Street Racing & Kill Stories Basic Technical Questions & Advice

Bolt-on A6 Coyote vs Stock A6 C7

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-07-2014, 04:47 PM
  #141  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
"MAC"'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Irunelevens

It was 375hp till '93, then got a bump to 405hp. I know all about C4s, and the original ZR1 is one of my absolute favorite cars... But the engine wasn't engineered or made by GM, and there weren't any 350hp or 400hp "options." That's what I was getting at. It sounded/looked like he just skimmed over a Wikipedia page and regurgitated something.
Lol wrong just because you don't remember something doesn't mean you looked at wiki dumbass! Hell i was 1 year old when the Lt5 Zr1 came out but great thing is my dad has always loved vettes and vipers. I learned a lot bout vettes from him. And he has had a lot of them. Personally i dont think they even look that good or even worth the asking price that they are going for. Its hard for me to spend 27k (thats the last one ive seen) on a 25yr car. When i can easily buy a c5 and do a hell of a lot more with it.
Old 05-07-2014, 05:35 PM
  #142  
***Repost Police***
 
Irunelevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by "MAC"
It was standard with 385hp and they built a more performance one with 405hp... idk why thats hard to understand... also yes Lotus did engineer it and Mercury built it but still doesnt matter bc GM had a 350hp or 400hp ohc engine long before Ford caught up...
Originally Posted by "MAC"
Lol wrong just because you don't remember something doesn't mean you looked at wiki dumbass! Hell i was 1 year old when the Lt5 Zr1 came out but great thing is my dad has always loved vettes and vipers. I learned a lot bout vettes from him. And he has had a lot of them. Personally i dont think they even look that good or even worth the asking price that they are going for. Its hard for me to spend 27k (thats the last one ive seen) on a 25yr car. When i can easily buy a c5 and do a hell of a lot more with it.
You obviously don't know a whole lot about them...because you're still wrong. They didn't build a "more performance one" with 405hp. The '90-'92 cars had 375hp, and the '93-'95 cars had 405hp. Stop talking about things you don't know about.
Old 05-07-2014, 05:48 PM
  #143  
Staging Lane
 
snake95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rent Free in Hio's Mind
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by "MAC"
Lmao just stop dude. This is one of those times when people dismiss your posts because you've passed full retard. You're also uneducated on the LT5. Lotus, skip. Lotus. GM didn't engineer that engine.
Im retarded and yet gm had an ohc engine car that took ford 2 decades to catch up on? Lol yup sounds bout right...[/QUOTE]
Yes you're a ******* moron because you still haven't grasped that GM didn't design the LT5.

The funniest part is that sometimes, it appears as if you actually think you're smart. Then it just takes a small topic like OHC engines to how how you're...just...not.

OHC engines have been around before the LT5 and Ford 4.6, skip.
Old 05-07-2014, 05:49 PM
  #144  
Banned
 
automach1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: South MS
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by "MAC"
Compared to the 4.6 ya id say so
4.6 Has been 6s so no.

Originally Posted by Puck
People using peak HP and HP/L are just proving that they know nothing about racing.

Average power is what makes a car ET, and the LS3 has the 5.0 beat by 15-20hp alllllll through the RPM range. Being lighter, cheaper, easier to build, responding better to mods, making more power, and being physically smaller are all just added icing on the cake .

5.0 is a great engine, and probably Fords best for a long time, but its no LS3. If it wasn't so damn expensive and complicated to build then it would be a much harder decision.
Yea because we all know the 5.0 has no power band what so ever Evan just made 475 where are these 475whp sae ls3 Bolton cars? Stop drinking the cool aid
Old 05-07-2014, 06:30 PM
  #145  
Teching In
 
Gt4urass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Orlando
Posts: 5
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Buzzmanb12
Being the grammar ****, you should ensure that you're practicing what you preach.

FORD trolls, this is a GM biased forum. What else do you blue tie guys expect to see on a site that has LS1 in its title? The coyote is the baddest motor on the planet? Get real.

Carry on!
Touché. That was my bad. This an automotive enthusiast forum...looks like I'm not the only "****" on the site, elitist *****.
Old 05-07-2014, 07:32 PM
  #146  
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (17)
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,152
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by automach1
4.6 Has been 6s so no.



Yea because we all know the 5.0 has no power band what so ever Evan just made 475 where are these 475whp sae ls3 Bolton cars? Stop drinking the cool aid
"475" hp but didn't it not run the number? Not taking anything away from him since it's an awesome car and well thought out, but I wouldn't be surprised if the dyno was just a bit optimistic. Not his fault of course...

