Mustang SVO vs Dodge Shelby GLHS

Javelin wrote: http://www.jegs.com/i/On-3-Performance/498/5.0FK/10002/-1?parentProductId=

Doesn't include fuel or tuning provisions, the company itself has a very mixed reputation (banned on several forums), and seems to be using no-name turbo and wastegate. Upgrade to a quality turbo (Precision) puts you over the $2000 mark and you still haven't included fuel or tuning equipment.

And it's single turbo.

(I only know this because i helped a buddy when he was looking to boost his 5.0. I actually initially recommended this kit as a starting point, but the more he read about it, the more he was turned off by it.)

I'm sorry, but what the ef does any of this have to do with the original post? Seriously? I've said my piece about the original cars in question, I'm out.

it's just friendly conversation. relax

besides, i was under the impression the outer limits of a stock bottom end were about the same between the 5.0 and the turbo2.3, just north of 400hp.

I like hashbrowns.

The friendly conversation feels more like circling a drain. Every time you try and respond there's another new argument that's even further off of the track.

I haven't built a turbo 5.0, but I know of many in the 400-500 range, but with a rebuilt engine. Stock bottom ends for either motor really don't exist anymore unless you're shoving a much later model motor in (Ranger 2.5, Explorer 5.0, etc). The last Mustang 5.0 is already almost 20 years old and the last 2.3T is 24. Either engine is a great candidate because the stock engines need very little in upgrades during the rebuild to make good power (forged pistons, ARP rod bolts and head studs).

I don't really know what any of this has to do with anything though. I still like both the GLHS and the SVO and would gladly jump at the chance to own either. Both platforms are actually good stock and have a lot of potential for further modification.

My Probe GT was a dog though, and promptly got traded for a Probe GT V6. That, too, got sold. FWD turbo's just weren't that good back then, except the Mopar stuff. By then I had discovered DSM's and went through two 1G Talon TSi's, then came the line of Turbo Coupe's. Even today the only really good FWD turbo cars of recent memory are the SRT-4 and the MS3, and the WRX/STi and EVO are both world's better, and it shows. (And I'm a BIG fan of both the MS3 and the SRT4) It's just too bad there's not much in the RWD turbo category. Right now it's just the Gen Coupe, but we may get lucky with a BRZ/FRS soon (and possibly an RX-7, but I'm not holding my breath).

My Probe GT...Probe GT V6...DSM's...1G Talon TSi's...Turbo Coupe's...SRT-4 and the MS3...WRX/STi and EVO...Gen Coupe... BRZ/FRS...possibly an RX-7

I'm sorry, but what the ef does any of this have to do with the original post?

Can a thread like this really go off topic?

I mean, I guess it can, but it's kinda nonsense to start with. Not like someone asked "how do I something-or-other on my what-cha-ma-call-it" and got "you should sell it, it's crap!"

It's kind of a "shooting the breeze" kinda thread, in my opinion.

belteshazzar wrote: not the case in my area. plenty of rangers/merkurs/tc's etc around here. i can think of four guys off the top of my head that are into the turboFWD dodges too. maybe my opinion is tainted because three of them are slower than my 5.4 swapped P71 in a straight line, nevermind my fake SVO. Though the fourth could leave me for dead, if he could ever get a transmission to hold together long enough.

Yeah.. that sounds about right...

The difference is that one in ten who think they have a fast rustang actually own a fast car..

And yep... all in good fun...

Javelin wrote: I'm sorry, but what the ef does any of this have to do with the original post? Seriously? I've said my piece about the original cars in question, I'm out.

Sorry if i offended you.... 5.0s have been interspersed within the discussion the whole time, then you just made the point that a 2.3T is stupid because you can build a 500hp TT5.0 for the same price as a 2.3T @ 300hp. That's how we got here.

As to what it has to do with the original post, i have no idea.

And yes... stock Mazda GD cars are dogs. So i gather you didn't modify it at all, then?

Wait, now we are only talking modified cars? I thought you were comparing stock 0-60 and 1/4 mile times?

Yes, my Probe GT was stock. About 77K miles and in really great shape. It just wasn't very good. Which is kind of funny, because I really liked my stock MX-6 (non-turbo), but as a cruiser.

