i didnt notice this till today, but you and i have already gone over this on tech. the 2vs do not run low 14s stock. ive seen 3vs go mid 13s(not bones stock, but close), but its not the average. high 13s sure. ive also seen bone stock ls4s run that time. the ls4s normally run high 13s with someone that owns one driving it. hence the drivers race. on a really good day theyll run almost mid 13s. same as the 3v. people are going to sit there and quote that they run flat to mid 14s, but the fact of the matter is if i were judging what a car could do id judge it with someone that can drive it behind the wheel, not a magazine editor that isnt used to driving a ls powered fwd car, not used to the torque steer, having to walk it out to avoid wheel spin, or riding it through the traps in 2nd. when i took my monte out for the test drive my dealer was all for me getting all over it, the first few times i buried it from a dead stop, or a crawl the torque steer actually scared me. it caught me off guard, and this is coming from regularly driving 12 second rwd f/gbodies. this is something that still caught me for the first few months. i can only imagine a editor from a car mag that has to test 20 cars in one day on a track rental not running the car a hundred times till he got the launch just right. the ls4s out tq/hp the 3v, and they do it at a lower rpm, the montes are lighter than even the stick 3vs, and the auto 3vs lack the gearing needed to get that motor really going. like i said to you on tech the 3v vs ls4 is a drivers race. id still give a slight edge to the ls4 just because of there low end grunt. the 2v vs ls4 isnt even a race(in stock form), especially the pre pi cars, but a few bolt ons and the stick cars can be a threat.

its not true at all. maybe 2vs and ls4 cars you guys have driven run the same times.

considering i own one i know they are traction limited coming out of the hole. as long as you can drive the car and dont blow the tires away off the line its capable of taking a 3v from a dig(then again not dynamiting the tires is important in any car). 3vs like all overhead cam motors need to come out of the hole hard. the stick cars are a good match up for the ls4 cars if both hook. the autos dont have enough gearing to get it done. now you gear that auto 3v and were talking a totally different story. mod for mod the 3v will kill the ls4, bone stock its a drivers race. ive matched up in my car vs a 3v stick, with gears, and an exhaust and the cars were dead even

i hate debating the whole 2v vs ls4 thing. the cars are no where near a fair match up. the 2v is almost the same weight as the ls4 montes, theyre short a advertised 63hp/30tq compared to a ls4, which i would say is more like 80hp/50tq having driven/raced both cars, and the cars are way under geared(especially the autos). the ls4 car has a way more than decent advantage over the 2v.

also i wouldnt quote a modded car time as being any indication of what the stock car can run. especially when were talking about a tune as one of the mods. for example look at a g8gts before and after tune dyno numbers and youll see exactly why i say that. im going to assume the 3v like the 2v is mod friendly.

please dont be offended about anything ive said here. i actually like the sn95 mustangs, and the 3vs. i think the 3v is the best looking mustang theyve made since 73. i drove a new edge sn95 for a while and would have bought it instead of buying the monte if my ex wasnt obsessed with giving the car to her cousin. it was a 02 auto 2v gt. stock except for the flowmaster catback i put on it. i like the way the car looked and sounded, but had been thoroughly beaten by numerous cars including my buddies awd tbss, and 79 monte. that was a high 13 car, and that match up happened numerous times with the same result over and over again. wed launch and 10ft out he would start pulling away. putting several car lengths on this car(i neglected to mention he was a terrible driver with a manual valve body.) id launch as hard as the convertor and tires would allow. i would manually shift the mustang and it would break the tires loose on the 1,2, and 2,3 shifts hard enough that the back end would sway as though it was going to come around. it made no difference how hard you shifted it, pushed it, launched it, or if u left it in drive she just didnt have enough to take on anything but weak kneed imports, and v6 cars. stock ls1s regularly pulled away as though i had the car in park. i blame this on the car having 3.27, a low stall convertor, and a lack of low end torque. with the factory convertor i couldnt leave deep enough in the rpm range to make a difference. with all that said i still liked the car and had plans for a blower, some gearing, and a serious amount of weight reduction for it.

