2v mustang gt vs ls1
05-29-2016, 10:28 AM
#141
No nawz....or special fuels needed
To know tge math you have to know the variables to go along with the math. If you don't know those then yes your math is easily disproved.
Lol......it didn't even need suspension mods like you. ....or drag springs like you. Talk about shady. I remember you saying they're just lowering springs ll, talk about shady. You kniw all about it.
Reminder guys......poppa coined the term indirect weight reduction to cover up his own efforts
To know tge math you have to know the variables to go along with the math. If you don't know those then yes your math is easily disproved.
Lol......it didn't even need suspension mods like you. ....or drag springs like you. Talk about shady. I remember you saying they're just lowering springs ll, talk about shady. You kniw all about it.
Reminder guys......poppa coined the term indirect weight reduction to cover up his own efforts
They ARE lowering springs. And they helped absolutely ZERO with my 60fts, and I have proof with timeslips before and after to show it. Will they help when I have more power? Most likely. And these " drag springs" handle just like handling springs... no difference in ride.. period.
1.85 60ft on 100% stock springs on Invo street tires
1.82-1.84 average with best of 1.78 60ft on ET streets... yeah.. the springs really helped huh? Or could it be I can launch the car harder without spinning on the ET streets? Hmm...
And efforts? Dude... I put catback on my car, and drag pack. I have not been NEAR a holesaw yet. Those are the only things that reduced the weight on my car.
05-29-2016, 11:32 AM
#144
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
Correct. 2 variables need to be know.
They ARE lowering springs. And they helped absolutely ZERO with my 60fts, and I have proof with timeslips before and after to show it. Will they help when I have more power? Most likely. And these " drag springs" handle just like handling springs... no difference in ride.. period.
1.85 60ft on 100% stock springs on Invo street tires
1.82-1.84 average with best of 1.78 60ft on ET streets... yeah.. the springs really helped huh? Or could it be I can launch the car harder without spinning on the ET streets? Hmm...
And efforts? Dude... I put catback on my car, and drag pack. I have not been NEAR a holesaw yet. Those are the only things that reduced the weight on my car.
They ARE lowering springs. And they helped absolutely ZERO with my 60fts, and I have proof with timeslips before and after to show it. Will they help when I have more power? Most likely. And these " drag springs" handle just like handling springs... no difference in ride.. period.
1.85 60ft on 100% stock springs on Invo street tires
1.82-1.84 average with best of 1.78 60ft on ET streets... yeah.. the springs really helped huh? Or could it be I can launch the car harder without spinning on the ET streets? Hmm...
And efforts? Dude... I put catback on my car, and drag pack. I have not been NEAR a holesaw yet. Those are the only things that reduced the weight on my car.
Just as you are playing off e85 and your tunes right now.
I didn't bring it up you did. But now that you mention it yea poppa 12.4 was a farce.
05-29-2016, 11:50 AM
#145
So they are drag springs.....it doesn't matter if they ride or drive the same and i can guarantee you it would handle quite as well but it likley still handles better than you can drive with a drag pak on. Fact is you played them off as only lowereing springs.
Just as you are playing off e85 and your tunes right now.
And you're still slower. So what was your point?
I didn't bring it up you didr. But now that you mention it yea poppa 12.4 was a farce.
Just as you are playing off e85 and your tunes right now.
And you're still slower. So what was your point?
I didn't bring it up you didr. But now that you mention it yea poppa 12.4 was a farce.
05-29-2016, 12:28 PM
#146
Heres some major flaws in your argument.
You assume the car started at 3500lbs, there are some LS1 fbodies that weigh 3300lbs right out of the factory.
You assume the amount of power its making.
So why don't we see more bolt on 11 second cars? Because people don't know any better.
You assume the car started at 3500lbs, there are some LS1 fbodies that weigh 3300lbs right out of the factory.
You assume the amount of power its making.
So why don't we see more bolt on 11 second cars? Because people don't know any better.
Well appearantly I'm a troll that backs his **** up because i have proof of what i have either done or helped others do.........what have you done besides get on here and say what can't be done?
Those cars are all pretty bad examples. Why don't you search youtube for some good examples? I'm sure some popped up in your search and you just cherry pucked the bad ones.
