00 LS vs Old school 5.0 mustang

F

free139stylz

Active LVC Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
156
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland
Hey do you guys think the old 2000 lincoln can hang with a mustang through 1st second and third gear? I was at the ocean this weeknd it was the american muscle car show MAD mustangs I raced this one mustang at a light and stayed in front of him then I was on the high way for like 2 hours and he couldnt pass me everytime I saw him coming I dropped it and just stayed infront of him doing like 120 do you think he :q:q:q:q was just :q:q:q:qed up or are the 5.0 mustangs not that fast?
 
it was like the 94 mustang 3 body styles ago not the real old ones but there like kindof boxy and small
 
ohh they are nothing i smoke my friends 94 all day long... he only have 210-215 horsepower cause he has a convertable. maybe the hardtops have alil more like 220 or so. but if it was highly modded then i have no clue. if not modded, then you should not have a problem destroying it.
 
Yeah the old early mid 90s Mustangs were at best about 15 second cars. The LS is supposed be be just a tad under 15.

I would think the LS with 280 horses versus the typical mustang 220 + a little, would be a pretty easy run at freeway speeds. The Mustang might have the advantage off the line but your experience says no.

The later mustangs did have more hp than the LS so the odds are against us.

Would be interesting to see how my 2004 LS would have done against my old 96 Impala SS. The SS was heavy, about 4,400# compared to the LS about 4,000#, but the SS has better low end torque. From what I have read the LS is only about a 120-130 mph car. The SS was easily capable of 140 and if you had time and room I have read it could top 150, but it took awhile. From my buttometer, I would say the SS had better off the line kick while the LS really comes alive when the rpms get above say 4,000. Guess I may never know since I have the LS because some dufus totalled my SS.

Just my opinion,

Jim Henderson
 
Stock '00-'02 LS V8s are mid 15-ish @ 92 or so in the 1/4 (can dip into the high 14s w/ CAI and exhaust). The '03+ are hi-14s stock, maybe mid 14s w/ CAI & exhaust.

Stock 5.0 'Stangs run anywhere from hi-14s (GT coupes w/ 5-sp) to mid-upper 15s ('vert auto LXs w/ taller gearing). However it's not hard to get 5.0s into the 12s and faster w/ mods (pretty much un-touchable by an LS, even w/ NOS). The 5.0s have more low-end grunt while the LS excells in the top-end charge. So if the stockish 5.0 doesn't get the LS off the line, game over for the 5.0.

I think stock '96 & earlier SS Impalas run lo-mid 15s, so it'd be a neck-n-neck race. However, again any LT1 car can be made scary fast w/ mods. The only LSs that top-out in the 130s are the V6s and those w/ speed limiters. Some '00-'02 models didn't have limiters (depended on the factory tires) and they have topped 145 stock. Not sure where the limiter is on the '03+s.

Here's an interesting comparison of two different vehicles that run nearly identical ETs, yet demonstrates where TQ and HP play into the game:

My '00 LSV8, best run of 15.115 @ 93.39 (2.251 60') w/ just a CAI. Factory rated 252HP, 28? ft-lbs TQ, weight ~ 3770 lbs.

My '99 Dakota R/T club cab, best run of 15.169 @ 89.72 (2.132 60') w/ CAI, t-stat and PCM (nearly identical weather conditions as the LS's run). Factory rated at 250HP, 345 ft-lbs TQ, weight ~ 4250 lbs.

While the R/T has a HP and weight handicap to the LS, its higher TQ can push that extra weight down the track and get a nearly identical ET to the LS. However the LS is trapping almost 4 MPH faster (less weight and wind resistance) and would certainly leave the R/T in the dust on the top end. However, anything short of 1/4 mile, the R/T smokes the LS.
 
Jim Henderson said:
Yeah the old early mid 90s Mustangs were at best about 15 second cars. The LS is supposed be be just a tad under 15.

I would think the LS with 280 horses versus the typical mustang 220 + a little, would be a pretty easy run at freeway speeds. The Mustang might have the advantage off the line but your experience says no.

The later mustangs did have more hp than the LS so the odds are against us.

