I've got and old mag comparing 1992 Z28 LB9 5-speed vs 1992 Mustang GT. LB9 has 230hp, 300tq and the Ford 5.0 has 225hp and 300tq.
The Mustang beats the Z28 in every acceleration test in their comparison.
They go on to say that the Ford 5.0 seems to pull harder at all RPM's.
My question is how does GM's TPI compare to Ford's 5.0 Intake?

 

Some things to remember. The stang came with roller rockers, factory headers and a true dual exhaust. If you look at the stang intake, it's kinda like half a SLP t-ram.

 

nope... headers and duals yes, roller rockers no. All Gt's had roller cams with stamped steel rockers. (Had 5 Gt's and Capri's over the years). Now GT-40 heads with roller rocker are/were available along with the B303 cam, but that was from Ford Motorsport. cheers, Bob

 

Mustangs are lighter, thus with similar power numbers of course it will accelerate justa bit better. A stock 5.0 mustang is no stronger than a good cam 305. Any performance differences you see are attributable to the weight, and the fact that everyone and their mother was and still is racing mustangs, thus they tended to be better at hooking / driving them.

 

5.0's have 4" bores like a 350, 327, 302 which is A LOT more performance oriented and lets the engine breath better........ 305's on the other hand have 3.75" bores and they pretty much suck D*CK at everything

 

305's have smaller bores than Ford 5.0 but have longer stroke which gives them a torque advantage.
Also in 91&92 the 305 had more HP 230 vs 225 for the 5.0 .
I've had a number of 5.0 liters and they are great but 305's are a good motor too.

 

Torque is overrated. If you dont believe me, go drive a 18-wheeler with a double sleeper and 425 Cat and get back to me.

That test there was about a 150lb difference between the two cars. Thats about half the ET difference. Note the MPH was nearly identical, so they were putting down pretty close to the same power. The rest of the ET difference is the rear suspension, stock for stock the Mustang has a better suspension in back for straight line than a Camaro/Firebird. Thats the rest of the difference. It wasnt the driver, it was the car.

 

put an F cam in a Mustang a see whats happens that is beautiful for being a ford...

 

THEN why does my stock 85 z28 tpi beat all these mustangs and they all ask "you have a 350 right" im like lmao nope a 305 then they have a stupid look on there face cause mustang is ****

mustang:hail: CHEVY

 

I have a blk/blk 85z its just a stock lb9 305 tpi, with only k&n's and an 80 series single chamber flowmaster. I was leaving work a few months ago, and a 97 black mustang gt 5speed pulled up to me at a redlight, he revved, i revved, and I ate his *** all of the way thru 90 MPH and I could evn see him in my mirrors. does my car sound stock? the gt was not breaking tration and my car automatically shifts 1st-2nd at 75MPH. he pulled me over later down the road and talked to me. he told me the year and specs on his car, he thought I was running NOS!!!! but unfortunatly, a month ago, my 305 with 188 thousand miles, blew the # head gasket. I hope it will run as well if not better with a #350!!!

 

Would you happen to have some production weight numbers somewhere?

I was quite sure (Through rumor) that there was a larger weight difference, like mustangs were at low 3k, camaro's being mid-high 3k's.

 

tpi-roc.....

If I remember correctly and it's the same article out of Popular Hot Rodding the F-car was a 1LE with no a/c, pwr doors or windows, no radio, no fog lights with a 5spd and alum driveshaft. It was around 3200ish with the Ford around 3100ish with a/c. Once they got off the drag strip the 1LE showed why they were better at what they were designed for. Roadracing. With the larger stock rubber, wheels and brakes the Chevy had better overall lap times than the Ford.

Later,

Darrell

 

If you're wise you dont mess with a 1LE on a road course unless your prepaired for an a$$ whop'n

 

IIRC that article had the stang at 3144, and the camaro at 3310. I can look when I get home. Yea, the Camaro was not optioned. Even at that, I think the weight of that stang was a bit light. My friends 89 GT scaled in at just over 3300 so I question their number.
I have a few more articles and brochures at home I can look at. In general, the stangs are about 150-200 pounds lighter, its not that much. Youre looking at 3100-3300 for a GT depending on options, and thirdgens weigh from 3300-3500. I've seen some thirdgens tip the scales at 3600-3650, but then again I've seen that in the mustangs too (3400ish).

 

The article was in May 92 CAR CRAFT. The z28 had no air.no remote hatch release , no power windows.
Curb weight was 3319lbs.(I find this to be high ) Z28
For the Mustang, curb was 3144 lbs with air, power everything.

The article says the 302 Ford seems to have a fatter torque curve than the LB9.
Does anyone have the graph (torque,HP vs RPM) for the 92 LB9 or the Ford 5.0? If you do please post it!

