"Fastest Stock Bottom End" List
01-02-2007, 11:20 AM
#42
As listed in the LS1Tech Timeslip Database, here is Jen's info. This was a stock 1998 short block. 
For Naturally Aspirated list:
Jenibella - 10.653 @ 126.6 (1.472), 1998 Z28, TH400, B&M 4000, 4.33, Ported 241s, Custom 246' Hyd, 1031, 3100, 11-13-2005
For Power Adder list:
Jenibella - 9.948 @ 136.63 (1.456), 1998 Z28, TH400, B&M 4000, 4.33, Ported 241s, Custom 246' Hyd, 135hp N2O, 1031, 3100, 11-13-2005
For Naturally Aspirated list:
Jenibella - 10.653 @ 126.6 (1.472), 1998 Z28, TH400, B&M 4000, 4.33, Ported 241s, Custom 246' Hyd, 1031, 3100, 11-13-2005
For Power Adder list:
Jenibella - 9.948 @ 136.63 (1.456), 1998 Z28, TH400, B&M 4000, 4.33, Ported 241s, Custom 246' Hyd, 135hp N2O, 1031, 3100, 11-13-2005
01-02-2007, 03:41 PM
#43
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Winter Garden, Florida
Posts: 3,428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My car went 9.78 @ 132 on a 175 shot with a completely stock bottom end in early 2005, but I never saw the need for there to be a list. I guess I always viewed it as a little too self serving with the qualifications, but that's just my opinion
To add another qualification of N/A and power adder seems even stranger.
To add another qualification of N/A and power adder seems even stranger.
01-03-2007, 01:39 PM
#47
Originally Posted by next
My car went 9.78 @ 132 on a 175 shot with a completely stock bottom end in early 2005, but I never saw the need for there to be a list. I guess I always viewed it as a little too self serving with the qualifications, but that's just my opinion
To add another qualification of N/A and power adder seems even stranger.
To add another qualification of N/A and power adder seems even stranger.
This is a legitimate list that many users ask about, nearly on a weekly basis. Stock bottom N/A and Stock bottom P/A. Sounds pretty simple and self explanatory to me.
Now everyone can come to this thread and see which ls1tech members are fastest in these two catagories. For me personally, it just gives me a new goal to shoot for. I'd just like to be on the list, not # 1.
I hope to run 10.49 heads/cam this year. Hopefully that will be fast enough to make the top 10 N/A. 
01-03-2007, 05:22 PM
#49
I really think the only way to handle this is to take a poll on whether or not they should be allowed. Trust me, I'd like to be able to put better rod bolts in also but just when I would set a new stock bottom end record (not really me but just bare with me) fifty flamers would chime in saying it wasn't legit because of the stronger rod bolts. And guess what, they'd have a point. I would personally vote no but if the majority votes yes then that's the way it should be.
01-04-2007, 01:19 PM
#51
Banned
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: chitown
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Juggernaut
Shouldn't I be #1 for both catagories?
i noticed that too...
but pewter Z wants it to be 100% stock bottom end. you had ARP rod bolts right?
01-04-2007, 02:48 PM
#53
Banned
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: chitown
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Juggernaut
stock rod bolts for the 9.64 run.
I did put ARPs in because i wanted to rev to 7400, but it didn't fall higher on the converter so it was pointless.
But stock rod bolts it did go 9.97 in +1000DA
I did put ARPs in because i wanted to rev to 7400, but it didn't fall higher on the converter so it was pointless.
But stock rod bolts it did go 9.97 in +1000DA
man you should have just sold your car to me before you started the turbo build.
It's fixed.