ok new to vettes
09-17-2008, 11:24 PM
#22
I'm assuming that was a joke, c5z's are 11 sec cars stock. It's been done numerous times. c5's are high twelves. More like a full sec difference.
Last edited by Nwmembr19; 09-17-2008 at 11:33 PM.
09-18-2008, 04:10 AM
#24
10 Second Club
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manteca, CA
Posts: 1,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crybabies? I will happily run my stock (down to the airfilter and tires) C5Z against your stock C5! Time is in the sig, how did you do? 12.6 based on your statement or a miracle?
09-18-2008, 05:37 AM
#25
Actually i think the frc's look better, and it has better looking wheels, better brakes, better suspension, more agressive gearing, better clutch, higher flowing heads, a bigger camshaft, higher flowing titanium catback, and it is a lighter car. Yeah i think it was worth the 22k i payed for it. And when i sold the engine i got more for it because it was an ls6.
It is a better car all around. What's so much different between the newer c6z's and c6's? It has a more powerful engine, better suspension, better brakes, it's lighter, etc. I think i'm starting to see a pattern here. Where's your 1/4 mile times for your c5 mr. racer? It's probably tough to edit your sig, living your life a quarter mile at a time and all. You should take your sold camaro off there while your posting your stock 12.3 et's, its not like you need alot of skill to launch a stalled auto anyways.
Last edited by Nwmembr19; 09-18-2008 at 05:56 AM.
09-18-2008, 05:43 PM
#27
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: illinois
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so your compairing the worst of one and the best of another....
when i was at the track last time, i saw 3 C6Z06's run in the mid 13's and 14's............so a C5 coupe MUST be better!!!!!!!!!!!OMG!!!!
bottom line is, drag times can only be compaired if its the same driver, 2 cars, same day. bottom line
09-18-2008, 05:45 PM
#28
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: illinois
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually i think the frc's look better, and it has better looking wheels, better brakes, better suspension, more agressive gearing, better clutch, higher flowing heads, a bigger camshaft, higher flowing titanium catback, and it is a lighter car. Yeah i think it was worth the 22k i payed for it. And when i sold the engine i got more for it because it was an ls6.
It is a better car all around. What's so much different between the newer c6z's and c6's? It has a more powerful engine, better suspension, better brakes, it's lighter, etc. I think i'm starting to see a pattern here. Where's your 1/4 mile times for your c5 mr. racer? It's probably tough to edit your sig, living your life a quarter mile at a time and all. You should take your sold camaro off there while your posting your stock 12.3 et's, its not like you need alot of skill to launch a stalled auto anyways.
09-18-2008, 06:23 PM
#30
10 Second Club
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manteca, CA
Posts: 1,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The irony is that it was the C5 owners that came in trying to knock the C5 Z06 down (reference post #2 of this thread), then play up their (your) cars; the tactic to refute the facts that are readily known about the C5Z, its performance, and differences from a coupe.
The differences are well known, the performance differences are even better known.
Now the only defense the C5 owners have is to call the C5Z owners "butt hurt" and "crybabies"; when ironically it was, has been, and in every thread that starts into C5 vs C5Z always the C5 coupe/vert owners who are the ones trying to discredit, whine, and then fall back on the same old arguements. "Well I can always buy heads, cam, new transmission, shot peened gears, bigger swaybars, stiffer springs, lighter wheels, bigger non-runflat tires, and drop weight! The Z06 owners are just trying to justify the extra money they spent, but I still spent less on my original car..."
Whoaaa there bud... Hey Pot, let me introduce you to my friend Kettle.
The simple ironic reality is it was the C5 guys that whined, cried, and got butt hurt... Sorry you and N4cer are too dense to see that...
Now that this thread has lost all direction from the OP's question...
09-18-2008, 08:24 PM
#31
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: illinois
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The irony is that it was the C5 owners that came in trying to knock the C5 Z06 down (reference post #2 of this thread), then play up their (your) cars; the tactic to refute the facts that are readily known about the C5Z, its performance, and differences from a coupe.
