gto vs f-bodies
09-09-2008, 07:10 PM
#261
I felt the same way when I bought my 04 GTO. My 96 WS6 always felt faster. It ran 13.50@104 back in 96 when it was stock.
My GTO ended up running 13.25@105 when it was stock. Just felt "slow" even though it was quicker. It is very smooth compared to an F-Body and is very decieving.
Just a quick note. Don't forget the GTO gets much better gearing in the M6. Rear gears are about the same but the tranny is much better in the GTO. About the same as a 3.90 geared F-Body. Kind of negates the weight advantage. Provided you can use the torque multiplication.
My GTO ended up running 13.25@105 when it was stock. Just felt "slow" even though it was quicker. It is very smooth compared to an F-Body and is very decieving.
Just a quick note. Don't forget the GTO gets much better gearing in the M6. Rear gears are about the same but the tranny is much better in the GTO. About the same as a 3.90 geared F-Body. Kind of negates the weight advantage. Provided you can use the torque multiplication.
) 
09-20-2008, 11:52 AM
#265
Staging Lane
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Long Beach CA
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i see what you did there oh ha ha ha. your so clever oh ha ha ha. oh man oh give me a second wow that was just impressive. you combined your stellar wit with great timing its just so amazing. thank you sir thank for telling us how you think. it was just so eloquent and subtle.
10-01-2008, 12:34 PM
#271
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: bentonville, arkansas
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTO's are very nice cars and they drive like a dream but they weigh a lot more than an f-body. when my motor was still completely stock i raced a black LS2 6.0 GTO with a catback. we went from a 40mph roll and i gave him 1 car length before we started. he honked 3 times and we took off. we went to about 130mph. i ended up 2 or 3 car lengths ahead. we raced three times with the same outcome.
10-02-2008, 07:13 AM
#272
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i belive gto's to be more consistint in the 1/4....i ran a 13.1, 13.2, 13.1 all at 108.xx
this was my buddys bonestock 06 gto m6...lol every run had some bog after the launch, had i had some more wheel time i belive i could of broke into the 12's
but here's my question....which is faster from a 45 roll? i think the 5.7 and 6.0 will do alot better from a roll aginst a f body....
this was my buddys bonestock 06 gto m6...lol every run had some bog after the launch, had i had some more wheel time i belive i could of broke into the 12's
but here's my question....which is faster from a 45 roll? i think the 5.7 and 6.0 will do alot better from a roll aginst a f body....
10-02-2008, 12:30 PM
#273
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: bentonville, arkansas
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i belive gto's to be more consistint in the 1/4....i ran a 13.1, 13.2, 13.1 all at 108.xx
this was my buddys bonestock 06 gto m6...lol every run had some bog after the launch, had i had some more wheel time i belive i could of broke into the 12's
but here's my question....which is faster from a 45 roll? i think the 5.7 and 6.0 will do alot better from a roll aginst a f body....
this was my buddys bonestock 06 gto m6...lol every run had some bog after the launch, had i had some more wheel time i belive i could of broke into the 12's
but here's my question....which is faster from a 45 roll? i think the 5.7 and 6.0 will do alot better from a roll aginst a f body....
consistincy is all about the DRIVER. f-bodies can be consistant too. i ran 13.0's @ 111 all day in my bone stock 2002 M6 z28 with the stock tires spinnin like crazy. i also ran a 12.9@111 that day. it's not about if gto's or fbodies are faster it about each car and driver. i have seen stock ls1's put out so many different dyno numbers. when i went to my car i put down 326hp and my friend put down 307hp in his 01 z28. all ls motors range in power. it just depends.
10-02-2008, 05:06 PM
#275
Staging Lane
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
consistincy is all about the DRIVER. f-bodies can be consistant too. i ran 13.0's @ 111 all day in my bone stock 2002 M6 z28 with the stock tires spinnin like crazy. i also ran a 12.9@111 that day. it's not about if gto's or fbodies are faster it about each car and driver. i have seen stock ls1's put out so many different dyno numbers. when i went to my car i put down 326hp and my friend put down 307hp in his 01 z28. all ls motors range in power. it just depends.