 

I've taken 4.6s and 5.0's of that generation in my monte.. with people in the car to vouch lol

 

Low end grunt? I'm going to assume you're referring to torque when you say that, which is a null and void argument being that the 3V Mustang in 2009 and 2010 actually has more torque than an LS4, and in 2005 to 2008 has 3 lb/ft of torque less. It's pretty much dead even in the torque department and the horsepower department 300 to 303 for '05-'08 and 315 to 303 for 2009 and 2010.

The 2v 4.6 after 1999 is short 63HP and 30 torque? Where do you get your information from? 1999-2004 Mustang GT's are factory rated at 260HP and 300lb/ft off torque. That's short 43HP and 23 lb/ft of torque.

When you take into consideration that the Mustang weighs almost 200 lbs less it makes up for that slight horsepower and torque disadvantage pretty quickly. If I thought a regular 2v Mustang was a boat anchor, don't eve get me started on an automatic 2v Mustang. They have 4 cylinder cars running faster than that thing nowadays. Still absolutely loved the sound of a 4.6 though.

I believe the fastest running stock LS4 hit a 13.6 in the 1/4 mile, so to say that these cars can hit mid 13's with a good driver is absolute ludicrous. They're predominantly a low 14 second car with a slim few making it to the high 13's. Just like the LS1 Fbody is a low 13 second car with a few making it into the high 12's.

If places like Motor Trend or Car and Driver, who usually record HORRIBLE 1/4 mile times are getting the 3v Mustang through the 1/4 mile in 13.5 seconds, I don't think that's going to typically be a driver's race. No LS4 is hitting 13.5 in the 1/4 mile all stock.


I think the LS4 is somewhere in between the 2v and 3v Mustang. Obviously more powerful than the 2v, but slightly less powerful than the 3v, and it doesn't have near the same gearing or launch capabilities.

 

ive noticed that you are a very argumentative and uninformed person on this and other forums. ill say what i have to say and you can respond via pm if you wish to continue this debate about two vehicles you dont own, nor have driven this way we can avoid ruining this thread in the same manner the one on tech was ruined.

you assume incorrect. by low end grunt i dont mean a peak tq rating which is what you are posting. what im talking about is usable power. power coming in low enough in the rpm range to get the car out of the hole. i think this is a common misconception that when youre bench racing cars you take two cars look at the peak hp/tq ratings and declare a winner. unfortunately in the real world it doesnt work that way. the ls4 makes more tq at a lower more usable rpm, it comes in at a lighter weight, and makes its hp at a lower rpm. this is why i said
A. its a drivers race
B. the stick cars are a better match up.

on the 2v PI cars my math on there posted ratings was incorrect ill give you that. i assure you the weight difference which is under 200lbs isnt enough to make up for the tq/hp difference. i own one of the cars we are talking about, and drove the other for quite a time. this isnt idle speculation, internet research, magazine reading, or my imagination, its fact. once again this is low end we are talking about not peak. the car isnt not being launched at 4500rpm(at least not on the street, with a street tire, or an auto without a transbrake its not), and lacks the gearing to get it into its power band quick enough. perhaps youve driven a different pi headed 2v and ls4 then i have. so you know ive beaten several 2vs that were geared and modded in my car. stock ones are no where near a close race.

there are quite a few ls4 cars that go well into the 13s stock. i said can almost go mid 13s with a good driver(obviously with good track conditions). the ls4 cars are know to be high 13 cars. most track times for these cars that are posted are peoples first time at the track with a fwd car not to mention a v8 one. we could go into the weather, da, track prep, and what not, but why bother. you seem to be under the impression that whenever someone goes to the track that thats what the car is capable of, when nothing is further from the truth. ive seen nearly new ls1 camaros and cobras run in the 16s i wouldnt say they are 16 second cars. i would question the weather, track, prep, driver error, 60ft time, and mph it ran that 16 at.