The differences are well known, the performance differences are even better known.
Now the only defense the C5 owners have is to call the C5Z owners "butt hurt" and "crybabies"; when ironically it was, has been, and in every thread that starts into C5 vs C5Z always the C5 coupe/vert owners who are the ones trying to discredit, whine, and then fall back on the same old arguements. "Well I can always buy heads, cam, new transmission, shot peened gears, bigger swaybars, stiffer springs, lighter wheels, bigger non-runflat tires, and drop weight! The Z06 owners are just trying to justify the extra money they spent, but I still spent less on my original car..."
Whoaaa there bud... Hey Pot, let me introduce you to my friend Kettle.
The simple ironic reality is it was the C5 guys that whined, cried, and got butt hurt... Sorry you and N4cer are too dense to see that...
Now that this thread has lost all direction from the OP's question...
The differences are well known, the performance differences are even better known.
Now the only defense the C5 owners have is to call the C5Z owners "butt hurt" and "crybabies"; when ironically it was, has been, and in every thread that starts into C5 vs C5Z always the C5 coupe/vert owners who are the ones trying to discredit, whine, and then fall back on the same old arguements. "Well I can always buy heads, cam, new transmission, shot peened gears, bigger swaybars, stiffer springs, lighter wheels, bigger non-runflat tires, and drop weight! The Z06 owners are just trying to justify the extra money they spent, but I still spent less on my original car..."
Whoaaa there bud... Hey Pot, let me introduce you to my friend Kettle.
The simple ironic reality is it was the C5 guys that whined, cried, and got butt hurt... Sorry you and N4cer are too dense to see that...
Now that this thread has lost all direction from the OP's question...
LOL! we just call it before people like you make posts like this. hahahaha. Is this corvetteforum?
OMGITSNOTHTESAMEITSGOTLIGHTERWHEELS!
09-18-2008, 08:29 PM
#32
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: illinois
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aaaaaaaaaaanyway........
to the original question....If you are looking for a good car, id get anything 2002 or newer
02's got a few goodies, for Z,coupe, and vert. 01's also had a oil burning problem
to the original question....If you are looking for a good car, id get anything 2002 or newer
02's got a few goodies, for Z,coupe, and vert. 01's also had a oil burning problem
09-18-2008, 10:11 PM
#35
Only had it a few weeks so i haven't taken this car to the track. And I don't plan to. It's the same old argument so i will agree that it's pointless. Ar for the SKILL of launching. Well that's one of brains vs ricer. It's no secret that using am auto is smarter for track duty.
09-19-2008, 01:10 AM
#36
Actually you didnt prove any point, the fastest stock c5's down to the tires run high 12's, the fastest stock c5z's on stock tires run high 11's its been done numerous times even in magazines(gmhightech), so dont try to act like it was some miracle pass with slicks because you just come off as ignorant. On average most stock z owners run low 12's and most stock c5 owners run low 13's.
And we are not off topic because the poster wanted to know the difference between the cars. People that actually know what they are talking about just listed the difference, but some c5 owners got butt hurt about the fact that they dont have a zo6, i guess. Btw most stock c5's dyno 300rwhp and most stock c5z's dyno 350 to 360rwhp and 400rwhp with just bolt ons. The rest of the difference in et comes from the fact that it is a lighter car with better gearing.
This is a performance site and i would assume most people would think that a full second et difference is pretty substantial especially when on used cars you are only talking about a couple grand difference which is easily worth the money for everything you get. Once again better handling, more hp( around 50-60rwhp), better gearing,etc.
Also they dont make frc's except zo6's after 2000 so if you want that body style then the 02 and up zo6's are the way to go.
You are the one that feels the need to call people with dyno numbers in their sig ricers, that's why you have to keep your old car in your sig, otherwise you wouldnt look so smart with stock c5 in your sig, no times, and that stupid quote. You are a ricer vglnte1(no track times only dyno numbers). Go argue with n4cer now, since you obviously dont know very much about c5's.