Would be interesting to see how my 2004 LS would have done against my old 96 Impala SS. The SS was heavy, about 4,400# compared to the LS about 4,000#, but the SS has better low end torque. From what I have read the LS is only about a 120-130 mph car. The SS was easily capable of 140 and if you had time and room I have read it could top 150, but it took awhile. From my buttometer, I would say the SS had better off the line kick while the LS really comes alive when the rpms get above say 4,000. Guess I may never know since I have the LS because some dufus totalled my SS.

Just my opinion,

Jim Henderson
Click to expand...

Thats funny my brother has a 96 impala SS but its like his collectors car. only has 5000 miles on it if that. I drove it around town when i went to visit and dam n its easy to burn those rear wheels.. lol.. lay down a block of tread if ya wanted to.. He drove my ol LS and he liked it thought the cockpit was a lot sportier and the sits fit a person a little more snug then the impala, and the suspension was a lot stiffer which he liked also.. We are gonna go race em i hope next time i i get to visit within the month i hope.. lol.. got a bad feeling with ls1 engine..
 
jdsimons said:
.... got a bad feeling with ls1 engine..
Click to expand...

Don't confuse the LS1 with the Impala SS's LT1 engine:

LT1 = 300HP in '92-'96 C4 Vettes
LT1 = 275/285HP in '93-'97 Z28, Formula, TAs (305HP in '96-'97 SS Camaro / WS6 Formula/TAs, some Firehawk and SLP-optioned SSs up to 330HP)
LT1 = 265HP in '94-'96 Impala SS, Caprice LTZ, Buick Roadmaster (these had iron block & heads, while the other LT1s had alum heads IIRC)

LS1 = 345HP in C5 Vettes ('97+) (bumped to 350HP in later C5s)
LS1 = 305/310HP in '98-'02 Z28, Formula, TAs (320/325HP in SS Camaro / WS6 Formula/TAs, some Firehawk and SLP-optioned SSs up to 345HP)
 
LS1 can pretty much beat you anywhere along the line, unless you catch someone with a stick between 80-90 mph, and they dont downshift.
 
uhm.. don't know haven't driven a newer LS.. i'm sure they is a little more pep there.
 
free139stylz said:
Hey do you guys think the old 2000 lincoln can hang with a mustang through 1st second and third gear?
Click to expand...

Racing my friend's '95 Cobra Convert with the hardtop, I was pulling on him past 40 mph. With the top off, they are really close.(he has a rare Hardtop option) If you get a 94-95 GT stock, you might be able to take him at a roll. 96-98 GT are real pigs. Vertical tailights are the 96-98s. The 96-98 Cobra will get you after they wind that thing up though.

'85-93's tend to be faster due to their weight. Most of them run in the 14's with good tires stock.

Who keeps a Mustang stock though. :)
 
captainalias said:
When racing, does anyone feel a big difference between the 252 hp pre-03 LSs and the 280 hp 03+ cars?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say racing, but I did test drive 02 and older and 03 and newer with the V8 and there is a noticable difference between them The 03 and newer really take off once they are at freeway speed. The 02 and older felt kind of slow in comparison to the newer ones and my old Impala SS on the freeway.

Just my experience.

Jim Henderson
 
I used to have an '89 LX with a stock short block 5.0. It had AFR heads, Cobra intake, E303 camshaft with 1.7 rockers, Bassani equal length shorties, Dr. Gas X pipe and Flowmaster cat back. There were a few other items tossed in too...like 3.73's.

Car was a mid to low 12 second screamer. It was the perfect combination of parts. The first 4.6 GT's were horrible. After that, the new PI versions were pretty good. But watch out for any of them because they are so easily modded. You can make any of them 12 second cars with a few hundred dollars of bolt ons.
 
the big question is are you sure that it was a v8 stang. 94 and later stangs the V6 And V8's look the same.
And the v6 was pathetic compared to the disappointing v8.

and buy the way the 4.6l gt's need one major piece to be a lot faster, Rear Gears.
I swapped from 3.08's to 3.73's and went from zero to hero in the neighborhood.
The 4.6 begs for revs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 132 (members: 0, guests: 132)
Back
Top