you do realize that the car mags pretty much pointed and shot the ls4 cars to 14.2s right? these arent people that drive a fwd v8 everyday, and i never said they record horrible numbers. if anything i wouldnt find it shocking for them to record a good time with a rwd v8 car as opposed to a fwd v8 car. its a more normal setup and ill say easier to launch if youre a novice. once again ive matched these cars up on the street, its a drivers race. in the real world the "faster" car doesnt always win.

i didnt even bother watching the video you posted since it has nothing really to do with the topic at hand. ill assume by the nose of that mustang its a 5.0 or the last year for the 3v which is an extremely late model version (that is most probably running a different cam, tune, or is lighter than the older model or any combination of the above) that wasnt even out until after the ls4s were discontinued.

to my knowledge none of the auto 2v or 3v cars had any real gearing from the factory, and the stick cars were still under geared even with the 3.55s. i think this is what you dont understand. just because the car has a numerically higher gear does not make it a better combo. its gearing isnt helping, its detering it from getting out of the hole. its got the opposite problem of the ls4. it doesnt make a huge amount of tq down low to be worried about insane tire speed and hooking issues. it needs more gearing than it has to leave hard and get into its power band quick. the ls4 cars having less gearing is true, and thats a good thing since it easily blows the tires away with the 2.83s. with 3.69s 1st gear is useless on a street tire. the ls4 has the ability to leave the hole at a higher rpm then the auto 2v/3v due to the car coming from the factory with a fairly deep stall convertor(to help out with the dod nonsense), but you dont have to launch it hard because of the low end grunt(see above for explanation). the saving grace for the mustang is weight transfer. which is the ls4s problem. whats this all add up too? a drivers race. idk know about you but on the street id rather have the low end tq car than the high winding rev car, but thats just me.

once again my point to all of this is that the ls4 is capable of going well into the 13s stock, it is more than capable of destroying(yes destroying 2v mustangs), and its a drivers race against 3v cars. on the street i give the slight edge to the ls4. none of the above statements are speculation they are fact based on personal experience.

also none of this has anything to do with the ops original post so op sorry for the thread jack.

 

And you're going to assume something based on no facts, just what you see from the thumbnail of the video?

We haven't talked about the 5.0 at all in this thread, my entire post was about 2v and 3v Mustangs, now you suddenly bring in the 5.0? FYI, it's a 2010 Mustang GT, a 3V 4.6, released 2 years after the last of the LS4's, which was 2008 if I'm not mistaken.

No there is no radical cam change, or tune, or lighter weight car. In fact, the 2010 Mustang weighs slightly over 3,500 lbs, a good deal more than an LS4 Wbody It gets a 15HP and 5 tq boost from the addition of a CAI and higher engine redline. 15 HP and 5 tq aren't going to make this thing half a second faster in the 1/4 mile. The 2005-2009 3v is capable of the same times, so the point is moot. This was the only video I could find on the 3v where they did a good 1/4 mile testing. This Mustang will run mid 13's with a good driver. I don't understand what's so hard to comprehend about this...the 3V has a definite edge over an LS4, it might be close, but more often than not that 3V is going to be faster.

Keep on owning 2v's, that's all these things are good for.

 

I'm not going to read the mountains of text in here....but my '05 Mustang GT (3V 4.6L) went 13.2 with a cold air intake and SCT flash. That's it. Spare tire and jack in the trunk and everything, on stock skinny 245/55/17 tires, full weight, nothing else.

In better weather (DA was over 1000 that day) or with drag radials I'm sure it would've gone high 12s.

I never bothered, I added a cheap blower package and go mid-high 11s easily every time I run.

LOL...the automatic 3V cars are faster then the stick cars. They're geared just fine.

 

Koool kill ..... whenever I take one out they think they just got beat by a 6 cylinder

 

who knew the 3v was a 12 second car with a set of radials? crazy.