And we are not off topic because the poster wanted to know the difference between the cars. People that actually know what they are talking about just listed the difference, but some c5 owners got butt hurt about the fact that they dont have a zo6, i guess. Btw most stock c5's dyno 300rwhp and most stock c5z's dyno 350 to 360rwhp and 400rwhp with just bolt ons. The rest of the difference in et comes from the fact that it is a lighter car with better gearing.
This is a performance site and i would assume most people would think that a full second et difference is pretty substantial especially when on used cars you are only talking about a couple grand difference which is easily worth the money for everything you get. Once again better handling, more hp( around 50-60rwhp), better gearing,etc.
Also they dont make frc's except zo6's after 2000 so if you want that body style then the 02 and up zo6's are the way to go.
You are the one that feels the need to call people with dyno numbers in their sig ricers, that's why you have to keep your old car in your sig, otherwise you wouldnt look so smart with stock c5 in your sig, no times, and that stupid quote. You are a ricer vglnte1(no track times only dyno numbers). Go argue with n4cer now, since you obviously dont know very much about c5's.
Last edited by Nwmembr19; 09-19-2008 at 01:17 AM.
09-19-2008, 12:18 PM
#39
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: illinois
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually you didnt prove any point, the fastest stock c5's down to the tires run high 12's, the fastest stock c5z's on stock tires run high 11's its been done numerous times even in magazines(gmhightech), so dont try to act like it was some miracle pass with slicks because you just come off as ignorant. On average most stock z owners run low 12's and most stock c5 owners run low 13's.
And we are not off topic because the poster wanted to know the difference between the cars. People that actually know what they are talking about just listed the difference, but some c5 owners got butt hurt about the fact that they dont have a zo6, i guess. Btw most stock c5's dyno 300rwhp and most stock c5z's dyno 350 to 360rwhp and 400rwhp with just bolt ons. The rest of the difference in et comes from the fact that it is a lighter car with better gearing.
This is a performance site and i would assume most people would think that a full second et difference is pretty substantial especially when on used cars you are only talking about a couple grand difference which is easily worth the money for everything you get. Once again better handling, more hp( around 50-60rwhp), better gearing,etc.
Also they dont make frc's except zo6's after 2000 so if you want that body style then the 02 and up zo6's are the way to go.
You are the one that feels the need to call people with dyno numbers in their sig ricers, that's why you have to keep your old car in your sig, otherwise you wouldnt look so smart with stock c5 in your sig, no times, and that stupid quote. You are a ricer vglnte1(no track times only dyno numbers). Go argue with n4cer now, since you obviously dont know very much about c5's.
And we are not off topic because the poster wanted to know the difference between the cars. People that actually know what they are talking about just listed the difference, but some c5 owners got butt hurt about the fact that they dont have a zo6, i guess. Btw most stock c5's dyno 300rwhp and most stock c5z's dyno 350 to 360rwhp and 400rwhp with just bolt ons. The rest of the difference in et comes from the fact that it is a lighter car with better gearing.
This is a performance site and i would assume most people would think that a full second et difference is pretty substantial especially when on used cars you are only talking about a couple grand difference which is easily worth the money for everything you get. Once again better handling, more hp( around 50-60rwhp), better gearing,etc.
Also they dont make frc's except zo6's after 2000 so if you want that body style then the 02 and up zo6's are the way to go.
You are the one that feels the need to call people with dyno numbers in their sig ricers, that's why you have to keep your old car in your sig, otherwise you wouldnt look so smart with stock c5 in your sig, no times, and that stupid quote. You are a ricer vglnte1(no track times only dyno numbers). Go argue with n4cer now, since you obviously dont know very much about c5's.
but either way, your ignorance is humorous to me....bliss indeed
and thanks for another long drawn out display of Z'ness....
as for times....the car bone stock ran 12.8 @110 i believe
heads and cam = ported 243's, 224/224 cam...12.29@119 = stock clutch was done for...just wouldnt hold a launch. 60's were retarded horrid
LS3 has not seen the track yet.