2013 GT500 most powerful OEM v8 in the WORLD - Page 4

old5.0 · #31 11-30-2011, 01:53 PM

Per the article you posted:
"<span style="font-weight: bold">'11 5.0L Four-VALVE DOHC
Base power on the Mustang's new standard V8 is 412 hp and 390 lb-ft at the flywheel. So far Burcham is making 750 hp at the wheels at 8,000 rpm on a stock motor with no problems. Svinicki says the engines have been very durable so far. Others aren't so fortunate.</span>"

Of course, they don't mention who the less fortunate may be. I stand by my earlier statement; a good tuner goes a long way. Burcham is one of the best, as evidenced by the fact that his '11 GT has been mid-9's on a 100% stock long block. If the car in your buddy's shop lost a motor with nothing but a hundred shot, somebody set it up wrong. Period.

Look, a lot of things have changed since the 60's, but some things haven't. One of the things that hasn't is that for every genuinely good tuner/driver, there's a legion ham-fisted, self proclaimed gurus who couldn't change a spark plug without screwing it up. Most performance cars, whether they were built in the 60's, 70's, 80's, or recently, have been owned during at least one point in their existence by someone long on cash and short on skill (or short on both). It's human nature, of course, to blame the machinery, not the operator. And so we end up with stories like "Street Hemis are worthless, plug fouling pigs" and "(Old) 5.0 Mustangs only run 15s"(my personal fave, always good for a laugh), or "Pontiacs don't run, period." And about 3 dozen other myths that are just that, myths.

Is the rotating assembly in the 412 horse motor ideal? No. I'd love for the thing to come with a nice set of billet JEs swinging from a set of forged BME rods. Not economically feasible. But since, as pointed out above, Burcham's car is laying down 750 RWHP with those junk pistons, maybe they're not as junk as you think. For pete's sake, in 1970 Pro Stockers didn't make 750 at the <span style="font-style: italic">flywheel,</span> and I guarantee not one of those cars had a factory, mass-produced slug in them. Just how much power should these things handle, stone stock, before you consider them a success? Go ahead and list for me all the American cars built over the past 50 years that could lay down 750 to the tire, and run a 9 second quarter, with the untouched stock rotating assembly in them. It'll be a real short list.

Again, we all understand you don't like Fords. What I don't understand is why you insist on bludgeoning the rest of us over the head with it. Legitimate criticism is one thing. Complaining about the way Ford <span style="font-style: italic">rates horsepower,</span> while Chevy is building 638 horsepower Corvettes and 580 horsepower Camaros, just makes it seem like you have some sort of personal vendetta. If Fords get you this worked up, maybe it would be best to just avoid threads discussing them altogether.

XXXGoldL34M20 · #32 11-30-2011, 03:16 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: old5.0</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, we all understand you don't like Fords. What I don't understand is why you insist on bludgeoning the rest of us over the head with it. Legitimate criticism is one thing. Complaining about the way Ford <span style="font-style: italic">rates horsepower,</span> while Chevy is building 638 horsepower Corvettes and 580 horsepower Camaros, just makes it seem like you have some sort of personal vendetta. If Fords get you this worked up, maybe it would be best to just avoid threads discussing them altogether. </div></div>

+2
The Old saying goes "If you do not have anything good to say don't say nothing at all"

1970Bluel78 · #33 12-01-2011, 02:53 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: old5.0</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Per the article you posted:
"<span style="font-weight: bold">'11 5.0L Four-VALVE DOHC
Base power on the Mustang's new standard V8 is 412 hp and 390 lb-ft at the flywheel. So far Burcham is making 750 hp at the wheels at 8,000 rpm on a stock motor with no problems. Svinicki says the engines have been very durable so far. Others aren't so fortunate.</span>"

Of course, they don't mention who the less fortunate may be. I stand by my earlier statement; a good tuner goes a long way. Burcham is one of the best, as evidenced by the fact that his '11 GT has been mid-9's on a 100% stock long block. If the car in your buddy's shop lost a motor with nothing but a hundred shot, somebody set it up wrong. Period.

