2006 Impala SS VS 2011 Mustang V6
#281
TECH Apprentice
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Actually the 5.7 HEMI in the Charger R/T makes a whopping...(drum roll) 370HP in the year 2013. The 1998 Camaro Z28 (15 years older) makes 345HP, only 25HP less. The 2001 Camaro Z28 makes 350HP, only 20HP less and almost 1,000 lbs less. Not that impressive of a difference considering the years separating the two if you ask me.
#284
TECH Apprentice
#285
TECH Apprentice
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Most LS1's are running low 13's with a good driver, so about 3/4 of a second faster with less horsepower.
Considering its weight and horsepower, 13.9 seconds is actually pretty respectable. The LS4 weighs 1,000 lbs less, makes 303HP and still can't get out of the 14's, but then again it's FWD.
#286
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
MotorTrend tested the car at 13.9 seconds in the 1/4 mile.
Most LS1's are running low 13's with a good driver, so about 3/4 of a second faster with less horsepower.
Considering its weight and horsepower, 13.9 seconds is actually pretty respectable. The LS4 weighs 1,000 lbs less, makes 303HP and still can't get out of the 14's, but then again it's FWD.
Most LS1's are running low 13's with a good driver, so about 3/4 of a second faster with less horsepower.
Considering its weight and horsepower, 13.9 seconds is actually pretty respectable. The LS4 weighs 1,000 lbs less, makes 303HP and still can't get out of the 14's, but then again it's FWD.
#287
On The Tree
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Utah
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Um, Marc and No Hope, what are you guys doing in here? This section is for "members only"! ![Icon Lol](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icon_lol.gif)
On a serious note, I like LS4 cars, always have. I wouldn't buy one as my main performance vehicle (FWD FTL!) but wouldn't mind having a Impalla SS as a DD. With the right exterior mods those things can look bad ***.![Nod](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_nod.gif)
![Icon Lol](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icon_lol.gif)
On a serious note, I like LS4 cars, always have. I wouldn't buy one as my main performance vehicle (FWD FTL!) but wouldn't mind having a Impalla SS as a DD. With the right exterior mods those things can look bad ***.
![Nod](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_nod.gif)
![](http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b139/Jaylovescars/Grand%20Prix%20GXP/2011-05-28162443.jpg)
Wish I would have known this thread was here earlier, it was definitely a fun read!
#288
On The Tree
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Sounds like your buddy fails at driving. My WIFE ran a 15 flat in her fully loaded(read as "heavy as ****") 2011 300c. But that was at 5000+ DA. lol So I don't know what happened with your buddy.
Wish I would have known this thread was here earlier, it was definitely a fun read!
Wish I would have known this thread was here earlier, it was definitely a fun read!
#292
On The Tree
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Utah
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Thanks. I agree whole heartedly. I dislike the Chargers and the Challengers are too heavy for a pony car imo. They weigh close to what my Jeep weighs, but at least mine is a SUV so it kind of has an excuse for the extra weight.
#293
On The Tree
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Hail](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_hail.gif)
#294
TECH Addict
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 78°14′46″N 15°27′56″E
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech20year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Actually the 5.7 HEMI in the Charger R/T makes a whopping...(drum roll) 370HP in the year 2013. The 1998 Camaro Z28 (15 years older) makes 345HP, only 25HP less. The 2001 Camaro Z28 makes 350HP, only 20HP less and almost 1,000 lbs less. Not that impressive of a difference considering the years separating the two if you ask me.
1998-2000 Z28 was rated at 305 HP/335 lb-Ft. The SS was rated at 320 HP/345 lb-ft.
2001-2002 Z28 was rated at 310 HP/340 lb-ft. The SS was rated at 325 HP/350 lb-ft.
Only the Corvette was rated at 350 HP, but the LS1 motors were all pretty much the same.
Of course, the ratings didn't mean **** because the T56 F-bodies were putting down 300-310 RWHP stock, with the autos around 280 or so, which means they were all underrated.
