Are the 98's slower than the 99-02?
10-05-2008, 04:58 PM
#41
11 Second Club
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Saline,MI
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 98 went 13.48 2.07 60 foot and trapped 104.5 with a lid and a system in the back. No way in hell a 98 is any slower. I've got 2.73's as well. Put a LS6 intake on and did 13.26 at 106 yesterday.
No one has said it yet but we 98er's get a working temp. gauge as well.
No one has said it yet but we 98er's get a working temp. gauge as well.
It was on there when I bought it! I have plans of changing it out this winter! Along with a bunch of other stuff! 
The 99 also got the torsen limited slip. 
10-05-2008, 08:33 PM
#43
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Shillington PA
Posts: 1,775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-07-2008, 12:13 PM
#49
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,361
Likes: 0
Received 1,792 Likes
on
1,277 Posts
Which is noisy as hell compared to the auburn. I much prefer my '98s rear to my '02s rear.
I currently own both a '98 and an '02, so I can give a pretty good comparasion. The '02 feels a bit stronger stock for stock, but the '98 was a better built car with some nicer parts that had been dropped by '02.
I currently own both a '98 and an '02, so I can give a pretty good comparasion. The '02 feels a bit stronger stock for stock, but the '98 was a better built car with some nicer parts that had been dropped by '02.
10-07-2008, 03:24 PM
#50
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do remember reading somewhere that the rod bolts in the 98 and maybe 99 weaker than the later years as well. But I am not 100% sure on that one.
Last edited by SOM02WS6; 10-07-2008 at 03:34 PM.
10-07-2008, 05:32 PM
#53
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,361
Likes: 0
Received 1,792 Likes
on
1,277 Posts
10-07-2008, 08:02 PM
#54
Launching!
iTrader: (37)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: south central pa
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
coming in late..but theres nothing wrong with 98's..my times in my sig were run ..crossing 100k miles mid track on that run..
havent been back to the track since yet..but at 114,5xx miles i got on a dyno..stock original plugs, wires, clutch..put down 313/333 with a magnaflow catback, and a tsp lid..
stock ypipe, manifolds, cats..paper filter..
i hope to get to the track soon to try for a 12.9 bc i think my car is fully capable of it
havent been back to the track since yet..but at 114,5xx miles i got on a dyno..stock original plugs, wires, clutch..put down 313/333 with a magnaflow catback, and a tsp lid..
stock ypipe, manifolds, cats..paper filter..
i hope to get to the track soon to try for a 12.9 bc i think my car is fully capable of it
10-08-2008, 09:57 AM
#55
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Western NY
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with others, 98's aren't any slower. My 98 car went 13.5 @ 108 with K&N FIPK / Catback and a shity 2nd gear 2 or 3 years ago.
Also no one else has mentioned that stock for stock 00-02's have better stock manifolds than 98-99.
Also no one else has mentioned that stock for stock 00-02's have better stock manifolds than 98-99.
Last edited by Shockwave179; 10-08-2008 at 02:10 PM.
10-08-2008, 02:05 PM
#58
LS1Tech Administrator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317
Posts: 32,361
Likes: 0
Received 1,792 Likes
on
1,277 Posts
10-08-2008, 05:46 PM
#60
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tulsa OK
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have pulled quite a few 1.6s and tons of 1.7 sixtys on my stock 10 bolt with the stock 3.23 gears. But I have a stalled auto which is a lot more friendly than a M6.