How much Horsepower do they have?

It's in the 200 range I believe, but the 302 with the additional stuff done to it was probably slightly higher.

A stock trans am has 280 horsepower.

if its an ls1 which was in the 98 trans ams it should be 330hp

thats an lt1 which was 93-97 trans ams

93-95=275 HP 96-97=285 HP those are LT1 years 98-02= 305 HP LS1 years bottom line, that stang should not have beat you

Listed HP on 98-02 Camaro/Firebirds is lower than the actual. It's the EXACT same engine that's in the Corvette's, with a slightly different camshaft and exhaust manifolds. The difference in HP is 10-15 at the most.

actual it is not the same as the vette. the heads, cam, intake, manifolds, t.b., injectors,and tuning are all different between the f-body and vette.

Do you even have an F-body? Read this post directly from the Admin of LS1Tech.com: http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87161 According to Nine Ball (an expert if you're at all familiar of F-bodys) the only difference WITHIN the engine is a slightly different cam (as I stated). Externally, the oil pan is different (because of the different K-members) and serpentine system. The heads, intake, and throttle body are all the same (minus the fact that Vette's have fly-by- wire throttling.

And here's an article of a dyno comparison of two identicle-year LS1's. The F-body actually dyno's MORE (only due ot the fact that IRS has slightly higher parasitic loss)

the answer has nothing to do with horsepower by itself. the power to weight ratio of the other car better than yours. your car weighs alot more than the mustang, and then add to it that there was work done to it, making his p/w ratio better than yours. your car has a base weight of 3477lbs, and has 305 HP (got specs off of edmunds.com). you have 1 hp for every 11.4 lbs of car. the mustang on the other hand, stock (and provided that this was a 5.0 LX mustang and not the GT) has 2834 lbs and 205 hp. factor in the chip, air filter, ignition, exhaust and such, and the 'stang could have had at least around 300 hp as well. if the mustang had 275 HP after all the mods (this is suggesting that it had a mild chip), then the power to weight ratio would be 1 hp for every 10.3 pounds of car. the ratio is better and that is why the mustang won. you would have to make your p/w ratio better than the mustang's in order to win.

are you sure the guy in the mustang wasn't sandbagging

You should be making around 300-310 RWHP. Either the Mustang is modded more than he is telling you, or something is wrong with your car. A stock 98 Trans Am will beat a new Mustang GT, let alone the old 5.0 that made 240HP.

well...there is alot more at work here than power to weight....you have to look at gearing, peak hp and tq...what the cars power range is...etc....and I dont care what power to weight says, that T/A will run circles around a stock 5.0, I've driven them both, I've raced them both, unless the 5.0 has alot of mods it wll lose to an LS1 T/A all day long. I currently have a 94 trans-am...LT1 with a few mods...best et was 8.63 in the eighth...I see most stock LS1 T/As doing 8.80s consistantly, my dad has a lil 5.0 mustang(3.73 gears, ram air kit, shorty headers, flowmasters, etc.) best et is 9.45. There is NO way that a stock 5.0 beat p on an LS1.

a stock 5.0 is done by 5500 rpms, chip or not, they really dont make a very big diff. The T/A will rev very freely past 6 grand, it makes alot of power up top, that 5.0 mustang must have had somthing more, a cam swap or some head work, who knows, but I promise, stock to stock there is no match, its the T/A, even with bolt ons tothe mustang its still no match...unless you supercharge it or put a shot of nitrous on it.

if it has to do with gearing and everything else, that's more in favor of the mustang. if the guy spent a little bit of money on the entire drivetrain then sure he could win. i've only got cold air and the "s" pack for my '89 T/A, but i've got an aluminum driveshaft, a shift kit on my 700-R4, and $3500 worth of rearend in the car (currie 9", with 3.70 posi, torsion bars, sway bar upgrades, 2" lowering kit.), and a front strut tower bar. i know that with my gearing i can outrun my buddies stock 88 IROC-Z all day long in the 8th; however, i would get run down in the quarter because of his stock gearing (3.23) gives him a faster times over longer distances. and the numbers i gave you from edmunds were the peak numbers...i don't think that they would give me numbers other than that. and as for your dads stang having a slower time, there are too many more factors involved there (no rip on him, but it could have been driver reaction time), and the fact that the car has less weight on the rear wheels and doesn't hook up as quickly as the T/A. my car, with all of it's mods, beat a stock stang (only had flowmasters on it) simply because my gearing got me up to speed faster (and sure mine's an '89 and weighs an ungodly amount - like 3700 or something close to that - and the stang driver spun them in the shift to 2nd). once he hooked up, he stayed even. and power ranges for most domestic sports cars are between 4 and 6 grand. the tuned port cars like mine actually get theirs slightly lower than that (3700, 3800)because the fuel rails from the throttle body to the heads are like 9 inches long versus the 3-4 for an LT1 or an LS1. i think that you're giving the fox body far less credit than it's worth. i'm not saying that i'm a fan of them; but i am saying that they shouldn't be taken lightly.

