A New Kill for my 04 GTO
02-16-2005, 10:17 AM
#21
12 Second Club
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Austin, TX by way of Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlueSix
I did say slaughtered....
The dumb *** ricer was pissing me off. He cut me off then kept weaving through traffic and would never let me get close. Once the highway opened up i showed him what multiple bus lengths look like. I know it's not an impressive kill.....but it was still fun.
The dumb *** ricer was pissing me off. He cut me off then kept weaving through traffic and would never let me get close. Once the highway opened up i showed him what multiple bus lengths look like. I know it's not an impressive kill.....but it was still fun.
02-17-2005, 12:24 AM
#23
Teching In
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Grand Prairie
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stangman_nb
That's just plain wrong guys....callin BS is really unnecessary. I mean anyone can win on any given day.
02-17-2005, 09:17 AM
#24
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago (Elgin), IL
Posts: 1,355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because it has AMG on it does it mean it's quick. Remember, they're bigger, heavier, cars too! They're also luxury liners, so while performance is an important criteria, they aren't race cars either despite being AMG'ified.
I had a run in last summer with an AMG car from a dig at County Farm and North Ave. and by the time I shut down at 120, I had three car lengths on him and was still pulling. We pulled over and chatted but the first things to come out of his mouth were "WHOLLY SH*T! I was giving it everything I had and you just walked me!"
I had a run in last summer with an AMG car from a dig at County Farm and North Ave. and by the time I shut down at 120, I had three car lengths on him and was still pulling. We pulled over and chatted but the first things to come out of his mouth were "WHOLLY SH*T! I was giving it everything I had and you just walked me!"
02-25-2005, 06:58 PM
#27
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk about kills, at least people can say they get the chance. I've had mine for a month or so and the only person I've raced is my buddy in his Firehawk. Until the Va HP had back to back troopers sitting on the far right side of the highway that day and they were so nice to hand me a $151 ticket. I'm still out looking for my FIRST kill, wish me luck. PS, don't tell the wife, "I told you so" was the first thing out of her mouth.
02-26-2005, 12:34 AM
#28
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry but I have to pipe in here about AMG cars. First of all I am a huge fan of the new GTO and I am strongly considering a purchase on a 2005. However, a stock 2004 GTO will not and I repeat will not hang with an SL55. I have not driven an SL55, however I have driven an E55, which has the same motor. I have also driven a 2004 GTO. There is no way a stock 2004 GTO could even come close to staying with an E55 or an SL55. The straight line performance on these cars is just plain amazing for a car from the factory.
Further more, to say just because it has AMG on it does not mean it is quick, is very misleading. Rigth now, from Mercedes, there is NOT a slow AMG car made. They are all either in the 12's or very low 13's. For a stock car, with no mods, this is pretty darn quick. If you have a stock 2004 goat and you come up along side an SL55, E55, or the new SLK55, I would be very careful. The C55 and CLK55 are your best bets as they are only in the low 13's. The 2005 GTO has a much better chance. And please if you are lucky enough to see a CL65, just wave hello. That car is in the 11's.
Now about someone beating an M3 with a 2004 GTO, I assume the 2004 GTO has several mods or this was an older M3, not a 2001 to current. A stock M3 is a low 13 second car period. And with practice on the launches, you can get them to the high 12's. Sorry, but again, a stock 2004 GTO will not stay with this car either. Now a 2005....much much better chance.
So how can I say all this. Well, one of my best friends has a 2004 Cosmos Purple GTO 6 speed. I have a 2003.5 M3 and just picked up my new SLK55. I have not had the SLK to the track yet, still way too new, but I have put the M3 down the track several times. My best is 13.09 at 109 with a 60 foot time of 1.87 and this car is bone stock. I am looking forward to running the SLK55 down the strip as the new Motor Trend got 12.80 with it. My friends GTO has been running in the 13.80's and it is still stock.
Now all of this is relative to conditions and drivers, but saying a stock 2004 GTO can beat a new M3 or some of the best AMG cars is like me saying I got a kill with my M3 against a Z06 vette. The only way I can beat a Z06 is if 1. the driver does not fully try 2. He loses enough traction for me to take him out of the hole or 3. he sucks as a driver.
But again I think the new GTO is a fantastic car and I think the 2005 has some very nice improvements to it and I think and impulse blue is in my future.
Further more, to say just because it has AMG on it does not mean it is quick, is very misleading. Rigth now, from Mercedes, there is NOT a slow AMG car made. They are all either in the 12's or very low 13's. For a stock car, with no mods, this is pretty darn quick. If you have a stock 2004 goat and you come up along side an SL55, E55, or the new SLK55, I would be very careful. The C55 and CLK55 are your best bets as they are only in the low 13's. The 2005 GTO has a much better chance. And please if you are lucky enough to see a CL65, just wave hello. That car is in the 11's.