My own car went 13.5@108 (like a 2.2x 60)in august heat. I did 2 mods and ran it again with like a 2.1~ and went 13.0@109. Free mods, udp and shitty mac headers w/ory and shitty spec clutch because i broke the oe clutch and it went 12.6 at nearly 113.....on the stock wheels, stock cat back, stock gear, stock tune, stock ls1 intake and no dr
Another a friend had i drove to 13.0@109 it had a cut out and lid only. Strange part on that run is i wasn't sure i had it in 4th si i pulled it out and stuck it back to make sure......that was my only run and it had a stock shifter so i wasn't used to it. Next run no doubt 12s.
I have been
Seems i have been done well with duplicating these outstanding results........maybe you just don't know what you think.
Those cars are all pretty bad examples. Why don't you search youtube for some good examples? I'm sure some popped up in your search and you just cherry pucked the bad ones.
My own car went 13.5@108 (like a 2.2x 60)in august heat. I did 2 mods and ran it again with like a 2.1~ and went 13.0@109. Free mods, udp and shitty mac headers w/ory and shitty spec clutch because i broke the oe clutch and it went 12.6 at nearly 113.....on the stock wheels, stock cat back, stock gear, stock tune, stock ls1 intake and no dr
Another a friend had i drove to 13.0@109 it had a cut out and lid only. Strange part on that run is i wasn't sure i had it in 4th si i pulled it out and stuck it back to make sure......that was my only run and it had a stock shifter so i wasn't used to it. Next run no doubt 12s.
I have been
Seems i have been done well with duplicating these outstanding results........maybe you just don't know what you think.
What's completely hilarious about this is your double standards. If someone posts up a ford that runs completely unrealistic times, you completely lose your mind, screaming about how it can't be done. It's stock proved that with his buddy's cobra.
05-29-2016, 12:43 PM
#147
10 Second Club
No, it does not lie. There are many calculators online available. Those calculators use a formula to find the missing numbers to plug in. You have raceweight, trap speed over distance, and horsepower. You can find all 3 values with 2 known numbers. Yall are trying to disprove math..... can't be done.
05-29-2016, 12:52 PM
#148
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
And you'reright. .....on the street it would look bad for the gn. Been there done that.
You just further proved my points, thanks. I'm not debating that a bolt on LS1 can run 11's, I am debating that an untuned LS6 intake, UDP, MAF, stock manifold, 3.73 car ran 11's@116. Every example you posted had a lot more bolt on's, including LT headers and still ran a slower trap speed.
Again, no question that you can hit 11's with a bolt on car. Yes, I am assuming the power it made based in the information given. In fact, I probably over estimated the HP, just to stay on the safe side. That car probably came from the factory with 300RWP and those mods might pick up 20RWP.
You don't have any proof, only your words, and considering that you think an LS6 is a replacement stock motor, your credibility is lacking. As for the youtube, I typed in "LS1 1/4 mile". Not cherry picking either, I passed over some cam and 6 psi turbo cars that ran high 11's@120 range, but no minor bolt on cars that ran 11's@116.
What's completely hilarious about this is your double standards. If someone posts up a ford that runs completely unrealistic times, you completely lose your mind, screaming about how it can't be done. It's stock proved that with his buddy's cobra.
Again, no question that you can hit 11's with a bolt on car. Yes, I am assuming the power it made based in the information given. In fact, I probably over estimated the HP, just to stay on the safe side. That car probably came from the factory with 300RWP and those mods might pick up 20RWP.
You don't have any proof, only your words, and considering that you think an LS6 is a replacement stock motor, your credibility is lacking. As for the youtube, I typed in "LS1 1/4 mile". Not cherry picking either, I passed over some cam and 6 psi turbo cars that ran high 11's@120 range, but no minor bolt on cars that ran 11's@116.
What's completely hilarious about this is your double standards. If someone posts up a ford that runs completely unrealistic times, you completely lose your mind, screaming about how it can't be done. It's stock proved that with his buddy's cobra.
you with more 11sec ones. The great part is if you read the threads there are even more 11sec ones that posted in there.On top of that hammers 7.3 is easily a mid 11 car. Mike morris went 11.7x in his.