And citing magazine numbers is pretty lame, when in the real world, these cars ran deep into the 13's with no mods.
For someone acting like he know's his ****, you sure don't know ****.
#295
TECH Apprentice
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Uhh...No.
1998-2000 Z28 was rated at 305 HP/335 lb-Ft. The SS was rated at 320 HP/345 lb-ft.
2001-2002 Z28 was rated at 310 HP/340 lb-ft. The SS was rated at 325 HP/350 lb-ft.
Only the Corvette was rated at 350 HP, but the LS1 motors were all pretty much the same.
Of course, the ratings didn't mean **** because the T56 F-bodies were putting down 300-310 RWHP stock, with the autos around 280 or so, which means they were all underrated.
And citing magazine numbers is pretty lame, when in the real world, these cars ran deep into the 13's with no mods.
For someone acting like he know's his ****, you sure don't know ****.
1998-2000 Z28 was rated at 305 HP/335 lb-Ft. The SS was rated at 320 HP/345 lb-ft.
2001-2002 Z28 was rated at 310 HP/340 lb-ft. The SS was rated at 325 HP/350 lb-ft.
Only the Corvette was rated at 350 HP, but the LS1 motors were all pretty much the same.
Of course, the ratings didn't mean **** because the T56 F-bodies were putting down 300-310 RWHP stock, with the autos around 280 or so, which means they were all underrated.
And citing magazine numbers is pretty lame, when in the real world, these cars ran deep into the 13's with no mods.
For someone acting like he know's his ****, you sure don't know ****.
![Ridin' the sack](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/sackrider.gif)
![Bang Head](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_banghead.gif)
Why post the numbers if you already know they're false? I don't know how your mind works, but it seems like you wasted two paragraphs on nothing.
Oh and here you go, proof:
![](http://i472.photobucket.com/albums/rr86/Quatermain/proofofpower2_zps5fd8b799.jpg)
Please show me a STOCK Charger R/T that is running DEEP into the 13's.
![Icon Lol](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icon_lol.gif)
#296
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Greenhaven/ South Sacramento 'Burbs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Uhh...No.
1998-2000 Z28 was rated at 305 HP/335 lb-Ft. The SS was rated at 320 HP/345 lb-ft.
2001-2002 Z28 was rated at 310 HP/340 lb-ft. The SS was rated at 325 HP/350 lb-ft.
Only the Corvette was rated at 350 HP, but the LS1 motors were all pretty much the same.
Of course, the ratings didn't mean **** because the T56 F-bodies were putting down 300-310 RWHP stock, with the autos around 280 or so, which means they were all underrated.
And citing magazine numbers is pretty lame, when in the real world, these cars ran deep into the 13's with no mods.
For someone acting like he know's his ****, you sure don't know ****.
1998-2000 Z28 was rated at 305 HP/335 lb-Ft. The SS was rated at 320 HP/345 lb-ft.
2001-2002 Z28 was rated at 310 HP/340 lb-ft. The SS was rated at 325 HP/350 lb-ft.
Only the Corvette was rated at 350 HP, but the LS1 motors were all pretty much the same.
Of course, the ratings didn't mean **** because the T56 F-bodies were putting down 300-310 RWHP stock, with the autos around 280 or so, which means they were all underrated.
And citing magazine numbers is pretty lame, when in the real world, these cars ran deep into the 13's with no mods.
For someone acting like he know's his ****, you sure don't know ****.
#297
TECH Addict
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 78°14′46″N 15°27′56″E
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech20year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
For getting all over my nuts
about citing "Magazine" numbers and then going and running your mouth quoting the false and underrated numbers, you sure don't know how to sell your message, do you? ![Bang Head](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_banghead.gif)
Why post the numbers if you already know they're false? I don't know how your mind works, but it seems like you wasted two paragraphs on nothing.
Oh and here you go, proof:
Please show me a STOCK Charger R/T that is running DEEP into the 13's.![Icon Lol](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icon_lol.gif)
![Ridin' the sack](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/sackrider.gif)
![Bang Head](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_banghead.gif)
Why post the numbers if you already know they're false? I don't know how your mind works, but it seems like you wasted two paragraphs on nothing.