Unlike you in your fairy tale world I need more then one car and one dyno to pass judgement on a car.

Not being motor biased, there are claimed 430-440 rwhp LT1s that ET worse and trapped 1-2mph better then my 350rwhp build. Yea the auto ET better, but trap speed doesn't lie.

That being said, that same old 350rwhp LT1 also ran quicker then your million hp GT500 too so who knows .
Old 05-07-2014, 07:36 PM
  #147  
10 Second Club
 
big hammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: over dere
Posts: 3,428
Received 153 Likes on 105 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Puck
"475" hp but didn't it not run the number? Not taking anything away from him since it's an awesome car and well thought out, but I wouldn't be surprised if the dyno was just a bit optimistic. Not his fault of course...

Unlike you in your fairy tale world I need more then one car and one dyno to pass judgement on a car.

Not being motor biased, there are claimed 430-440 rwhp LT1s that ET worse and trapped 1-2mph better then my 350rwhp build. Yea the auto ET better, but trap speed doesn't lie.

That being said, that same old 350rwhp LT1 also ran quicker then your million hp GT500 too so who knows .

lol remember when automach posted a vid of his run cut off half way through then posted someone else timeslip?

that was good times.
Old 05-07-2014, 07:39 PM
  #148  
Teching In
 
Iliac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Central NC
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Johnnystock
My SS 5th gen full weight with 3/4 gas tank is 3780lbs, just saying. 3900lbs is the worst weight Ive ever heard for this car.
Chevrolet disagrees with you sir.
Old 05-07-2014, 08:35 PM
  #149  
Banned
 
automach1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: South MS
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Puck
"475" hp but didn't it not run the number? Not taking anything away from him since it's an awesome car and well thought out, but I wouldn't be surprised if the dyno was just a bit optimistic. Not his fault of course...

Unlike you in your fairy tale world I need more then one car and one dyno to pass judgement on a car.

Not being motor biased, there are claimed 430-440 rwhp LT1s that ET worse and trapped 1-2mph better then my 350rwhp build. Yea the auto ET better, but trap speed doesn't lie.

That being said, that same old 350rwhp LT1 also ran quicker then your million hp GT500 too so who knows .
Pretty sure his dyno is anything but optimistic as cam ls3s have made less power on it IIRC. Fairy tale world yea sure buddy

What did this 350whp lt turd run? Remember trap speed doesn't lie

Originally Posted by big hammer
lol remember when automach posted a vid of his run cut off half way through then posted someone else timeslip?

that was good times.
Apple did not fall far from the tree. You sound just like your daddy hiho
Old 05-07-2014, 10:22 PM
  #150  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (55)
 
Mike Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Md/PA/FL
Posts: 1,604
Received 61 Likes on 50 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by "MAC"
It was standard with 385hp and they built a more performance one with 405hp... idk why thats hard to understand... also yes Lotus did engineer it and Mercury built it but still doesnt matter bc GM had a 350hp or 400hp ohc engine long before Ford caught up...
Wrong. 375HP was the older ones and 405 were the 93 and up ones like Greg said. The change is mostly due to different heads being used. Those cars are monsters and what is scary about them is they are way undergeared. I can get one to go high 11s on drag radials with basically a prom,degreed cams,full exhaust,ram air and gears. There were no options on those cars. They didn't sell well due to the price and the fact like they looked like a base car.

An LT4 Vette is a good fight for one stock to stock though in the 1/4 mile. The LT5 will pull it up top. LT5 will pull an LS6 up top too(higher speeds). Again its just undergeared. Like Greg I love them. I would love to do another one. I found one for 11 grand I am thinking about...


Islander is right about the new LT1-some have been wiping out cams. Ouch

Last edited by Mike Morris; 05-07-2014 at 10:29 PM.
Old 05-07-2014, 11:14 PM
  #151  
***Repost Police***
 
Irunelevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

I would love to eventually have one, but I would need a house with a nice garage... Cuz when (not if) it needs work done on/to it, I'm damn sure not paying someone else if it's something I can do. The "Corvette tax" on those things is nuckin' futs.
Old 05-07-2014, 11:31 PM
  #152  
TECH Addict
iTrader: (6)
 
Johnnystock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,675
Received 38 Likes on 25 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Iliac
Chevrolet disagrees with you sir.
I guess you are talking about the ZL1, but with the beefed up drivetrain, its normal and worth it (it is still too heavy). ZL1 is a beast and its very fast on a road track stock and at the drag with minor boltons(low 11s).

