recklessOP

http://www.zilvia.net/f/images/smilies/rofl.gif

assuming it uses that cam, a 400 hp rating seems perfectly reasonable to me. they've made some (small) improvements, and that explains the extra 15 hp. the mild cam, along with the extra cubes, explains the extra midrange torque... a bigger throttle body, different rings, and a little extra compression (0.4) isn't going to add any huge power. big improvements are going to come from one of two places, the cam or the heads. since we already know it has a mild cam, that leaves the cylinder heads. "higher flowing" doesn't tell us a whole lot...

"Because the LS2 camshaft is less aggressive..." "It uses the same profile..."

http://home.columbus.rr.com/aaron240/howexciting.jpg

what he said... smile.gif

"But my point is that looking at all of these improvements, I question how this motor is going to make less peak power than the LS6." "Cam specs weren't given..." smile.gif "Let's face it, when 305HP flywheel rated LS1's are putting down 315RWHP bone stock, the whole rating thing kinda goes out the window." fair enough, but isn't just the fbody underrated? i've seen a few C5 dyno sheets, and they aren't putting down their flywheel ratings at the rear wheels... the last Z06 dyno sheet i saw read 342 rwhp, for a 385 hp car. using 15% as an estimate for drivetrain loss, that's ~15 hp off the official rating... i've seen high and low numbers for both engines... [ 06. August 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: recklessOP ]

graemlins/leghump.gif

"Did you even read my whole post or just the part that you needed to try and debase my argument?" yes, did i miss something? the only reason i jumped on your earlier post was because you quoted me, and i didn't quite understand what you meant by it... "How likely is a Cobra owner to modify and race their car? How likely is a GTO owner to modify and race their car?" i don't know, that's why i asked. i don't really follow either car all that much, and i only know a few people that own them... "Lets have them answer this one, guys, chime in please." sounds good to me... smile.gif "Still doesn’t deface the fact that it’s sour whatever to sour whatever and a bunch of people whining about the car that they like/drive/want is better than the other one (regardless if they are sold to different markets or not). Which was the basis of my original point." fair enough. i didn't get into this thread to debate which car was better. i just questioned some of the hp claims...

curious, what are you basing that on..?

why not..?

last time i was in an SRT4 the brakes were on fire...

why..? both (the 03 cobra and the LS2 GTO) make similar power (stock), both weigh roughly the same amount, and both are RWD performance coupes. what's wrong with comparing two cars that compete in the marketplace?

what does this have to do with my post..? joe said the GTO should make more peak rwhp than the 03 cobra. i said otherwise... assuming phil's dyno chart is accurate: the LS6 makes more power than the LS2. the 03 cobra makes more power than the LS6. therefore the 03 cobra would make make more power than the LS2. once again, i am only talking about peak numbers. read what i quoted... yes, the LS2 makes more midrange torque. i never disputed that...

ok, independent dyno results... tongue.gif using your dyno chart, an LS2 powered GTO will not back up this claim: "It would probably be safe to say the LS2 is on par RWHP wise, if not more, than your Cobra stock." because: "On average, the LS6 only gives up a couple HP on the dyno to the 03-04 Cobra." and the LS2 doesn't make as much peak hp as the LS6. fair..? i start class again in a month, yay...

quiet you... tongue.gif he was talking about peak numbers, and my point stands. predicting hp numbers is something ricers do. just wait for some real dyno results. the car will be out soon enough... you in wooster? bring me some lunch... tongue.gif

!!!!!!

so it makes more low/mid range power than the LS6. a wider powerband != more top end horsepower... "It would probably be safe to say the LS2 is on par RWHP wise, if not more, than your Cobra stock." safe to say? based on what?! rumors? give me a break...

not true. OHC engines have more rpm potential. more rpm means more power... smile.gif read the whole thread... tongue.gif

because the new cobras won't get a boost in power too!!1!

angling the pushrods just makes the flex problem even worse... smile.gif to be fair, the engineers were more concerned with low speed power. a better port design should certainly help. you can bandaid the problem with stronger pushrods, but that valvetrain won't be doing the engine any favors at high rpm...

then why are we debating this in the FLAME ROOM! tongue.gif anyone have more info on the merc? i'd like to see some pictures...

since you brought up wear: a shim and bucket setup would eliminate the rocker arms, as well as any side loading and wear on the valve guides... of course eliminating the rocker arms removes quite a few moving parts, improving reliability and reducing friction in the valvetrain... [ 04. August 2004, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: recklessOP ]

does anyone else find this funny..? check the price list... graemlins/popcorn.gif [ 04. August 2004, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: recklessOP ]

i've seen pushrod motors that rev past 10k rpm. too bad the valve springs had to be replaced every 100 miles... tongue.gif the engine also cost more than my car...

redface.gif