Man I know it is the internet and there is no way to verify stuff, but please put down the Kool Aide. These engines are closer in performance numbers than we give them credit for. The LSX series engines so far that I know where not underated from the factory. The only way you can see the numbers you posted is if you were running an LS6 in your car or some later gen motor, not a stock LS1 of that era - 2002. Sorry, Padner, BS!
10-02-2008, 07:33 PM
#277
I call the BS Flag for 12.9 @111 MPH for a stoack Camaro. Everyone on the internet has a factory freak stock car! 20 HP difference between an LS1 engine suggests something more is going on between the two cars! You also realize that 326 HP at the wheel of a stock Z28 is in excess of 350 HP at the crank!
Man I know it is the internet and there is no way to verify stuff, but please put down the Kool Aide. These engines are closer in performance numbers than we give them credit for. The LSX series engines so far that I know where not underated from the factory. The only way you can see the numbers you posted is if you were running an LS6 in your car or some later gen motor, not a stock LS1 of that era - 2002. Sorry, Padner, BS!
Man I know it is the internet and there is no way to verify stuff, but please put down the Kool Aide. These engines are closer in performance numbers than we give them credit for. The LSX series engines so far that I know where not underated from the factory. The only way you can see the numbers you posted is if you were running an LS6 in your car or some later gen motor, not a stock LS1 of that era - 2002. Sorry, Padner, BS!
10-02-2008, 08:32 PM
#279
I call the BS Flag for 12.9 @111 MPH for a stoack Camaro. Everyone on the internet has a factory freak stock car! 20 HP difference between an LS1 engine suggests something more is going on between the two cars! You also realize that 326 HP at the wheel of a stock Z28 is in excess of 350 HP at the crank!
Man I know it is the internet and there is no way to verify stuff, but please put down the Kool Aide. These engines are closer in performance numbers than we give them credit for. The LSX series engines so far that I know where not underated from the factory. The only way you can see the numbers you posted is if you were running an LS6 in your car or some later gen motor, not a stock LS1 of that era - 2002. Sorry, Padner, BS!
Man I know it is the internet and there is no way to verify stuff, but please put down the Kool Aide. These engines are closer in performance numbers than we give them credit for. The LSX series engines so far that I know where not underated from the factory. The only way you can see the numbers you posted is if you were running an LS6 in your car or some later gen motor, not a stock LS1 of that era - 2002. Sorry, Padner, BS!
Funny the mustang magaizine did 321rwhp...
10-02-2008, 10:35 PM
#280
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: bentonville, arkansas
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I call the BS Flag for 12.9 @111 MPH for a stoack Camaro. Everyone on the internet has a factory freak stock car! 20 HP difference between an LS1 engine suggests something more is going on between the two cars! You also realize that 326 HP at the wheel of a stock Z28 is in excess of 350 HP at the crank!
Man I know it is the internet and there is no way to verify stuff, but please put down the Kool Aide. These engines are closer in performance numbers than we give them credit for. The LSX series engines so far that I know where not underated from the factory. The only way you can see the numbers you posted is if you were running an LS6 in your car or some later gen motor, not a stock LS1 of that era - 2002. Sorry, Padner, BS!
Man I know it is the internet and there is no way to verify stuff, but please put down the Kool Aide. These engines are closer in performance numbers than we give them credit for. The LSX series engines so far that I know where not underated from the factory. The only way you can see the numbers you posted is if you were running an LS6 in your car or some later gen motor, not a stock LS1 of that era - 2002. Sorry, Padner, BS!
sorry douche, im not your "padner" what ever that is.
dont talk crap on everyone else because you dont have a car. dont you ever try and call me a lair. here is proof 325.6rwhp with NO PERFORMANCE PARTS. even has the stock dirty ac delco air filter! ill get pics of my time slips up this weekend so keep an eye on this thread. im not just one of those guys that goes around lying to sound cool. and yes, ls1's do vary in hp. i have 2 friends that put down around 290hp (in z28's 1999 & 2002), 1 put down 314hp(with slp lid, loudmouth, K&N1999 ws6) , 319hp ( 2001 ss with slp lid & CME), and 307hp (2001 z28 with magnaflow catback) on the same day i dynoed my car!
Last edited by sixpack_2_go; 10-02-2008 at 10:43 PM.