Anyway, plp are talking like all 5th gen weights a ton more than GTs, but its not that bad, considering it has bigger wheels, biggers brakes all around and IRS!!

Lets wait till we see the new Mustang weight with all the same goodies the 5th gen has right now. Plp thinking its gonna be lighter by 400lbs are living in a dream. Even 200lbs is almost impossible. I hope its gonna wait less anyway. Its gonna be badass, even if it weights 100lbs more!

Last edited by Johnnystock; 05-07-2014 at 11:55 PM.
Old 05-08-2014, 12:04 AM
  #153  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
"MAC"'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by snake95
Yes you're a ******* moron because you still haven't grasped that GM didn't design the LT5.

The funniest part is that sometimes, it appears as if you actually think you're smart. Then it just takes a small topic like OHC engines to how how you're...just...not.

OHC engines have been around before the LT5 and Ford 4.6, skip.
whats even more hilarious is you cant seem to grasp the part where i said GM PRODUCED A CAR WITH A OHC ENGINE IN WHICH IT TOOK FORD 2 DECADES TO CATCH UP...also the ohc engine was produce in the early 1900s yes also i new Lotus engineered it bc GM asked them too and Mercury built it. Kinda like them 8100 engines they are built buy a marine boat company but GM used them in the Avalanche
Old 05-08-2014, 12:07 AM
  #154  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
"MAC"'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Irunelevens

You obviously don't know a whole lot about them...because you're still wrong. They didn't build a "more performance one" with 405hp. The '90-'92 cars had 375hp, and the '93-'95 cars had 405hp. Stop talking about things you don't know about.
So the 93 to 95 wouldn't be considered more performance? It has more power...which usually means they probably also upgraded other things as well kinda like the difference in the 2000 Z06 and 04 Z06...
Old 05-08-2014, 12:08 AM
  #155  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
"MAC"'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by automach1
Originally Posted by "MAC"
Compared to the 4.6 ya id say so
4.6 Has been 6s so no.

Yea because we all know the 5.0 has no power band what so ever Evan just made 475 where are these 475whp sae ls3 Bolton cars? Stop drinking the cool aid
Gm has an ls engine running low 6s as well
Old 05-08-2014, 12:11 AM
  #156  
***Repost Police***
 
Irunelevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by "MAC"
So the 93 to 95 wouldn't be considered more performance? It has more power...which usually means they probably also upgraded other things as well kinda like the difference in the 2000 Z06 and 04 Z06...
The way you phrased it, the base ZR1 was 350hp, and the "upgraded one" was 400hp. And there was no '00 Z06. Jesus man, shut up.
Old 05-08-2014, 12:13 AM
  #157  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
"MAC"'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by big hammer

lol remember when automach posted a vid of his run cut off half way through then posted someone else timeslip?

that was good times.
Lol dont forget that amazing burnout!!!
Old 05-08-2014, 12:23 AM
  #158  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
"MAC"'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Irunelevens
Originally Posted by "MAC"
So the 93 to 95 wouldn't be considered more performance? It has more power...which usually means they probably also upgraded other things as well kinda like the difference in the 2000 Z06 and 04 Z06...
The way you phrased it, the base ZR1 was 350hp, and the "upgraded one" was 400hp. And there was no '00 Z06. Jesus man, shut up.
Wow are you to dumb to realize that my point still stands and is a good solid point? 90 zr1 had 375bhp and it wasnt until 2011 until ford came out with a ohc mustang with more power than that. NA of course not the 03 to 04 cobras. So if chevy had an engine with that kinda power why couldn't Ford do it until 21 years later?

And omg the world is gonna end because i was off by one ******* year on the c5 z06 lol either way the differences between the 01 z06 and the 04 z06 is more than just an engine upgrade, which should still make sense with the 90s zr1.
Old 05-08-2014, 12:33 AM
  #159  
***Repost Police***
 
Irunelevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

You are stupid and stubborn, which is a dangerous combination. And the '00 Cobra R had 385hp, btw. So no, your point does not stand.
Old 05-08-2014, 08:39 AM
  #160  
Staging Lane
 
snake95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rent Free in Hio's Mind
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes on 30 Posts

Default

Mac, GM can take as much credit for the LT5 as big hammer can take credit for Lance Armstrong walking on the moon.


Quick Reply: Bolt-on A6 Coyote vs Stock A6 C7



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:28 AM.