 

I had a 93 LX notchback before I bought the 88 GTA that I have now. Both had about 100,000 on them when I got them. My notchback had the 5.0 / 5-spd, 3.08 gears, A/C, p/w and locks, and was all stock except for a K&N and Race Magnum mufflers (BTW, WHY doesn't Dynomax make a Race Magnum for the F-Body?????? In my opinion, it's the best-sounding muffler I've heard!). My notch weighed 3100 pounds with a full tank of gas and nobody in it. My GTA has T-tops, the 305, the 700R4, A/C, and power everything. I haven't weighed it yet but it has to be a porker. I understand it has a cam that is lo-po, but I do have to say that all things considered, the TPI's torque curve is definitely fatter in the midrange than the 302's. Or maybe it's that the 302 would rev semi-happily to around 5500, and my 305 is dead after 4500. The 305 is a lot less 'eager' to rev, probably because of the longer stroke. Maybe I'd feel differently if I tried the 5-spd version of the 305 engine, but I'm not surprised at all that the Mustang won in the straight line. My old, worn-out notch would hand most 3rd-gen F-bodies their rear ends, until it came to curves or stopping. (Which is why I got the GTA - Body roll, what's that? ) I can always drop in a 350 or 400 when I get tired of being outrun by my old buddies!

 

This was the only important part of your post. You just can't compare a peanut cam LB9 to a 5.0 mustang. A good cam LB9 does not fall on it's face nearly as bad as the peanut cars and has at least as much effective powerband stock for stock as the 302

 

Hey Mr. Moderator Maher,

I can't believe that you said that I only had one little quote in my post that was important!

Bashing a fellow Virginian, I can't believe it!

:hail: the infinite wisdom of the moderator

Hey, I'm just kidding!

But seriously, why didn't they put a decent cam in the LB9? Is it because they thought it would tear up the 700R4? If I were to put the T-5 cam in mine, would it really add about 30 horsepower, or would I have to get a computer modification also?

Joe

 

Emissions

 

Yeah who said 305's couldn't rev? Hell your LB9 can pull all the way to 7500 from the factory . Or was that 2nd to 3rd? And BTW, '97 rustang GT's had those dog SOHC 4.6's, not 302's.

 

Actually, I would guess that it had more to do with fleet fuel economy numbers. The auto cars didn't get as good gas milage, so they got the peanut cam to compensate. I don't see why the auto equipped cars would have different emissions numbers than the manuals, so I don't think that would be the cause for the cam swap.

 

Damn you


I didn't have the peanut cam so I never really looked into them, I was unaware they were auto only.

 

when i first bought my car it had the l98 cam - pulled so darn hard - then one day my knock sensor broke - engine went BOOM! 1 week before college finals too (ate the cam anyways) - needed the car fixed fast - had a shop do it - got the peanut cam - OMG does the 305 suck with the PEANUT CAM! the car ran so damn bad- stalled every other time i came to a complete stop - took it back to the engine shop - they told me i got what i paid for - i was so damn pissed - lol

the car has a crane 2032 cam in it now - except i haven't been able to start it since my friend broke the harmonic balancer puller off inside the crank ( he didn't use the washer/blocker obviously) one thing i let him do too - also i didn't notice this till the car was 99% put back together - oh well benn in the drive way sincee last june - i've probibly spent 40+ hours trying to drill it out - anyways the peanut cam is an evil POS. I pity anyone who has a 305 w/ one - its what gives the 305 a bad name

i think im going to turn my 305 into a 327 since im pulling the engine in AUG and i need a new crank anyways

oh I got a question though - by stroking the motor am i going to need to have the heads machined for clearance since im already very close w/ the 2032???

thanks

 

Heads machined?


Turn the 305 into a 327??

What are you talking about man

 

stroke the 305 to 328.7cid since i need a new crank anyways... and yes i know the bore is different from a real 327 - my 305 has 4,000 miles as of right now. with even my current mods my T-5 will explode if i put a 350 in...

im 90% sure im going to either need major machinings done to my heads or new ones - maybe i can get some l98 alum. vette heads for cheap

although the main point is to just get the car running (good) - all i want out of it is 300 hp and 340 ft lbs. it already was a mid/low 14 sec car before my original engine died. you can imagine how happy i was when I get the car back from the engine shop and its mid 15s... and stalling like crazy

 

Your computer probably went crazy when it was seeing screwed up vacuum readings off of that peanut cam. I would have taken that shop to court for that royal **** up. That was your problem, not the fact that the cam was smaller. The peanut cam sucks, but it would only have made you slower... your car would have ran okay with a reprogrammed chip.

 

yeah i already knew this - but i wasn't going to settle for having that POS in my car