95 formula slower than a 95 trans am?
06-21-2012, 11:08 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: winnipeg Manitoba
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
95 formula slower than a 95 trans am? hi i was reading some quater mile times on the internet and i have noticed this: 1995 Pontiac Firebird Formula 0-60 mph 6.6 Quarter mile 14.9
1995 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.8
these exact stats are from the website 0-60 times. Why did they rate the formula 1.1 seconds slower than the trans am? isnt it the same car with diferent bumpers, spoiler and side skirts? Is the formula actually that much slower or is it fair to say a 95 formula should be just as fast as a 95 trans am.
1995 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.8
these exact stats are from the website 0-60 times. Why did they rate the formula 1.1 seconds slower than the trans am? isnt it the same car with diferent bumpers, spoiler and side skirts? Is the formula actually that much slower or is it fair to say a 95 formula should be just as fast as a 95 trans am.
06-21-2012, 11:24 AM
#3
Equally optioned (power windows, power locks, hard top/t-top, m6/a4) the Formula should be a tick faster...at least on paper. It not having the ground effects, heavier leather seats and bigger bumper/spoiler, it should weigh less. They are both the same car. The TA is just a more decked out version of the Formula.
06-21-2012, 11:26 AM
#4
LMAO... contrary to popular belief, everything you read on the internet is not true! It's the EXACT same engine/transmission in a LIGHTER car due to no ground effects, fog lights, ect. Formulas are 70-80lbs lighter than a comparable TA....how that would make them slower is beyond me. 
06-21-2012, 12:53 PM
#6
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: winnipeg Manitoba
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok thanks lol cause i had an issue where someone thought they could smoke my 95 formula because the quater mile said 14.9 hahaha lol. I dusted him!
06-21-2012, 01:07 PM
#7
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: fort walton beach,fl
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also the suspension difference between the formula and WS6? T/A could have helped the T/A's launch.. But that's just a guess in addition to the diff gears..
Trending Topics
06-22-2012, 10:33 AM
#11
This. Also, the auto Formulas/TAs had 3.23 rear gears. But yeah, I'm going with the Formula being a loaded auto convertible and the TA being a M6 hardtop on that site b/c my buddy had a LT1 M6 Z28 stock Hardtop and he ran about a 13.7 in the 1/4. I think that my race weight is about 3500 with me and my speakerbox in it. Tools bumps it to 3600.
06-29-2012, 01:09 PM
#19
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rapid City, SD
Posts: 3,161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm willing to bet it was all in marketing for the Trans Am. I'm sure they never intended the Formula to be their "go-to fast car", just another differently optioned car. The TA made them more money, so they want to make it look faster.
06-29-2012, 01:34 PM
#20
0-60 times vary wildy depending on the driver, conditions, and what publication is doing it. Has always been this way and always will be. Take the average 0-60 times a "insideline" gets vs. "motortrend" and "car and driver".....motortrend is almost always getting significantly better times. Insideline is always the slowest. Better drivers, better techniques, better weather conditions, better track conditions, shift points? All of this comes into play; not just the car and it's options. Comparing 0-60 times is a moot point; comparing apples to oranges unless both cars were tested on the exact same day, track, driver, weather, publication, ect.
1/4 mile and ET are much better indicators of a car's acceleration
1/4 mile and ET are much better indicators of a car's acceleration