Does it have the LT1 engine in it? The trans Am weighs more than the mustang does. its chipped, and has a race ignition, you shoulda known you would lose. jk.

first off, my dad has been racing for 30 years, the light wasnt bad, no spin either, second the light has nothing to do with the cars ET, mustang 5.0s are in fact slower than T/As LT1 or LS1 unless you swap the cam, intake, put headers on it etc. Also, in the quarter mile comparing apples to apples, a car with a 3.70 gear will out run the guy with the 3.23 gears. Maybe it might make a diff. if you run it past a quarter but I doubt it will be much. The length of the fuel rails doesnt play a part in the power band of an engine. Your TPI is not comparable to an LT1 or LS1 the design is not the same at all...especially not the LS1. I've got alot of race expirience....been around it my whole life, LS! cars are faster than 5.0s no matter which way you go....assuming you are comparing apples to apples.

no, pretty sure its an LS1, mustang had to have more than an MSD ignition system and a chip to beat it.

Definitely a few good responsed up in here, but definitely a few people that don't know their ass from their elbow either! The info provided from LS1tech & Nineball is dead on regarding hp and it being the same engine as the vette. I have a 01 TA and I used to have a 90 GT. There is absolutely no way a stock fox body will beat a stock LS1 f-body unless the driver is retarded. Were you guys running from a roll or from a stop? The fact that you're an automatic and have smaller gears doesn't help. With a few mods your TA can be a whole different animal... converter, exhaust, cam, gears and maybe some DR's should put you easily be in the 11's.

I have a 98 trans am, automatic and I pull along with a new 5spd 07 mustang GT modded with huge intake, k&n filter and programmer. I have a SSRA intake along with an slp lid and k&n filter, were door to door. I've raced modded STi's and been door to door from a roll, bout 50 to 90. Them 5.0's are pretty much slugs unless you mod the hell out of them, trust me then can be fast, theres a local 5.0 that runs 8's in the quarter.

I have taken my LS1 Camaro Convert to the track many times, 13.7 @ 104 My buddy's lighter 98 TA T-Top runs consistant 13.4- 13.5, not sure of the top speed. Niether car has any mods other than a K & N.

My trans am runs high 12's and all i have are some bolt ons, i have had a couple of mustangs before this that had alot of stuff done to them and the fastest 5.0 ran 14.2 and a 98 mustang ran 14.0 on a really good day. All though the 98 ls1's have different heads and do run slower than shit

the 1998 LS1 came out with 310hp stock out of the gates, if its a WS6 the ram air added a whole 15hp to make it a 325hp beast of a motor. the fox body wheighs less than your ta which has to play into it. also the 93 motor wasnt rated at 200, it was rated at 235hp add in the chip we'll say 15hp, and ignition another 5-10hp, and if it was a cold air intake that can add up to to 10hp so at max hes producing 270hp, with a lighter car. and it shows yes you can have all the power in the world but if you cant hook up and if you're heavier you're going to lose that race.

1998 was the first year that the Trans am got a LS1 engine and for the gen 5 body. It should have about 320 horsepower. With Ram air it will have about 340. The race should have been good being that you were stock and the stang was modded.

Im throwing down 340rwhp and 360 ft/lbs of torque with full exhaust, a built rear end w/ 3.73, and free mods. A stock ls1 will be throwing around 270 rwhp

well maybe you should also think bout running different headers i got different ones and mine runs like a bat out of hell but if you really wanted to modify your car i would get an lsx motor with a 6.2 and you wouldn have the problem of gettin beat by a 93 mustang cuz i ran some better headers on my 98 ta and i beat a 2001 vette wit ls2

If only LSX engines were affordable haha

That foxbody with those mods is probably pushing at most 240-250 at the flywheel. It really isnt that much lighter, not enough to make a difference that 65hp over him you have would. You should not have lost that race. I think you need a drivers mod. Either that or he had a bottle or some stuff he wasnt telling you about.

Everyone quoting Edmunds or whatever for LS1 hp numbers need to quit it. The car was underrated from the factory. Do an actual google search and look at real-life numbers. They ALL put out 345-350 hp. And if people want to throw out quarter times, my 99TA ran a 12.98 @ 109 with only subframe connectors, a lid, and drag radials. It was an auto with 3.23's. You catch that? The ONLY performance mod was the lid (and they add 10-15hp) and I was in the 12s. Fox body's aren't even in the 13's with a 10-15hp power boost.

yes nate i do. i have owned a few in my years. i have the L98 based, if you even know what that is. the heads are different. i worked at a porting shop. intakes may be the same. i do not own a lsx car so sorry for the miss hap. i study mine a bit more than the late 4 gens.

i beat a 2k firehawk with my tpi ta.

