lVloses

iTrader: (1)

I've only raced LS1 Goats, but stock for stock, neither car really pulls on the other. I'd definitely say that's a driver's race. Can't say the same for the F-bodies though since I've never raced one.

NoHope

Big difference, the GTO weighs 3,725 lbs compared to the F-body at 3,440 lbs.

baltsk8er69

iTrader: (1)

I'm trying to figure out which fbody is 350hp...I'm pretty sure they were 305 or 325 depending on wether its the z28/trans am or ss/ws6

lVloses

iTrader: (1)

That is true, and with my subs my GXP weighs basically the same as a GTO. Maybe a bit more. GTO has 47hp more than the GXP and neither car pulls on the other.

The LS1 F-bodies had 310-325hp and weigh 200lbs less than a stock GXP. So if my GXP can keep up with a Goat that has 47hp more, I'd bet it could keep up with an F-body that only has 7-22hp more but weighs 200lbs less.

CordiaDOHC

iTrader: (1)

I hate that argument. He built a faster car using less motor. Period. Do you have a turbo v8? No. so what point is there to even saying that? I mean I could say well a top fuel dragster would blow the doors off of that turbo v8. Dont get so cocky for all intensive purposes you have a slow bolt on car thats almost 13 model years old and based off of a platform designed in the 70s and put into production in 82. These fwd LS cars have their place. Ive driven several of them. They are comfortable but still quick and a much better vehicle to drive day in and day out than any fbody!

To the op actually those are some pretty good runs. The 3.7 mustangs definitely move out.

Heres a video of an exhaust only v6 6spd running an exhaust only A4 SS.
it does pretty good for being what it is!

LeadfootDuramax

iTrader: (6)

Not 350 in a Fbody. 305 hp in a Fbody. The SS /WS6 was 320.

TheMonteMan

i dont really want to get into a debate here, and i may be wrong(im certainly no expert), but i thought the ls1 fbodies dynod in at 290-300+whp range and the ls4 cars come in around 240-250ish stock? i personally dont think the ls4 vs any gto or the ls1 fbody is a drivers race(if were talking about the auto cars). if were talking a stick, anything can happen but i wouldnt consider someone stalling out, missing a gear, or blowing the tires away off the line any real indication of what the car is capable of. i would consider a drivers race two cars that are extremely equal, and the only real difference is the driver. a 40/50whp difference, weight advantage, and rwd is far from what i would call equal. the ls4 isnt really equal to any of the other ls cars except maybe the tbss stock vs stock(it will put up a decent fight against most of them though). i think the 3v vs ls4 is far closer to a drivers race. these are just my opinions so dont go busting out the pitchfork and torches on me.

NoHope

This ^

A 2V Mustang against an LS4 would be a close race too, slight edge to the LS4 though.

TheMonteMan

a stock 2v? its not close. maybe if its geared up, with a couple of bolt ons, with a stick, and a really good driver. stock vs stock the 2v gets destroyed by ls4 cars. this again is another case of a car out whp another car by a pretty good margin. the mustang may be lighter, but not by enough to make up for the tq difference.

NoHope

I was under the impression that stock LS4's and stock 2V 4.6's both run low 14's, am I wrong?

BlackImpSS

iTrader: (1)

Stock with a good driver high 13's are very attainable. It's definitely a close race between the two. Just FYI my buddies 99 went 12.82 with full exhaust, CAI, handheld tuner, plenum, and pro stars. Full weight no suspension mods.

TheMonteMan

yup, youre wrong. i havent seen stock 2vs run low 14s(in person). the autos were pretty bad, and the older pre "pi" headed ones were serious dogs. the pi headed ones were rated at 260hp at the crank and were really undergeared. theyre a mid 14 car on theyre best day. dont get me wrong they have tons of potential, and i actually like the way the car looks(so mustang guys dont get offended), but bone stock they are extremely disappointing, and not a good match up against an ls4 car. like i said i consider a drivers race two cars that are pretty much dead even. think about it, the montes are only a 1XXlbs heavier than a comparable sn95, the gxps are only slightly heavier than the monte. the 2vs are soft like bread down low, the autos cant leave the hole hard enough, and theyre all undergeared. theyre not goin to catch the ls4, at least not in a quarter mile theyre not. now a 2v thats had a good amount of weight pulled out of it, with a stick(or a deeper convertor), and some gearing, that may be a different story(this is all if both cars can hook, and even then the ls4s got enough to take it). ive driven both cars, and beaten geared bolt on 2vs("video or it didnt happen")(figured id say it before a 2v owner does). a couple of bolt ons and good driver, and that geared up 2v can really put a hurtin on a stock ls4. then again you would have to be pretty low on the food chain to be proud of destroying someones front wheel drive, bone stock, daily driver, family sedan with your worked up "muscle car". one of these bottom feeder types may make an appearance at some point in this thread to debate this with me, but it is what it is.



op sorry for jackin your thread, talkin about a completely different scenario.

