m_liel

At MIR I've seen plenty mid/high 13's out of the "ram-air" LT1s. That's normal for those cars along with the (LT1) Firehawks. Thing is they're so damn rare most don't have the slightest clue about them.

Bitemark46

Helen Keller can get better times than the Starbucks latte, skinny jean wearing, metrosexual d-bag M/T drivers.

Since everyone is posting vids of "stock" cars here is mine with the 12yr stock motor with just tires. Everything else stock. Even had a dead hooker in the trunk from the night before.

Happy Friday Gents! I had a hell of a week.

m_liel

LOL I hear ya.

The truth of the matter is those "magazine" times represent about 99.999999% of what we see in the real world. Rather we choose to admit it or not.

Mike Morris

iTrader: (55)

I believe the 94-95 Cobras had a smaller TB too compared to the 93. The ecm in both were suitable for the trashcan. They added fuel and retarded spark after 4500 for drivetrain reasons says Ford.
Don't put much stock in mag times. Most of them can't drive worth a damn.

That damn LT1 SS they used for the mags back then was a fast fast car!

m_liel

I find its most guys in the real world you can't put too much stock in.

Irunelevens

So with the exception of the LT1 Firehawks and the '96/'97 SS, it seems like even most of the magazine times either have the Cobra ahead of the LT1 F-body by just a smidgen, or they're basically dead even. Which is what quite a few of the people here have been saying the whole time. '96-'98 Cobras and most LT1 F-bodies is a driver's race. '99-'01 Cobras are VERY close to even the LT1 SS cars.

Redfire 03

x1,000,000!

Irunelevens

Then why did you agree with BODUKE when he said this?

Redfire 03

You mean this part?

Cause that's the part I was agreeing with. And it's totally true.














Nice try though.

Redfire 03

Anyone else?

Irunelevens

"Nice try?" It was an honest question. Usually if you only want to talk about/agree with one part of what somebody says, you erase the other parts. Hence why I thought you were agreeing with the whole statement.

Edit: And btw, it obviously wasn't true in this case, considering he was the one in the wrong.

F8L BYT

Then you should have only quoted that part then... I have plenty of friends with lightly bolt on LS1 f-body's that I will get plenty of runs in with this year and I'll be sure to keep you updated on how they go

Redfire 03

Make sure to fill your bottle before you go cause your gonna need it. Oh and this time put it on video.

WhitePhoenix99

iTrader: (12)

Jesus, did this turn into another stock vs stock thread?

It'llrun

After all this, if you still really believe the average stock LT1 4th gen ran 13's, there's nothing left to tell ya... Bear in mind(as others have pointed out, which is why I waited), the average LT1 Camaro wasn't an SS or a Firehawk. It was a standard Z/28, which ran 14.1-3 most often.

The Manalishi

iTrader: (3)

My LT1 car ran better than 13's at 5000 ft.

It'llrun

Well dayum... I'd expect it to run 12's at sea level... too

Sounds like a well modified vehicle, running better than 13's at that altitude.

Redfire 03

So that's y'alls excuse?

It'llrun

It's not an excuse... It's the FACT, ya dummy!

snake95

Well...it really is a good point if you think about it for a second. If that's an "excuse" then nobody should ever be able to say that the 2000 Cobra R was super rare and never seen...either way, it was faster than the F-bodies of 2000. Although it is usually not acknowledged by the uneducated masses that say "Ford couldn't keep up until this time!"

It's similar to the f-body guys who say "See! Ford couldn't make a run of the mill GT, they had to produce a Cobra to compete with F-bodies." (which, off topic, was slower than F-bodies of the same year, anyway).

Not trying to start an argument, I think he was just saying that the cars you saw on the road everyday weren't SS's and Firehawks nearly as much as they were your run of the mill Z/28 for instance...which is a true statement.