And I never said a 2.3T was stupid (I've built a half dozen of the damn things), I said the market for them had shrunk because gearheads realized you can now build a turbo 5.0 for the same price and make more power. The proliferation of cheap eBay/overseas turbos and kits ruined the 4-cylinder turbo market for all of the 80's cars, IMO. Why build any of them anymore (even the Dodge)?

The older dodges accept 2.4s easily and the electronics aren't hindered by (at the time) der chrysler. Keeping factory control over everything is a piece of cake for anyone with FI tuning knowledge and the aftermarket for the 2.4 is a lot larger than it is for the 2.2/2.5 but even it isn't non existent.

Javelin wrote: Wait, now we are only talking modified cars? I thought you were comparing stock 0-60 and 1/4 mile times? Yes, my Probe GT was stock. About 77K miles and in really great shape. It just wasn't very good. Which is kind of funny, because I really liked my stock MX-6 (non-turbo), but as a cruiser. And I never said a 2.3T was stupid (I've built a half dozen of the damn things), I said the market for them had shrunk because gearheads realized you can now build a turbo 5.0 for the same price and make more power. The proliferation of cheap eBay/overseas turbos and kits ruined the 4-cylinder turbo market for all of the 80's cars, IMO. Why build any of them anymore (even the Dodge)?

I don't get it then... i'm just trying to figure out why you said these cars weren't in the same league as the Turbo Mopars and the SVO, since the 0-60 and quarter mile times stock for stock are pretty similar. They're all slow dogs in this day and age. I just figured you had modified it and didn't see results for some reason, or maybe you were comparing a stock one against modded other things, or.... i don't know.

I have successfully been confused!!!

FWIW, i don't really like the Probes either. They're about 300lbs heavier.

In reply to moparman76_69:

Yup, back in the day, there was a serious lack of info from ChryCo. If we knew back then what we knew today....

IMHO, both cars are great. I drove both and own the '86 GLHS. Its a creaky tin can with a kick ass engine and a true RACE tuned suspension. NOT sport tuned. So at a true 2500 lbs, 175HP and 175 lbs of torqe vs. the SVO's 3100 lbs the GLHS easily keeps up in the power to weight area.

Don't forget that RWD although good for traction sucks up extra power over the transverse FWD platform. This is probably best demonstrated in drag races between the Baretta GT and Camaro V6 of the day (same engine, same weight, different drive train configurations) and the Mitsubishi 3000GT (N/A) and the Nissan 300ZX (N/A).. same HP, similar weight. In both cases, the FWD cars wiped the floor of the RWD cars.

Still, how much HP do you need in either of these cars before they become undriveable? My GLHS sports about 280HP at the wheel Real Life and more power is not really a problem but driving it is crazy on full boost. Neither cars were actually designed for the drag strip and both where terrors on road courses.

Don't forget that RWD although good for traction sucks up extra power over the transverse FWD platform. This is probably best demonstrated in drag races between the Baretta GT and Camaro V6 of the day (same engine, same weight, different drive train configurations) and the Mitsubishi 3000GT (N/A) and the Nissan 300ZX (N/A).. same HP, similar weight. In both cases, the FWD cars wiped the floor of the RWD cars.

I really dont think people think about this much. I referenced it in an earlier post (mustang having lossier drivetrain). That's one reason that at low power levels i dont think RWD helps much of anything at all other than weight distribution.

In reply to Vigo:

The parasitic loss of the RWD and AWD drivetrains are something that people tend to have a blind spot to. When I mention that there are serious performance advantages to FWD, I usually get bombarded with "torque steer" and unloaded front wheel on launch arguments.

One thing though. A good set of race compound tires on a FWD car will cut the margin very quickly. There are much bigger gains than on RWD cars. I'm sure everyone on this forum has a spare set of race compound tires, right? :-D

Now a good MID-Engine car with a transverse engine.....

Back to topic, svo simply because relatively easy power and suspension options from full drag to full race since its still a fox.

Man those Probe GTs were LEGIT! One that my buddy had took us to many an impromptu Mortal Kombat tournament!

Back OT: Get the SVO. Lots of chassis parts as has been mentioned elsewhere.