The proof is that i can repeat it. And saying the ls6 is a replacement adds to my credibility because I'm not saying it's some sick nasty swap. It literally bolts in and runs with no changes.
Up until 2011 all the n/a furds were sad by comparison. Just the way it is. If one did run hard it still likely never left the 12s. So now you are backing that junk while trying to discredit the hard running ls stuff.
Yes you have been made my bitch
Last edited by HioSSilver; 05-29-2016 at 01:12 PM.
05-29-2016, 01:29 PM
#149
There us no debating what the car did or it's mods. They are what they are. It's funny you posted those knowing they were poor showings then jd
you with more 11sec ones. The great part is if you read the threads there are even more 11sec ones that posted in there.On top of that hammers 7.3 is easily a mid 11 car. Mike morris went 11.7x in his.
The proof is that i can repeat it. And saying the ls6 is a replacement adds to my credibility because I'm not saying it's some sick nasty swap. It literally bolts in and runs with no changes.
Up until 2011 all the n/a furds were sad by comparison. Just the way it is. If one did run hard it still likely never left the 12s. So now you are backing that junk while trying to discredit the hard running ls stuff.
Yes you have been made my bitch
If you can repeat it, please do.
Not trying to discredit a hard running LS1, and I'm not comparing to a ford. I am calling bullshit that an LS1 car can run that hard with next to no mods. Nice try at deflecting it though.
Until you can come up with another car that runs that hard with so few mods, it looks to me like you're the bitch.
05-29-2016, 01:53 PM
#151
Again, I know what the LS1 community likes to consider a bolt on. I've seen the fast list and no where else is a stall converter and TH400 considered a "bolt on" car.
The LS guys consider a stall converter a bolt on, because they are slow as ***** without one. Just like the mustang guys consider gears a bolt on because they are slow as ***** without one.
Stalls, gears, and rockers are pretty much a grey area, depending on who you talk to.
That's a completely different argument though and a whole new can of worms.
I am saying that it's impossible for an LS1 Fbody with 3.73's, an LS6 intake, and some UDP's to run 11.96@116.
The LS guys consider a stall converter a bolt on, because they are slow as ***** without one. Just like the mustang guys consider gears a bolt on because they are slow as ***** without one.
Stalls, gears, and rockers are pretty much a grey area, depending on who you talk to.
That's a completely different argument though and a whole new can of worms.
I am saying that it's impossible for an LS1 Fbody with 3.73's, an LS6 intake, and some UDP's to run 11.96@116.
05-29-2016, 02:06 PM
#154
05-29-2016, 02:10 PM
#156
05-29-2016, 02:17 PM
#158
I don't think anyone cares about 14sec cars from 1986.
And you'reright. .....on the street it would look bad for the gn. Been there done that.
There us no debating what the car did or it's mods. They are what they are. It's funny you posted those knowing they were poor showings then jd you with more 11sec ones. The great part is if you read the threads there are even more 11sec ones that posted in there.
On top of that hammers 7.3 is easily a mid 11 car. Mike morris went 11.7x in his.
The proof is that i can repeat it. And saying the ls6 is a replacement adds to my credibility because I'm not saying it's some sick nasty swap. It literally bolts in and runs with no changes.
Up until 2011 all the n/a furds were sad by comparison. Just the way it is. If one did run hard it still likely never left the 12s. So now you are backing that junk while trying to discredit the hard running ls stuff.
Yes you have been made my bitch
And you'reright. .....on the street it would look bad for the gn. Been there done that.
There us no debating what the car did or it's mods. They are what they are. It's funny you posted those knowing they were poor showings then jd
you with more 11sec ones. The great part is if you read the threads there are even more 11sec ones that posted in there.On top of that hammers 7.3 is easily a mid 11 car. Mike morris went 11.7x in his.
The proof is that i can repeat it. And saying the ls6 is a replacement adds to my credibility because I'm not saying it's some sick nasty swap. It literally bolts in and runs with no changes.
Up until 2011 all the n/a furds were sad by comparison. Just the way it is. If one did run hard it still likely never left the 12s. So now you are backing that junk while trying to discredit the hard running ls stuff.
Yes you have been made my bitch
I'll give you 1.2 guesses to find out what it is !
