cam ls1 vs gt500 super snake!?!?!
It's pretty damn funny when Irun gets on a roll and makes HiO look like a 6 year old.
01-24-2014, 02:11 PM
#263
TECH Addict
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: N. FL
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right. It wasn't a decade ago. I missed my mark by about 6 months. Still doesn't change the fact that his stock block, stock crank, and truck headed LS engine made the power and ran the number. So in summary, 9.5 years ago he disproved your claim of the LS being incapable. I'm just happy that you need tofocus your attention on my date being off by a few months, rather than the capability of the platform. At least you recognize you were completely wrong there.
In fact, it was November of 2004 when Matt Harlan drove (his) 2000 Firehawk to a very impressive 8.29 @ 170.95mph and it strikes me that Ronnie Duke and company had been the record holders with a best run of 8.52 @ 163mph in 2003. They won their class at the same event where Matt set the latest record and, ironically, soon after that, Ronnie, etc. dropped the LS1 in favor of the C5R block because they had been around 1000hp and their engines kept breaking. That's what they say, not just me.
They did beat Matt's record, but admittedly used the C5R block and then they managed in 2005 to run a 7.94 @ 176. They've gone on to run in the 6.9's or quicker.
Yes, you missed your mark, but not by the 6mo you claim, because you specifically said "over" and that's just never been the case. Wait till this time next year and I think you will be correct.
Besides, I said all along, we're talking about more than 1,200hp... "really serious power" is more than that, as Mustang guys have been over 1,200hp since the 1990's. Those guys were running 7's before 1999, using 351W based engines and 6's in 2001. How many LS1's or 6's have ever RUN 6's...
Now, to put this into proper perspective, take a glance at how many of the quickest 10 "LS" cars actually have LS1 or LS6 engines... Top 50 even. You won't see many.
Sean Hyland and the like were running 7's with the 4.6L in 2002 or sooner. Today, the quickest has nearly run 5's, stock crank, block and heads... Never will we see that with an LS1 or LS6.
I suggest you keep going. Like in the past (I KNOW you remember the spark plug and cam phaser pic 
), I have no problems posting damning evidence against your claims to end the argument.
), I have no problems posting damning evidence against your claims to end the argument.
I find the statement funny, of course, because you're clearly mad about being wrong on the 1200hp LS6 and at having mis-read or otherwise misunderstood what you were trying to dispute.
01-25-2014, 06:58 AM
#264
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record, let's do another recap for the slow people. Here's what I said initially.
Somebody that had graduated high school would recognize that the 300lb figure was specifically for the 5.0. Here's where you first jumped on the 300lb figure for the F-bodies;
To which I replied, again assuming you had at least a GED;
So again, not saying that 4th gens varied by 300lbs. Just that 5.0s did, and F-bodies had similar issues with weight affecting their times between models. I really wish this was in the Smackdown thread. Too bad it isn't though.
Edit: That's beneath me.
Somebody that had graduated high school would recognize that the 300lb figure was specifically for the 5.0. Here's where you first jumped on the 300lb figure for the F-bodies;
To which I replied, again assuming you had at least a GED;
So again, not saying that 4th gens varied by 300lbs. Just that 5.0s did, and F-bodies had similar issues with weight affecting their times between models. I really wish this was in the Smackdown thread. Too bad it isn't though.
Edit: That's beneath me.