more than likely he just had a taller rear gear thats like night and day. out the hole im sure your car spunn but you didnt realize and the fox bocy cars are much lighter than the trans ams

There was obviously more done too that stang then what you know...I can Agree with some of these people ya they weight alot less the fox body but there is NOOOOO way you should have lost to that mustang. I have a 95 T/A and pretty much stock with only exhaust I was smoking Fox bodys with full exhaust/cam/ and Gears...I ran consistent 13.80's with nothing but exhaust. Most Fox Bodies are averaging stock in the 15.0sec range.1/4mile mind all of you...Im just not sure how you lost...I mean I guess so but you shouldnt have. And to answer you question to the horse power related subject I work at Hutter Racing everyone check it out hutterracing.com based out of chardon ohio call us for all your Horse Power Fbody needs :) but anyways I have seen dyno sheets on stock LS1 cars ranging from 302rwhp to 285rwhp and on stock fox bodies any where from 180-205rwhp.....you should have not lost. BTW My car is now a 9sec street car boasting a 383LT1 with a Procharger

There's no way a '93 Mustang GT even with a superchip could beat an LS1 Trans am stock it makes 305 horsepower. You should have beaten him, but ultimately it depends on the driver and who wants it more and who's better. I've beaten many 90's GT's and even the new '05 - '08 GT, with 300 hp in my trans am with the LT1 :-)

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about...a 98 T/A has the LS1 all aluminum V8 that produces well over 300 hp. *It is either sick, has very high gear ratios or you don't know how to drive...I have a 98 and smoke almost all mustangs on the road except the new 2012 5.0's

I have a 2002 WS6 and it was 325 HP stock.

most likely the stang had more than he was saying. some people tend to do that. i would say a mild cam or a stall. and a stall would make a big diff in your car.

if you have the LS1 engine it should have 310 rear wheel horsepower. they do have a chip for your car for about $69.00 that would boost it up another 119 hp.

my 93 trans am is pushing 400 hp with an lt4 heads and intake hooker headers and cat black exhaust so ill go up against a little 5.0 mustang any day

Dude u just suck at driven we should take ur TA away from you for makin Trans am owners look bad. 5.0 aint messin with a TA even with a cam or heads.

Ok we have a lot of good anwers but over time your car will lose horsepower nothing you can do about it maybe the owner of the T/A didn't shift @ the right RPM or maybe the stang is moded more than what the guy led on either way he got beat it happens you can't win every race there's been civics that beat new camaros not because any other reason except the person in the camaro didnt know how to properly run their car and that's what racing is all about knowing how far you can push your ride before major malfunctions occure so to the guy in the T/A get to know your car better and push it farther than what people say better luck next time

my 93 wasnt even that fast.cracked12s a few times. at norwalk in ohio at gm vs. ford, i ripped a 93gt with a cam, intake and a bs ignition.....dude i pray u dnt have that car anymore. maybe u can score a scion tc something ur speed. power to weight more handling to me. i could take everything, insert 4.10s tune for gear change so i dnt top out at 90 and i would that stang if he was 30 punchn and dead stopped

what is the ram air and the ws6

trip65.... there is no chip for LS1 cars only tunes. If you buy a chip you would be better off throwing the $$ in the trash... Less wasted time and you'd save on shipping! Seriously though from my experience Mustang guys love to lie about their mods. My 98 automatic was running like sh*t with a bad MAF and still would beat ANY near stock mustang except for 02-03 cobras or a Mach 1 with a good driver. I now own an 02 6 speed only mods are a 150 shot nitrous and some suspension in the 11s

i have a 98 TA with the ls1 and I have had it for ten years and when i started with it it made 320 on the dyno and even then no mustang could out run me now i have put over $30.000. in it and can get 990 out of my ls1 so you need to learn how to drive your car

Question ? I have a wonderful 1997Pontiac trans am ram air has a shift kit in transmission and headers everything else is stock. It's the Lt1. What's the hp? And is there a chip I can install to make it a bit faster ????

You all sound retarded.. gears, sct programmer, and listed mods could push a 5.0 to suprise a bad driver. Seriously dude.. ls1's were 320hp+ new. Time to check your everything if nothing is wrong try easing into the launch instead of flooring it. I have a 93 thunderbird supercoupe.. v6 supercharged making 220 hp and 315 torque.. and I'm eating 5.0's until 2010 up for breakfast. In the end. Only the 03/04 cobra terminator will give a good ls1 a run for its money. Or a 392 challenger, or something else 400hp+ only.. my thunderbird would suprise you off the line but up top ls1's keep running like a raped ape.

I have won and lost against mustangs . What matters most is how you drive.but my 96 trans am don't weigh 3500 pounds you know the gross weight in the door jam includes the max recommend load weight and fuel.i have also beat mustangs with a grand am and a Ford Taurus, my winter cars. All depends