And you can't seem to grasp the fact that 99-04 GTs don't run 13's. They didn't start doing that until 2005.

And if your so set on the fact that they are indeed a "solid" 13-second car why in all this time haven't you taken your GT to the track and proven all of us naysayers wrong?

 

So the magazine times (which is underrated as we both agreed on) 14.0 time was a fluke? With those trap speeds can you not see 13 potential? Hell in my 13s run I didn't even get into the triple digits. Or how about the other thread where not only I, but others had to tell you that your "logic" was faulty? Again, do I have to post quotes?
Who said I hadn't? As a matter of fact I did. I've stated as such. I ran 3 times. The last time was the 13.9 time. And I don't have a ton of track time under my belt. I'm certainly no Evan Smith. WHO btw ran a 13.6 in the 1/4 using a completely stock 2v.

 

Humor me then, find a ton just for me.

Care to take my 3:1 offer? I already have a couple nice examples.

I already answered that, so why do you keep repeating yourself?

Modded times aren't what we are discussing. But if you'd like to, here's local kid. I'd have to ask him his best time, this vid is just for fun (think it's 12.0): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAZx2...eature=related

 

Local guy/shop owner (been on Pinks actually):
https://ls1tech.com/forums/12042834-post3.html

Mod here:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/12670471-post16.html

Possibly the record holder, although no slip makes is sketchy:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/13486125-post34.html

12.9 + a mention on other guys who have done it (NineBall being one):
https://ls1tech.com/forums/12196995-post2.html

Another unproven post, but a claim none the less:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/12199440-post8.html

 

Mine was stock. So was Evans. The fastest known time for a 2v in the 1/4 is 13.5-13.6 The fastest know time for stock LS1s is 12.8 - 12.9

Again proving my about .5 difference comment that started all this.

The difference between a stock 5.0, and a stock LS1 is similar to the difference between a stock 2v and a stock LS1. They are all about .5-7 differences in speed.

 

Bolt-on LS1s can take 5.0s.

Bolt on 2vs can take LS1s

http://forums.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=998283

 

That is SO badass!!! I love seeing close to stock powered cars running hard! That's why I'd love to take the wife's car and put my suspension and tires on it! The slow mo had me LOLing but badass...

 

.................ok? Kind of irrelevant, since we aren't talking about fastest times. Is there a reason you keep bringing up fastest times? Since we need no proof to back up fastest times, one of those guys I posted up ran a 12.7 stock, so that's .9 faster than the fastest 2v stock. But we are talking AVERAGE, not fastest.

What happened to sticking to the .5 second difference? An admission that you were wrong? .5 is being very generous to the 2v, .7 sounds fair (maybe .8 but .7 will suffice).

I assume that wasn't directed at me, since I have not once argued that fact.

 

He's on here, cool kid. A couple years younger than myself and he owns more f-bodies than me. That car ran very hard for what it was. Has a cam in it now, but hasn't dialed the car in yet. 11.4 is the last time I saw from that car.

 

Who gives a flying ****?

 

Actually my statement was that they were about .5 from each other. I was showing that even with their recorded fastest times they were. That was my only point by posting such a thing.
I said about .5

www.rif.org

My point is, the difference between a stock LS1 fbody and a stock 2011 5.0 is about the same as the difference between a stock LS1 fbody and a 2v. And it is.

 

I felt like debating someone, and where better place to nitpick at tiny differences than a SR&K thread.

 

Fixed.

Carry on then.

 

Really Ke^vin? Did I ruffle your feathers or something? Use that on someone who actually needs it.

I like how you use about, to cover your *** in a conversation about drag racing, where "about" 2 tenths either way can be a big deal. If we are going to say about, I'd say its ABOUT a second difference, in both average and fastest times (13.4-14.4 / 12.7-12.6).

Now how about those tons of videos you said you could find? I would LOVE to see them.

 

When I was a teen I had my 99 Cobra at the drag strip running a bolt on LS1 with ET Streets in the rear. I was on 255 all season tires with nothing but catback, x pipe, BBK cai, and a shifter. I ran 13.5 to his 13.1

 

Don't have any feathers to ruffle sugar-****. :-)

And as far as the conversation goes. You can stay in denial all ya want. Not gonna hurt me any.

 

I ran a cammed LS1 on DRs and ran a 12.8 to his 13.1. Plenty of shitty drivers out there.

Edit: I ran the pass after him actually.

 

Nothing for me to be in denial about, just you generalizing things to better suite your argument, that's all.

Why do you keep avoiding my requests for those videos you spoke of? I thought you could find "a ton" of them, so it shouldn't take more than a few clicks. I'm not someone to automatically call BS, so post away.....unless you don't want others calling BS. In that case, PM them. Like I said, I'm dying to see a ton of stock 2v's running 13.7-13.9 all day.

 

ShaWEET! That's all to it... Outstanding performance from an already outstanding car. Good job!

Don't forget the pistons... Not stock. This is a BUILT package. It happens to lack some things regarding what it could become, but this is looking, to me anyway, like the 1st stage of a serious build. With all those things done, surely much is left on the table regarding overall capability... like actually USING the heads to their probable performance level. Swapping pistons is a BIG deal, as we all know... That is, no longer can this be called a bolt on vehicle. I suspect that car is begging for nitrous to show what it knows... just me.

 

I noticed before and left it alone, but since it's been added like 3 times now, I'm curious about something here... How is it the Mustang in this test managed to run 0-100 in 14.1 seconds, but the 1/4 mile came in at 14.0 @100.2?

Going by that article, the car actually took longer to reach 100mph than it did 100.2mph... Makes little sense to me.

Even if a shift was required at the end, this doesn't add up. Seems to me, if they reached the 1/4 in 14.0 at over 100mph, then it also got to 100 quicker than 14.1... What am I missing? Could it be they used "rough data" somewhere... Maybe the tested 0-100-0 and used that mark to deem the 0-100mph time... Each car needed 5.1 seconds to stop once they reached 100, from the looks. The Camaro just got to 100 much quicker.

Side note: One thing that truly stunned me was to see the Dakota R/T stop from 60mph shorter than the F-body. On the other hand, it needed more actual time to stop from 100mph... Inquiring minds want to know...