Now about someone beating an M3 with a 2004 GTO, I assume the 2004 GTO has several mods or this was an older M3, not a 2001 to current. A stock M3 is a low 13 second car period. And with practice on the launches, you can get them to the high 12's. Sorry, but again, a stock 2004 GTO will not stay with this car either. Now a 2005....much much better chance.
So how can I say all this. Well, one of my best friends has a 2004 Cosmos Purple GTO 6 speed. I have a 2003.5 M3 and just picked up my new SLK55. I have not had the SLK to the track yet, still way too new, but I have put the M3 down the track several times. My best is 13.09 at 109 with a 60 foot time of 1.87 and this car is bone stock. I am looking forward to running the SLK55 down the strip as the new Motor Trend got 12.80 with it. My friends GTO has been running in the 13.80's and it is still stock.
Now all of this is relative to conditions and drivers, but saying a stock 2004 GTO can beat a new M3 or some of the best AMG cars is like me saying I got a kill with my M3 against a Z06 vette. The only way I can beat a Z06 is if 1. the driver does not fully try 2. He loses enough traction for me to take him out of the hole or 3. he sucks as a driver.
But again I think the new GTO is a fantastic car and I think the 2005 has some very nice improvements to it and I think and impulse blue is in my future.
03-01-2005, 06:14 PM
#30
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scorpio
I am sorry but I have to pipe in here about AMG cars. First of all I am a huge fan of the new GTO and I am strongly considering a purchase on a 2005. However, a stock 2004 GTO will not and I repeat will not hang with an SL55. I have not driven an SL55, however I have driven an E55, which has the same motor. I have also driven a 2004 GTO. There is no way a stock 2004 GTO could even come close to staying with an E55 or an SL55. The straight line performance on these cars is just plain amazing for a car from the factory.
Further more, to say just because it has AMG on it does not mean it is quick, is very misleading. Rigth now, from Mercedes, there is NOT a slow AMG car made. They are all either in the 12's or very low 13's. For a stock car, with no mods, this is pretty darn quick. If you have a stock 2004 goat and you come up along side an SL55, E55, or the new SLK55, I would be very careful. The C55 and CLK55 are your best bets as they are only in the low 13's. The 2005 GTO has a much better chance. And please if you are lucky enough to see a CL65, just wave hello. That car is in the 11's.
Now about someone beating an M3 with a 2004 GTO, I assume the 2004 GTO has several mods or this was an older M3, not a 2001 to current. A stock M3 is a low 13 second car period. And with practice on the launches, you can get them to the high 12's. Sorry, but again, a stock 2004 GTO will not stay with this car either. Now a 2005....much much better chance.
So how can I say all this. Well, one of my best friends has a 2004 Cosmos Purple GTO 6 speed. I have a 2003.5 M3 and just picked up my new SLK55. I have not had the SLK to the track yet, still way too new, but I have put the M3 down the track several times. My best is 13.09 at 109 with a 60 foot time of 1.87 and this car is bone stock. I am looking forward to running the SLK55 down the strip as the new Motor Trend got 12.80 with it. My friends GTO has been running in the 13.80's and it is still stock.
Now all of this is relative to conditions and drivers, but saying a stock 2004 GTO can beat a new M3 or some of the best AMG cars is like me saying I got a kill with my M3 against a Z06 vette. The only way I can beat a Z06 is if 1. the driver does not fully try 2. He loses enough traction for me to take him out of the hole or 3. he sucks as a driver.
But again I think the new GTO is a fantastic car and I think the 2005 has some very nice improvements to it and I think and impulse blue is in my future.
Further more, to say just because it has AMG on it does not mean it is quick, is very misleading. Rigth now, from Mercedes, there is NOT a slow AMG car made. They are all either in the 12's or very low 13's. For a stock car, with no mods, this is pretty darn quick. If you have a stock 2004 goat and you come up along side an SL55, E55, or the new SLK55, I would be very careful. The C55 and CLK55 are your best bets as they are only in the low 13's. The 2005 GTO has a much better chance. And please if you are lucky enough to see a CL65, just wave hello. That car is in the 11's.
Now about someone beating an M3 with a 2004 GTO, I assume the 2004 GTO has several mods or this was an older M3, not a 2001 to current. A stock M3 is a low 13 second car period. And with practice on the launches, you can get them to the high 12's. Sorry, but again, a stock 2004 GTO will not stay with this car either. Now a 2005....much much better chance.
So how can I say all this. Well, one of my best friends has a 2004 Cosmos Purple GTO 6 speed. I have a 2003.5 M3 and just picked up my new SLK55. I have not had the SLK to the track yet, still way too new, but I have put the M3 down the track several times. My best is 13.09 at 109 with a 60 foot time of 1.87 and this car is bone stock. I am looking forward to running the SLK55 down the strip as the new Motor Trend got 12.80 with it. My friends GTO has been running in the 13.80's and it is still stock.
