines, but you give up a lot of practicality and money trying to make a 305 make the same power a 383 can make.

89IrocZ350TPI

Its usually a drivers race when in comes to 5.0 vs 5.7 tpi. All the 305 gm motors were dogs and shouldnt be matched with a 5.0 ford. I think a 90-92 5.7 would edge it out though. If you love gm go buy an ls1 and say bye bye to every bolt on 5.0 and even some head and cammed 5.0s.

RicksIroc86

what does your ws6 run 1/4 mile?

89IrocZ350TPI

I ran 12.8 at 110 with exhaust, intake, and radials. Also dynoed 340rwh and 350 ft lb with the 6 speed. They are great engines. Made my full bolt on L98 feel like a dog haha. Especially on the highway.

25thmustang

I made 272/316 to the tire years ago with unported stock heads, a stock cam, a Cobra intake and bolt ons.

Brothers GT40P car was in the 290 rwhp range with a stock cam, unported Explorer heads and a Cobra Intake.

Hopefully shortly his motor will have better valve train, cam and some LTs. I would hope it sees 300+ to the tire.

BlueIroc-Z

iTrader: (6)

Thanks for the post Shifty. I think this is kind if what I was initially trying to get across. I just couldn't articulate my point very clearly. Sounded more like I was pushing the .26" larger bore as the source of the 'stangs power/power potential, but I was really wanting to say that it is that bore size that allows for the larger valves & less shrouding. And, as you seem to indicate in your post, that valve issue can have a notable impact on a motors performance.

In the end though, going back to that article that I cited in my earlier post... The 305 Camaro is actually rated @ 230hp, 5 more than the 5.0 'stang. So, I'm not sure any of my physical engine property arguments are actually valid if they end up make the same-ish power. So, like I said earlier, the 'stangs advantage must lie either in its 3% better power to weight ratio (probably not... only 3%?), or if the 5.0 has a better looking power curve that lets it edge out the 305 in the 1/4... Power curve would be dictated by physical engine properties, but probably more intake than valve?

RicksIroc86

i think the vast majority of 305 camaros arent rated at 230. i think most are the ones rated at 190. i could be wrong though