NoHope

Mid 14's seems high. These cars do have 300 lb/ft of torque, and are fairly light. I think the manuals will pull hard out of the hole, but their power band fades as they pass 5,000 RPM, and there isn't enough HP to keep them climbing fast once they pass 70MPH. Also:

TheMonteMan

if you say so. like i said Ive never seen one go low 14s none the less high 13s bone stock guess ive only seen the rare slow 2v mustangs, with the poor drivers. maybe me and 99% of the other guys in the ls4 section got all the factory freak ls4 cars that beat 2vs constantly(trust me im not proud of beating 2v mustangs in my dd, but its a fact that its happened on multiple occasions).

im not looking to debate this cause were probably not going to come to an agreement about it, but here i decided to do some research on this. here are two links both from car and driver(i know car and driver sucks, but i refuse to put any more effort into proving a point.) testing a pi headed 2v http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...tang-gt-page-3 and an ls4 impala(im going to say the monte could turn an even better time with the weight difference.)http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...a-ss-road-test
the imp ran 9/10ths faster and 8mph quicker(to save everyone the trouble 14.2@101-15.1@93). granted we dont know the track conditions, different drivers, and what not. maybe there was a really strong headwind on that mustang, tailwind on the imp, maybe the mustang was tested on top of the grand canyon, the imp below see level, well probably never know, but im sure you get my point, that its not a fair match up anywhere you put those 2 ****** cars(when theyre both stock). its like putting a stock ls4 car against a stock ls1 car with that 50 whp advantage, not a huge weight difference, and saying its a drivers race. **** no its not. whats a stock auto ls1 run on a good day high 12s? whats a stock ls4 car run on a good day 13.7? i wouldnt call that a drivers race, and i wouldnt call a high to mid 14 car on a good day a high 13 car. with that said im going to stand my ground and say weird **** happens all the time especially on the street, but you put a stock ls4 car vs a stock (auto especially)2v, with equal drivers, and they both hook youd be a ****** idiot if you had your money on that 2v cause that ls4 is going to beat it every time.

also its probably a fact that youre friends 99 went 12.82s(im assuming thats on a sticky tire, with gearing, leaving the hole pretty hard, on its best day.) im sure that time would have improved a bit if he had pulled some weight out of it, but ive already said that i like those cars and that they have potential. just that stock they arent equal to the ls4 cars, its not a drivers race, and that they dont run high 13s stock.

NoHope

15.1 in the quarter? I had no idea the 4.6's were that slow. Now I feel REALLY bad for those guys and I understand why those cars take such bashing from everyone, calling them turds or dogs. That's embarrassing.

TheMonteMan

facts are facts my friend. they arent fairly light. theyre only 100lbs lighter than the monte. theyre softer than baby ****, they dont have much of a power band, and make that torque way to high up there to be of any good to them in pure stock trim. you really think its a drivers race? lets think rationally here. the early na 4v was running in the 13s stock, do you honestly believe the 2v is running in the same bracket stock? its madness. why even bother having a 4v if the 2v was capable of doing it? im going to assume it was because the 2v sucked and kept getting its clock cleaned on a nightly first by the lt1 and then by the ls1. you cant have your muscle car getting its *** handed to it by the competitors muscle car. so now you got the na 4v out there to take on the ls1 cars. which to my knowledge the early na 4v wasnt a match for the ls1 either. which is why the 2v running high 13s stock is absurd.

NoHope

Okay, complete thread hijacking here, but...I argued that the 2V was running low 14's in stock form, the OTHER guy said he has seen them hit high 13's, I bet a few factory freaks with perfect conditions have at least hit a 13.9.

The new 5.0 is routinely running high 12's with a good driver, even Motor Trend has it hitting a 12.7 in the 1/4 mile, so the 2V isn't even the same second bracket, not even close.

Also, if that is the comparison you're going to take, the 5th Gen. Camaro SS makes nearly 100HP more than the LS1 and it's still running almost the exact same times. It seems really good drivers can hit a 12.9 in the LS3, but most are running low 13's...same as the LS1, same time, two very different cars.

I'm not trying to defend the 2V or anything, I just think it's very capable of low 14's with a decent driver, and I know the LS4 cars are usually in the low 14's as well. Maybe the 2V routinely runs mid 14's and this is why the LS4 is faster, I'm not sure, don't have any personal experience with either car.

TheMonteMan

i wouldnt say thats what they all run but like i said theyre know for being mid to high14 cars. in the 2v mustangs defense they can be nasty, the cars look nice, they sound good, and at the time they were something new. goin to the overhead cam setup took ***** considering the 5.0 had been beating up on the tpi cars for a while. they really are just a couple of bolt ons and gearing away from being a problem for an ls4. and with a power adder theyre monster.

TheMonteMan

woawoawoa. the early na 4.6 4v is the motor i was talking about. the motor in the sn95 body cobras(pre 03-04). the new 5.0 and ls3 is a whole different debate. you have to take weight into account when your talking about the camaro. the 5th gen is way heavier than the 4th gen camaro, and the hp difference is more like 75. the ls1 cars were under rated by the factory.

now im done jacking the thread.

NoHope

---Quote (Originally by NoHope)---
LS1= 350HP

LS4 = 303HP

47HP advantage to the LS1.
---End Quote---
Not 350 in a Fbody. 305 hp in a Fbody. The SS /WS6 was 320.

As posted by LeadfootDuramax, got it in my emails. He deleted his post because he realized an Fbody LS1 actually does make 350HP...lol