Now all of this is relative to conditions and drivers, but saying a stock 2004 GTO can beat a new M3 or some of the best AMG cars is like me saying I got a kill with my M3 against a Z06 vette. The only way I can beat a Z06 is if 1. the driver does not fully try 2. He loses enough traction for me to take him out of the hole or 3. he sucks as a driver.
But again I think the new GTO is a fantastic car and I think the 2005 has some very nice improvements to it and I think and impulse blue is in my future.
Hang on a second Nebraska is a pretty high altitude. I would bet that you are correcting your times. This can be misleading. The truth is if you are correcting your times you never really ran a 13.09 you ran like a 14 flat. There is a big diffrence between running the actual time and running a 14 and correcting it for altitude and or weather. That and even the newer M3's are not that fast I saw a 01 that could not get better than a 15.5 in the texas panhandle(3500 ft altitude). His traps were only in the low 90's. Maybee his car had some issues. This was back in 01. My camaro was running more than a full second quicker at the time.
03-13-2005, 02:43 AM
#34
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Greg04GOAT
Hang on a second Nebraska is a pretty high altitude. I would bet that you are correcting your times. This can be misleading. The truth is if you are correcting your times you never really ran a 13.09 you ran like a 14 flat. There is a big diffrence between running the actual time and running a 14 and correcting it for altitude and or weather. That and even the newer M3's are not that fast I saw a 01 that could not get better than a 15.5 in the texas panhandle(3500 ft altitude). His traps were only in the low 90's. Maybee his car had some issues. This was back in 01. My camaro was running more than a full second quicker at the time.
Now if I was at a track that was 3500 ft above sea level, I really doubt I would run as slow as 14 flat. The correction factor for 3500 ft is .9575. You take 14.00 X .9575 that would put my 1/4 mile at 13.40. I would probably run more like 13.75, with all other conditions being equal (temp, humidity, wind and so forth). By the way using the calculation, that M3 you saw ran a corrected time fo 14.84. I have never ever in my life seen an M3, 2001 or newer run that slow. Driver must not have known how to run the car. Please be advised, I am very familiar on how to launch my car and I can rip low 13's all day. When I started with it I was around 13.40 until I got used to how to launch and shift the car.
Again, for someone to say that the newer M3's are not that fast, really is surprising. An M3, as a stock car with no mods, is pretty quick in today's market. It is not the quickest, but the list of cars straight from the factory that can beat it in a 1/4 run is pretty short.
03-15-2005, 03:22 PM
#35
Staging Lane
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SHAGGY
Someone race a Subaru STi...I'm sure the goat will win, but by how much?
the sti would porbabley win with the right driver. the sti is not a car to sneeze at and not to be confused with the regular turbo WRX. looking at 300-350hp on a lighter all wheel drive platform. with a couple of mods could be knocking on the 400 marker easy. from a dig no contest unless the gto driver can really drive. on the free way the gto would have more top end.
overall it would be a pretty good race
sti weighs about 3200lbs
gto sits at about 3700lbs
weights may vary
03-15-2005, 09:12 PM
#36
TECH Regular
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far East Bay - Norcal
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He thought he had a car and a half...the SL55 was pacing him. I do the same thing. Letting someone try to pull you is almost more fun than getting out front...watching the exhaust belch out the tailpipe as they sh*t a valve to be no. 1! And the whole time you're riding right on their ***...
Not a month ago did it to a late Mach 1...nothing but GTO in his rearview mirror. Sweetness...
Not a month ago did it to a late Mach 1...nothing but GTO in his rearview mirror. Sweetness...
03-16-2005, 07:44 PM
#37
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
respect undefined hey stang..... i really appreciate the respect you show. its good to know there are people in here that knows what the hell they're talkin about!!! 
Originally Posted by stangman_nb
That's just plain wrong guys....callin BS is really unnecessary. I mean anyone can win on any given day.
03-16-2005, 08:37 PM
#38
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Around Like a Donut!
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no prob man....I have been around racing long enough that I know ANYTHING can happen....**** I have seen a 500 hp car run a low 13 because the driver sucked ***(true story it was one of my friends)....this story definitely didn't seem improbable, so y would be people start callin BS right away? Damned if I know!
03-19-2005, 03:58 AM
#40
TECH Resident
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Palolo Valley HI, or Whitter SoCal
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rynofasho
SL55
Umm top end you would get walked. Bottom line. Bad drivers exist at the starting line, not from a roll.
Umm top end you would get walked. Bottom line. Bad drivers exist at the starting line, not from a roll.