LT/LS Guy

Agreed. Like Redfire pointed out earlier with the LS6 head being slightly smaller at 65cc which raises comp. to about 10.6:1. Could explain the piston swap. That could explain the low dyno numbers. Then such a small cam. its obvious the prev. owners intentions were to run boost. I wonder what the CR is now?

Irunelevens

I know LS6s are very strong engines, but a GREAT trap speed for a stock C5 Z06 would be 119-120mph. So where did you pick up an extra ~5mph in a heavier F-body? Are your bolt-ons just that effective?
Edit: Just in case it sounds like I'm doubting what's done to your car, know that I'm not at all. I guess you just have a combo that really works well.
Makes sense

brians91formula

iTrader: (12)

A friend of mine has full exhaust, cold air intake, and tune. He only put down 425rwhp.

Just throwing that out there..

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

Thanks. It's been a evolution in finding the right parts and tinkering. My SS is light @ 3100, actually a little less now since I ran last. It is still a complete car with all creature comforts (even airbags but their about to go)and sounddeadening and is my DD. I just like to optimise setups. It would probally go faster with a better 60' but with the 10 bolt and 6sp it's tuff. I want to see it go 10 before I take it out and put the ls7 in. I've been foolin with this car for 12 yrs and engine for 9 yrs.

redbird555

iTrader: (14)

Thats what Ive seen mostly too either 411 is a little high or headers dont do squat on these cars which i doubt lol.
What did the car run at full weight with just the ls6 and bolt ons? I think that is a good representation of what this car should run

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

11.80@119.8 on 18's no dr and poopy mac headers

Sticks n Stones

Did everyone and their brother miss the fact that the OP listed the camaro as a 1995 with LS6 heads/cam? Kinda hard to put LS heads on a LT1!


All you guys were so busy either raving on the 5.0 or defending a LS6 that you missed that. tsk tsk, what is happening to the kill section when not a single regular catches such a blatant typo? lol

2000SS1979

iTrader: (16)

Impressive catch! typo fixed.

It'llrun

Heh... Yeah well... The title said '98, the vid said '98, car looks like a '98, the swap stuff is LS, both are members here and active in the thread... NOPE... Didn't catch it! Someone probably noted and didn't care.

Most of us probably just played the video. That's what I did.

MillsMotorvation

HHHHMMMMM may have my work cut out for me, but I still say a stock Grandnational will smoke you. Those 5.0s are strong for sure."The force is strong with you"

It'llrun

A stock GN will smoke what? That, I'm not sure of, but if you're thinking it will smoke either a 98 SS or a new 5L, I think YOU are already smoking something!

A GN-X would show a good effort, but a stock regular GN would have almost no chance in a drag race, let alone handling contest. Great for what it is, it's no competition for most of todays "sports oriented" cars.

TORCHD 02 TA

iTrader: (39)

I wanna try

Good races

itsslow98

iTrader: (18)

minimal mods on a GN would smoke about 90% of todays sports oriented cars from a dig on the street without a doubt. try it out and let me know how it goes for you.

and btw the GNX werent a whole lot faster then regular GNs.

It'llrun

I'm well aware of their potential. That potential isn't stock once implemented. I'm not too concerned w/ most GN's. It isn't like the majority are 9 second cars. Btw, you need a 200-4r for one? I don't need mine anymore.

Yes they were. When I raced "the family cruiser" it ran 14.40's stock. A real GN-X would nail 13.4's with a good driver with no trouble. No amount of great driver was going to get close to that in an otherwise stock standard production GN. The X was simply all by itself in its class and romped on even the Corvette back then, at least in a drag race.

LT/LS Guy

I wouldn't put a G/N as being that slow now. lol A decent launch should get one in the 14.0-range. But your right about the X being much faster. Atleast by a 1/2 second in the quarter with all things being equal.

It'llrun

Well... The one I drove to the track and raced wasn't any quicker stock, and I've seen at least 50 orhers that weren't. I have read that some ran as quick as 13.8, which I never really believed because I honestly never saw a factory stock one break into the 14.10's. I saw a few run .20's. Ours was an '86 though... I should add, I'm just talkin' about 1 track, back when it wasn't such a good track.

Still, the GN-X would easily outrun the base version right up to its speed limiter. I've seen those "at work" and they were quite impressive. Any intercooled GN is, really. It's not as heavy as it looks, but it is more powerful than it looks.The X though... In 1987, those ET's were unheard of in any American vehicle.

Today, a well driven stock SS or M- GT will easily beat the GN-X, quite frankly and when those two finish their quarter mile, they'e all over the limited speed governer of the X. So... it would simply never catch up.

GN's were great, but that was then and today they just haven't a prayer against these new pony cars unless they're modified.

LT/LS Guy

The '87 GN's got a bump of about 10-15rwhp. They were rated 245 at the fly (vs. 235 for '86). Ive seen them go high 13s/14-flat all day on numerous occasion. The lighter "WE4" Turbo T was even quicker.

They weren't too on the light side either. A base WE4 coupe weighed in at just under 3500 while a fully loaded GN sat right at 3800.

Irunelevens

Buddy of mine has a lightly modded GORGEOUS '87 GN. I'll ask him if he has any pictures.

FryZ71

Still not too bad considering they were body-on-frame construction and were all metal...even the bumpers.

One of my friends has a few GNs ('86 and a '87), and another has a '86 he's owned since new...with mods they are a blast to drive.

seabass

iTrader: (1)

get some 4.10's and run him for 100 lol