Oh and here you go, proof:
Please show me a STOCK Charger R/T that is running DEEP into the 13's.
![Icon Lol](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icon_lol.gif)
And so you can go on quoting magazine articles all you want, but I was here on and on the LS1 scene and know what this **** did when it was new.
As for your comment on the Charger, where in my post did I even mention one, let alone suggest they run low 13's.
Get some experience before you start talking ****, noob.
Edit: Instead of showing me screen shots of magazines, why not do a search here on LS1Tech, and maybe LS1.com (though their server crash in 2005 wiped out all their stuff back to 1999) and see what these cars ran and put down on the dyno. It might give you some perspective.
Edit #2: For the record, that magazine article features a '98 LS1, which was the weakest of all, despite the same rating as 99-2000. They had poor-flowing cylinder heads, relative to the later motors. So, yes, you can claim "win" because those numbers are more representative of the 98's, but not the later motors.
Last edited by LS1 Racing; 04-11-2013 at 09:16 PM.
#298
TECH Addict
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 78°14′46″N 15°27′56″E
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech20year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Icon Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icon_rolleyes.gif)
I'm assuming he's just a kid, with no real experience in these cars, basing his posts only on what he's read in Car & Driver and Motor Trash, not on what he's actually experienced.
His join date of January 2013 is what gives this way. If he had any experience at all, he would have found this site long ago.
#299
TECH Apprentice
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My numbers are false? LOL! Bro, I was driving and modding these cars when you were still popping zits and riding bicycles. I was HERE when this **** was new and I SAW low mileage stock Z28s put down the numbers I mentioned. Furthermore, I drove a stock Z28 AUTOMATIC into the 13.70's with less than 1000 miles on it at the track in 90 degree weather at 2800 feet of altitude. I didn't keep it stock for long to tell what it would have run, but if you correct for weather and altitude, that was a 13.40 car.
And so you can go on quoting magazine articles all you want, but I was here on and on the LS1 scene and know what this **** did when it was new.
As for your comment on the Charger, where in my post did I even mention one, let alone suggest they run low 13's.
Get some experience before you start talking ****, noob.
Edit: Instead of showing me screen shots of magazines, why not do a search here on LS1Tech, and maybe LS1.com (though their server crash in 2005 wiped out all their stuff back to 1999) and see what these cars ran and put down on the dyno. It might give you some perspective.
Edit #2: For the record, that magazine article features a '98 LS1, which was the weakest of all, despite the same rating as 99-2000. They had poor-flowing cylinder heads, relative to the later motors. So, yes, you can claim "win" because those numbers are more representative of the 98's, but not the later motors.
And so you can go on quoting magazine articles all you want, but I was here on and on the LS1 scene and know what this **** did when it was new.
As for your comment on the Charger, where in my post did I even mention one, let alone suggest they run low 13's.
Get some experience before you start talking ****, noob.
Edit: Instead of showing me screen shots of magazines, why not do a search here on LS1Tech, and maybe LS1.com (though their server crash in 2005 wiped out all their stuff back to 1999) and see what these cars ran and put down on the dyno. It might give you some perspective.
Edit #2: For the record, that magazine article features a '98 LS1, which was the weakest of all, despite the same rating as 99-2000. They had poor-flowing cylinder heads, relative to the later motors. So, yes, you can claim "win" because those numbers are more representative of the 98's, but not the later motors.
My '01 Z28 auto, bone stock ran a 13.5, corrected for weather and ****, Idk, because I don't do those calculations. The car runs what it runs.
My post was all about comparing the 5.7 HEMI to the 5.7 LS1. I KNOW that the LS1 Fbody is easily capable of hitting low 13's and in rare cases high 12's in stock form with the right DA, driver, track prep, etc. I must have been mistaken when you said these cars were deep into the 13's and I thought you were referring to the Charger, since that's what half of my first post you decided to quote was about. Capiche?