We've been underestimated
02-07-2006, 08:55 PM
#11
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location:
Posts: 168
RE: We've been underestimated
You've only driven LT1's man. LS1 is like night and day. My cousin has a 98 Firebird with 385/375. That thing is amazingly fast. my car couldn't get anywhere near it. Sorry to say but LS1's are the cheapest fastest cars there are. Mustangs need 5.4 still don't understand why only two cars have them (Cobra R and GT500). These Mustangs could beat LS1's
02-07-2006, 09:11 PM
#12
1st Gear Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 89
RE: We've been underestimated
LS1 is not the cheapest fast car. I paid 24,700 for my mach and bone stock will take a 04 vette and 02 trans am AND i raced a LS1 slomaro with bolt ons and got his *** by 2 cars till i let off after i pegged 150. Money to power ratio, man the mach was hard to beat. the LS1 is alot faster than the LT1 and sorry guys, but Gt's dont have a chance until you do couple mods. Now i can say the 05 Gt is a drivers race against a trans am ram air. Its funny how our little 281's can beat a 350 hehe. why you think the new Z06 is a 427, they got scared because we are getting a 5.4 in the shelby HAHA.
02-07-2006, 09:24 PM
#13
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location:
Posts: 261
RE: We've been underestimated
If you'll read my post again........You'll notice that I NEVER said a stock could BEAT a LT1 or a LS1. I said that its not a landslide like everyone thinks. I think that with a few BASIC bolt-ons and a good driver, it will be a good race. NOS and superchargers are completely out of the question. You do not need such a dramatic power adder to beat a F-body.
02-07-2006, 09:27 PM
#14
2010 Blue Ball Award Recipient
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eskimo Village, Indiana *No Igloo*
Posts: 7,907
RE: We've been underestimated
say what youd like about the mustang getting slammed , or shafter or whatever
but until you show me a stock GT that runs a 13.1 or so STOCK, then a GT really doesnt compare
sure, its certain that the newer GT's are slowly catching, and sure, its a smaller displacement engine, but it doesnt put down the numbers, it doesnt mod as well, and its still more exspensive
now mach 1's are a different beast, i personally think that a 32v 4.6 making 305 hp and running 13.5 is a very good step towards LS1 territory
but untill the GT is in LOW 13's, face it, theyre second rate to the LS1
but until you show me a stock GT that runs a 13.1 or so STOCK, then a GT really doesnt compare
sure, its certain that the newer GT's are slowly catching, and sure, its a smaller displacement engine, but it doesnt put down the numbers, it doesnt mod as well, and its still more exspensive
now mach 1's are a different beast, i personally think that a 32v 4.6 making 305 hp and running 13.5 is a very good step towards LS1 territory
but untill the GT is in LOW 13's, face it, theyre second rate to the LS1
02-07-2006, 09:31 PM
#15
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: We've been underestimated
ORIGINAL: Sonicpilz
No I've never driven a LS1. But I have raced them many times with my 97 SS. I had only flowmasters and a K&N CAI on the Camaro and would hang with a LS1, until again 3rd gear! That SS I had and my brother's WS6 would run neck and neck. I agree with you a LS1 may be a little faster above 100mph, but it will not run like a Viper like some of you like to make it out. I think that since I can beat a LT1 until about 90 mph, then a LS1 won't beat me in reverse like some of you think.
No I've never driven a LS1. But I have raced them many times with my 97 SS. I had only flowmasters and a K&N CAI on the Camaro and would hang with a LS1, until again 3rd gear! That SS I had and my brother's WS6 would run neck and neck. I agree with you a LS1 may be a little faster above 100mph, but it will not run like a Viper like some of you like to make it out. I think that since I can beat a LT1 until about 90 mph, then a LS1 won't beat me in reverse like some of you think.
Hell, you looking at 320 HP vs 275 HP. The only way it could happen is ****ty driving in the LS1s spot, or you had a stick with agressive stock gearing and he had a auto.
A bolton GT can easily beat a auto 273 car, but I think it takes cams to hang with one that has the 6spd and the more agressive (not sure what the exact number is) gear ratio.
02-07-2006, 09:34 PM
#16
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location:
Posts: 261
RE: We've been underestimated
Yes second........not 85th. Think about it though. A mustang will come maybe a second, if that, behind a F-body in a quarter mile, Less in a 8th. Thats roughly what.....a car length or two? You guys act as if the F-body will cross the finish line before we stop spinning tires. Stock for stock a LT1 or LS1 will win of course, but its not like racing a mini van like yall make it out to be. With small basic bolt-ons a GT can come close to a F-body. I'm just tired of seeing new guys come in and want to know what it will take to beat a F-body and everybody say "You need full bolt-ons and NOS and drag radials etc". All this crap is not necessary!!! Its not THAT big of a difference.
02-07-2006, 09:39 PM
#17
2nd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location:
Posts: 261
RE: We've been underestimated
A cam alone should put you past a LS1. I got a quote from VTengines "claiming" that a Stage 1 cam would put you at 280rwhp, roughly 350hp at the crank. That sounds a little exaggerated to me but thats what the techs said.
02-07-2006, 09:40 PM
#18
2010 Blue Ball Award Recipient
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Eskimo Village, Indiana *No Igloo*
Posts: 7,907
RE: We've been underestimated
A mustang will come maybe a second, if that, behind a F-body in a quarter mile, Less in a 8th. Thats roughly what.....a car length or two
a FULL SECOND in the 1/4 mile is a hell of alot of time and ground to make up
it is way way more than 1-2 cars
i crossed the line at a cars front fenderwell in the 1/4 and it was only .017
a full second is more than 58x that!
02-07-2006, 09:43 PM
#19
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Navarre, FL
Posts: 3,689
RE: We've been underestimated
ORIGINAL: Sonicpilz
A cam alone should put you past a LS1. I got a quote from VTengines "claiming" that a Stage 1 cam would put you at 280rwhp, roughly 350hp at the crank. That sounds a little exaggerated to me but thats what the techs said.
A cam alone should put you past a LS1. I got a quote from VTengines "claiming" that a Stage 1 cam would put you at 280rwhp, roughly 350hp at the crank. That sounds a little exaggerated to me but thats what the techs said.
02-07-2006, 09:45 PM
#20
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: We've been underestimated
ORIGINAL: Sonicpilz
A cam alone should put you past a LS1. I got a quote from VTengines "claiming" that a Stage 1 cam would put you at 280rwhp, roughly 350hp at the crank. That sounds a little exaggerated to me but thats what the techs said.
A cam alone should put you past a LS1. I got a quote from VTengines "claiming" that a Stage 1 cam would put you at 280rwhp, roughly 350hp at the crank. That sounds a little exaggerated to me but thats what the techs said.