Notices
Street Racing & Kill Stories Basic Technical Questions & Advice

1994 ZR1 vs 2000 Camaro

 
Old 03-28-2019, 02:23 PM
  #41  
TECH Resident
 
ChopperDoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 867
Default

Injector info for those with 98-02 PCM's using HPT. Since there isn't a PID listed for it in the older PCM's you can use:

IPW * RPM / 1200

That will give you the percentage, plotted on either the spark or VE axis's. I use spark since you can determine if spark advances did anything by the resulting decrease in PW, since the engine will be making more power, thus running more efficiently if spark is in the right spot. Worth a mention since that came up. Useful info to someone out there.
ChopperDoc is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 02:38 PM
  #42  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
 
HioSSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,117
Default

Seems as tho the sts v and the 03 cobro ran 1/4 in the same times with the caddy being much heavier. So i would say something is off with your whp. 03/04 cobros were known dyno queens tho.
HioSSilver is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 03:56 PM
  #43  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Default

Both of them ran mid 12s?
"MAC" is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 04:34 PM
  #44  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
 
HioSSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,117
Default

Neither ran mid 12s. Low 13s and once in a while a dip into the 12s was on par for both.
HioSSilver is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 04:46 PM
  #45  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (55)
 
Mike Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Md/PA/FL
Posts: 1,497
Default

Originally Posted by MACHXLR8 View Post
Nice runs. I always wondered how well an older ZR1 would run against something a little more modern. My neighbor (ex military; older guy) has one. I asked for a run but he is not into the street race thing. I know if I catch him out driving around though, he will get on it. They are impressive cars for sure but I think the biggest problems is getting parts for them (expensive) or finding someone who can still work on them. That is usually the topic of conversation when we shoot the ****.
Originally Posted by HioSSilver View Post
They could run into the 12s stock. From what i have read it didn't take much to make them really get it on.

Those cars can run low 13s to high 12s depending on air and where the cams are positioned. MPH anywhere from 108-113. Keep in mind they never get out of third gear. They can hit high 170s top end. Exhaust,gears and a tune(prom) and they are capable of 118-120MPH. Their top end is pretty impressive
Mike Morris is online now  
Old 03-28-2019, 04:51 PM
  #46  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
 
Chris25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 690
Default

I'd rather have the termi over the caddy unless it's a ctsv.
Chris25 is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 04:53 PM
  #47  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
 
HioSSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,117
Default

You gonna have to have a pulley for 118-120. They came with 3.55 gears and were very much in 4th at the end of the qtr. If anything they kinda laid down in 4th a bit from what i have seen......and were known to blow up on long 5th gear pulls.

I would rather have the cobro to. But if you're a fella wanting a sporty large 4door luxury sedan with a auto then the sts v wasn't a bad choice in that era.
HioSSilver is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 05:24 PM
  #48  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (55)
 
Mike Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Md/PA/FL
Posts: 1,497
Default

I was talking about the ZR-1 Hio. Not Terminator. Terminator was slower stock to stock
Mike Morris is online now  
Old 03-28-2019, 05:44 PM
  #49  
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: chattanooga Tn
Posts: 1,352
Default

Originally Posted by HioSSilver View Post
Neither ran mid 12s. Low 13s and once in a while a dip into the 12s was on par for both.
Huh cause the fastest ls1 camaro ran 12s and you claim they run 12s so using that logic the termi ran mid 12s so it's definitely a mod 12s car stock but for this argument you gonna play stupid and say they don't run 12s ok hypocrite.
"MAC" is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:15 PM
  #50  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
 
HioSSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,117
Default

Originally Posted by Mike Morris View Post
I was talking about the ZR-1 Hio. Not Terminator. Terminator was slower stock to stock
Oh ok.....yea the zr1 was no doubt in 3rd.
Originally Posted by "MAC" View Post
Huh cause the fastest ls1 camaro ran 12s and you claim they run 12s so using that logic the termi ran mid 12s so it's definitely a mod 12s car stock but for this argument you gonna play stupid and say they don't run 12s ok hypocrite.
Stfu dumbass. You're really just a dumb bitch. They shoulda left you bant.
HioSSilver is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:18 PM
  #51  
8 Second Club
 
islander033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Crossfield, AB
Posts: 154
Default

HOC rages hard when caught saying dumb stuff.