Look, a lot of things have changed since the 60's, but some things haven't. One of the things that hasn't is that for every genuinely good tuner/driver, there's a legion ham-fisted, self proclaimed gurus who couldn't change a spark plug without screwing it up. Most performance cars, whether they were built in the 60's, 70's, 80's, or recently, have been owned during at least one point in their existence by someone long on cash and short on skill (or short on both). It's human nature, of course, to blame the machinery, not the operator. And so we end up with stories like "Street Hemis are worthless, plug fouling pigs" and "(Old) 5.0 Mustangs only run 15s"(my personal fave, always good for a laugh), or "Pontiacs don't run, period." And about 3 dozen other myths that are just that, myths.

Is the rotating assembly in the 412 horse motor ideal? No. I'd love for the thing to come with a nice set of billet JEs swinging from a set of forged BME rods. Not economically feasible. But since, as pointed out above, Burcham's car is laying down 750 RWHP with those junk pistons, maybe they're not as junk as you think. For pete's sake, in 1970 Pro Stockers didn't make 750 at the <span style="font-style: italic">flywheel,</span> and I guarantee not one of those cars had a factory, mass-produced slug in them. Just how much power should these things handle, stone stock, before you consider them a success? Go ahead and list for me all the American cars built over the past 50 years that could lay down 750 to the tire, and run a 9 second quarter, with the untouched stock rotating assembly in them. It'll be a real short list.

Again, we all understand you don't like Fords. What I don't understand is why you insist on bludgeoning the rest of us over the head with it. Legitimate criticism is one thing. Complaining about the way Ford <span style="font-style: italic">rates horsepower,</span> while Chevy is building 638 horsepower Corvettes and 580 horsepower Camaros, just makes it seem like you have some sort of personal vendetta. If Fords get you this worked up, maybe it would be best to just avoid threads discussing them altogether. </div></div>

Well said. Anybody that has been around Hi Po cars since the 80's, knows all about the 5.0 Mustang. They are the best bang for the buck ever.Blowers. Nitrous and everthing else ( including the kitchen sink ) have been tossed at them. They hold up very well. I've seen over 100,000 mile cars with add on blowers etc. they are truly amazing. Are there any failures, sure from time to time but that happens with any brand.

**markinnaples** · #34 12-01-2011, 04:47 PM

Fox-body 'Stangs can haul the mail if built properly, but, IMHO, they are butt-ugly compared to a Camaro and/or Firebird of the same vintage, especially the fugly notchbacks.

Again, just my opinion. But, what do you expect on a primarily GM-oriented website?

**Charley Lillard** · #35 12-01-2011, 08:09 PM

Can everyone please play nice...

**mockingbird812** · #36 12-01-2011, 08:38 PM

Uh oh, now you pissed off Dad! [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/no.gif[/img]

**Xplantdad** · #37 12-01-2011, 10:23 PM

Go to your room Sam! [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/cry.gif[/img] [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/naughty.gif[/img]

**markinnaples** · #38 12-01-2011, 10:54 PM

Sorry Charlie, seriously.

old5.0 · #39 12-01-2011, 11:14 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: markinnaples</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fox-body 'Stangs can haul the mail if built properly, but, IMHO, they are butt-ugly compared to a Camaro and/or Firebird of the same vintage, especially the fugly notchbacks.

Again, just my opinion. But, what do you expect on a primarily GM-oriented website? </div></div>

They haul the mail just fine stock, too.

What do I expect? A pretense of respect, maybe? There's a number of GM products I think are uglier than the entire British Royal Family put together, but I don't make it point to tell their owners that.

Since it's becoming apparent that some people are insulted by the fact that they're even being discussed here, why don't we just put a sign on the front page of the site that says "All cars welcome. Except Fords."

Just my opinion.

**Charley Lillard** · #40 12-02-2011, 04:30 AM

Old5.0 Back it down.

Dedicated to the Promotion and Preservation of American Muscle Cars, Dealer built Supercars and COPO cars.