In reply to yamaha:

As far as relative power goes, the Chrysler 2.2 and 2.5's are ridiculously easy to bump power up. There is one school of thought that brings the HP total to a little short of 400HP with all stock parts. Not optimal, and you'll probably kill the turbo, but its possible. Head gaskets and transmissions seem to be the weak point in the Chrysler motors. 250 hp is the more reasonable number I've seen in boosted stock configuration (WITH some fuel management modifications.)

And least people forget, there was a LOT of racing with the Chryslers so suspension is really not an issue. Once can't use drag AND road suspension as an argument, its generally one or the other.

Of course we can simply find two people on the forum with cars that can be set at stock levels and have a shootout!

Archone wrote: In reply to yamaha: As far as relative power goes, the Chrysler 2.2 and 2.5's are ridiculously easy to bump power up. There is one school of thought that brings the HP total to a little short of 400HP with all stock parts. Not optimal, and you'll probably kill the turbo, but its possible. Head gaskets and transmissions seem to be the weak point in the Chrysler motors. 250 hp is the more reasonable number I've seen in boosted stock configuration (WITH some fuel management modifications.) And least people forget, there was a LOT of racing with the Chryslers so suspension is really not an issue. Once can't use drag AND road suspension as an argument, its generally one or the other. Of course we can simply find two people on the forum with cars that can be set at stock levels and have a shootout!

Hey now...

As the resident Shelby dodge representative (idiot) for this thread I must step in here...

No way are you making 400hp on a stock turbo... in fact if you are making 250 WHP you are doing pretty good with the stock turbo...

You really have to spin a 60 trim .63 a/r hotside (the ford turbo) to the frign moon to put down 300whp on a dodge 2.2.. (I have seen it done a couple times on home brewed head porting jobs)

At the flywheel... I would believe 300hp is possible with a stock turbo.. but the turbo isn't going to last long.. and the thing is going to be VERY hard to tune with all that hot air...

Suspension... We are talking GLHS here.. That means stub strut lower control arms and evaporated KONI supplies... Neon struts and stuff can be made to work and all the poly is out there.. But yeah.. uuhhh in this battle the advantage against the SVO is that it needs far less modification, not that it is more modifiable.

Head gaskets are only a weak point for improperly assembled engines.. Back in the day the head gasket challenges were due to crappy gaskets.. and not letting the cars warm up before hammering them... Today.. If you have a head gasket problem on an engine you put together.. You did something wrong

and transmissions.. the weak point? OBX's have all been sorted out.. and damn near anything other than the 525 is good to go.. You just can't take a 300K mile tranny which has been beat on its whole life and then blame the tranny when it breaks after you beat on it with 400hp.. A good 520/555 or 523/568 should take darn near anything you could throw at it..

Oh.. and I have a clapped out 87 GLHS which is Stone stock.. Bring on the SVO's They don't stand a chance.. .

Yup, shy of 400 HP at the flywheel. We've never actually got it near the 400 HP number in stock configuration. But we did manage about 330 hp at the wheels in an intercooled Caravelle (the joke car.) Heat as you say is a real problem. And yes, the turbo died shortly after. For the curious, stock turbo I engine with a stock turbo II intercooler grafted on with avgas, and I can't remember, but I think we had it boosted to around 35 psi. You would think the whole thing would start having diminshing returns, but the more we boosted it, the more power it made. In any case, NOT practical and we never did take a run with it down the drag strip. More of a theoritical exercise. Besides, the car was already ready to fall apart.

Hmmm.. we can just have the Forza guys add an SVO to the game and then we can put the GLHS against the SVO all day. :-D

In reply to ronholm:

Oh... and fifth and sixth injector modifications.... Can't forget that. Primitive stuff really.

In reply to Archone:

Bonus points if you happen to control the injectors with an HKS AIC or a Greddy Rebic!

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Bonus points if you happen to control the injectors with an HKS AIC or a Greddy Rebic!

Nope, don't need that fancy, schmancy shtuff! Just cheap, adjustable pressure switches, controlling relays for the injectors.

turboswede wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Bonus points if you happen to control the injectors with an HKS AIC or a Greddy Rebic!

Nope, don't need that fancy, schmancy shtuff! Just cheap, adjustable pressure switches, controlling relays for the injectors.

That's all that setup is i think... i believe it's a Holley pressure switch. I'm a sucker for cool lights and displays, though.