Mac ftw!
islander033 is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:20 PM
  #52  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
 
HioSSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,117
Default

Oh look mac's daddy. I'm sure you're proud of him
HioSSilver is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:42 PM
  #53  
Staging Lane
 
snake95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rent Free in Hio's Mind
Posts: 80
Default

Hio gets real mad when people point out how the 03-04 Cobras raped f-bodies when both were stock, and when bolt ons started, it got uglier for the f-body
snake95 is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:53 PM
  #54  
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 325
Default

Originally Posted by HioSSilver View Post
Seems as tho the sts v and the 03 cobro ran 1/4 in the same times with the caddy being much heavier. So i would say something is off with your whp. 03/04 cobros were known dyno queens tho.
Originally Posted by HioSSilver View Post
Neither ran mid 12s. Low 13s and once in a while a dip into the 12s was on par for both.
Eh no. [email protected] is the best the STS-V did, the Cobra did a best of [email protected], both were car and driver. Then you look at the XLR-V, which is nearly the same weight as the Cobra, which did a best of [email protected] So, same trap speed, same weight, and slightly better ET, likely due to the auto, but claimed 50HP better.
JC316 is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 08:00 PM
  #55  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
 
HioSSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,117
Default

They didn't really...only slightly faster. And it took the 03 cobro a supercharger and steeper gears to get that .2-.3.....along with a extra a cost of a extra $12k. Mac is just a dumbass and deserves to be treated like one.
HioSSilver is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 08:02 PM
  #56  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
 
HioSSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,117
Default

Originally Posted by JC316 View Post
Eh no. [email protected] is the best the STS-V did, the Cobra did a best of [email protected], both were car and driver. Then you look at the XLR-V, which is nearly the same weight as the Cobra, which did a best of [email protected] So, same trap speed, same weight, and slightly better ET, likely due to the auto, but claimed 50HP better.
So like i said the 4.4 accelerated the car better.....thanks for confirming.
HioSSilver is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 09:05 PM
  #57  
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 325
Default

Originally Posted by HioSSilver View Post
So like i said the 4.4 accelerated the car better.....thanks for confirming.
Actually you said 4.6l made more power than the ford 4.6L which was proven wrong, not that you'd ever admit it. .2 better ET can easily be explained by the auto vs stick, and identical trap speeds.
JC316 is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 09:09 PM
  #58  
Staging Lane
 
snake95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rent Free in Hio's Mind
Posts: 80
Default

No the 4.4s were dogs that leaked and couldn't stay on the road long enough to complete a 1/4 mile pass. Those motors were complete ******* junk. Idc if they ran 10s from the factory, they were a garbage design.
snake95 is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 09:37 PM
  #59  
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
 
HioSSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,117
Default

Originally Posted by JC316 View Post
Actually you said 4.6l made more power than the ford 4.6L which was proven wrong, not that you'd ever admit it. .2 better ET can easily be explained by the auto vs stick, and identical trap speeds.
Big deal dude...i meant the supercharged version. So no i wasn't proven wrong.

The only way you believe that the .2 is because auto on those cars is because you can't drive a stick. I'm not one that believes a auto is faster. The mustangs of that era were much much slower with a auto.
HioSSilver is offline  
Old 03-28-2019, 09:44 PM
  #60  
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 325
Default

Originally Posted by HioSSilver View Post
Big deal dude...i meant the supercharged version. So no i wasn't proven wrong.

The only way you believe that the .2 is because auto on those cars is because you can't drive a stick. I'm not one that believes a auto is faster. The mustangs of that era were much much slower with a auto.
You said 4.6L, you were wrong. The 6L80 is a hell of a long way from a 4R70W.
JC316 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: