Just raced a fast EVO8
03-06-2006, 06:26 PM
#41
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STi:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=660382
A shade past 230 at the wheels peak, and its pretty flat and progressive note also crap tacular the tune was in stock form.
LS1:
http://www.ericohlsen.com/FBODY/CamaroDyno.jpg
At just over 2000 your at about 100wtq.
So unless you idle at about 2500RPM, your wrong.
Do LS1s have more torque? Yes. Do they make it sooner in the rev band? Yes. Are you correct in what you said? No. Not by long shot.
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=660382
A shade past 230 at the wheels peak, and its pretty flat and progressive note also crap tacular the tune was in stock form.
LS1:
http://www.ericohlsen.com/FBODY/CamaroDyno.jpg
At just over 2000 your at about 100wtq.
So unless you idle at about 2500RPM, your wrong.
Do LS1s have more torque? Yes. Do they make it sooner in the rev band? Yes. Are you correct in what you said? No. Not by long shot.
03-06-2006, 09:52 PM
#42
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Norwich, NY
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wesmanw02
Gotta love that, those S/C Buicks are quick cars 
I'm assuming that he ran the Evo from a roll?? From a dig he probably would have got killed pretty bad, from a roll though a stock Evo isn't much of anything.
I'm assuming that he ran the Evo from a roll?? From a dig he probably would have got killed pretty bad, from a roll though a stock Evo isn't much of anything.
yeah he saw the evo heading up the road so flew to catch up to him, the evo was gonig about 60 they came up to a passing zone my brother pulled out and you could see the evo was struggling to get the boost up, haha. The following week i was driving the regal and saw the evo again, he knew this time so he rode my *** all the way home. I slowed down to about 30 around a sharp corner laid on it in 2nd gear and pulled about 2 car lengths on him. He had to wait for the power to come on.
From a stop the regal is hard to get going, even in 2nd gear it'll spin the tires. It's amazing how quick it is. But still nothing compared to the LS1 in his T/A
03-06-2006, 10:20 PM
#43
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wesmanw02
diambo4life - I'm glad you think thats so hilarious. Too bad for you its true. It figures you'd try and laugh it off, being that you drive a 4-cylinder Eclipse
I was not "laughing it off." I was laughing at YOU.
How much TQ does a stock LS1 make at idle? This is a chance for you to redeem yourself.
BTW, I don't drive an Eclipse but let's keep my car out of the debate. Justify your statement with data and not unfathomable blatherings.
Last edited by diambo4life; 03-06-2006 at 10:27 PM.
03-06-2006, 11:27 PM
#45
Originally Posted by diambo4life
I was not "laughing it off." I was laughing at YOU.
How much TQ does a stock LS1 make at idle? This is a chance for you to redeem yourself.
03-06-2006, 11:41 PM
#46
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is right in my post. Period. Unless your dynoing more than 230 tq at the wheels on a stock LS1 at idle, your statement earlier was false. At the wheels. Stock. LS1.
03-07-2006, 12:15 AM
#47
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.cranecams.com/?show=streetShark
A bit low for stock #'s IMO, but then so was the STi I posted.
The LS1 simply over-powers the STi. No question. But it does not make more torque at idle than an STi does at peak. If it did, no way STis would perform like they do.
Secondarily (and a bit beside the point now) but IMHO the original statement was that the STi was MORE like the LS1 THAN the Evo. Meaning that it had a torque curve closer to the massive mid-range punch of the F-Body than the peakier Evo. Not so much that it was realy similar to the LS1, just more in that direction. Which I agree with. The STi has 25% more cubes, so natuarly it does beahve a bit more like the LS1 than the 2L Evo. It is correct though that its not like the LS1 in where the power starts. I dont hear much about STi guys launching at like 2500
A bit low for stock #'s IMO, but then so was the STi I posted.
The LS1 simply over-powers the STi. No question. But it does not make more torque at idle than an STi does at peak. If it did, no way STis would perform like they do.
Secondarily (and a bit beside the point now) but IMHO the original statement was that the STi was MORE like the LS1 THAN the Evo. Meaning that it had a torque curve closer to the massive mid-range punch of the F-Body than the peakier Evo. Not so much that it was realy similar to the LS1, just more in that direction. Which I agree with. The STi has 25% more cubes, so natuarly it does beahve a bit more like the LS1 than the 2L Evo. It is correct though that its not like the LS1 in where the power starts. I dont hear much about STi guys launching at like 2500
03-07-2006, 01:36 AM
#49
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wesmanw02
Well you known what?? I'm laughing at you and your riced out DSM. How about that
Heres the dyno chart for the LS2 and LS6. Both make more torque at idle than the STi makes at any RPM. Both the LS2 and LS6 are making around 280ft/lbs at 800RPM. The LS1 has slightly lower numbers, since its not as powerful, but you get the point.
Heres the dyno chart for the LS2 and LS6. Both make more torque at idle than the STi makes at any RPM. Both the LS2 and LS6 are making around 280ft/lbs at 800RPM. The LS1 has slightly lower numbers, since its not as powerful, but you get the point.
I just wanted to make sure you can actually read what you just posted.Don't change the subject and talk about my car. Your opinion of it is irrelevant here. Now, answer the damn question. Are those Chassis dyno numbers? Do you know the BHP output of the STi motor? Nice job there Sherlock. There's nothing as funny as you digging your own grave and choosing the color of the casket to bury yourself in.
So the LSx motor makes 286ft lbs at idle. STi motor is rated at 300ft lbs at 4000rpm. I never knew 286 was > 300. You were wrong, end of story. So STFU already!
Last edited by diambo4life; 03-07-2006 at 01:47 AM.
03-07-2006, 04:11 AM
#50
On The Tree
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yea he was a little off but from seeing all the numbers and looking at my own personal stock dyno sheets...The LS1 ALMOST dose make as much tourque as the STI in it's peak range.
Pretty impressive for the LS1 IMHO..Especially considering it's been around since 1997.
Pretty impressive for the LS1 IMHO..Especially considering it's been around since 1997.
03-07-2006, 06:13 AM
#51
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh its damned impressive. It really shows how vastly different methods can acheive similar end results in different ways. It also shows why stock on stock STis and Evos just do not hang from a roll.
03-07-2006, 09:11 AM
#52
Launching!
Wow, I missed out!!
Well, yes..... I was saying that the STi is MORE LIKE the f-bod than the Evo. I thought I made that clear??. I never said anything about how the STi is the f-bod jap. equilivent. I do find it pretty damn amazing that the FI 4cyl. can compete with a NA V8 monster like the birds or camaros. Maybe you should take a step back and appreciate other fast cars and not just your LSx.
Well, yes..... I was saying that the STi is MORE LIKE the f-bod than the Evo. I thought I made that clear??. I never said anything about how the STi is the f-bod jap. equilivent. I do find it pretty damn amazing that the FI 4cyl. can compete with a NA V8 monster like the birds or camaros. Maybe you should take a step back and appreciate other fast cars and not just your LSx.
03-07-2006, 01:20 PM
#53
Originally Posted by diambo4life
Continue digging your grave even deeper. Are those Chassis dyno numbers? Please tell me they are not. I just wanted to make sure you can actually read what you just posted.
Don't change the subject and talk about my car. Your opinion of it is irrelevant here. Now, answer the damn question. Are those Chassis dyno numbers? Do you know the BHP output of the STi motor? Nice job there Sherlock. There's nothing as funny as you digging your own grave and choosing the color of the casket to bury yourself in.
So the LSx motor makes 286ft lbs at idle. STi motor is rated at 300ft lbs at 4000rpm. I never knew 286 was > 300. You were wrong, end of story. So STFU already!
I just wanted to make sure you can actually read what you just posted.Don't change the subject and talk about my car. Your opinion of it is irrelevant here. Now, answer the damn question. Are those Chassis dyno numbers? Do you know the BHP output of the STi motor? Nice job there Sherlock. There's nothing as funny as you digging your own grave and choosing the color of the casket to bury yourself in.
So the LSx motor makes 286ft lbs at idle. STi motor is rated at 300ft lbs at 4000rpm. I never knew 286 was > 300. You were wrong, end of story. So STFU already!
Yes, they are chassis numbers. Now you have to use some big math here, and you might hurt your little ricer brain, so I don't know if you should even try it. Here it goes:
285 x 15% drivetrain loss = 242.25ft/lbs of torque.
The Sti puts down about 230ft/lbs of torque at its peak, due to the 25% AWD drivetrain loss.
242ft/lbs > 230ft/lbs - Understand?? Its really not that hard for anyone with a brain, of course that would explain why you can't understand it.
03-07-2006, 03:43 PM
#54
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wesmanw02
Dude, you are a toolshed. Yes, I know what I posted, its not my problem if you can't read.
Yes, they are chassis numbers. Now you have to use some big math here, and you might hurt your little ricer brain, so I don't know if you should even try it. Here it goes:
285 x 15% drivetrain loss = 242.25ft/lbs of torque.
The Sti puts down about 230ft/lbs of torque at its peak, due to the 25% AWD drivetrain loss.
242ft/lbs > 230ft/lbs - Understand?? Its really not that hard for anyone with a brain, of course that would explain why you can't understand it.
Yes, they are chassis numbers. Now you have to use some big math here, and you might hurt your little ricer brain, so I don't know if you should even try it. Here it goes:
285 x 15% drivetrain loss = 242.25ft/lbs of torque.
The Sti puts down about 230ft/lbs of torque at its peak, due to the 25% AWD drivetrain loss.
242ft/lbs > 230ft/lbs - Understand?? Its really not that hard for anyone with a brain, of course that would explain why you can't understand it.
Originally Posted by Wesmanw02
An LS1 makes more torque at idle than an STi makes in its entire powerband, its not even comparable.
Last edited by diambo4life; 03-07-2006 at 03:52 PM.
03-07-2006, 06:53 PM
#55
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Arizona.
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wesmanw02
Dude, you are a toolshed. Yes, I know what I posted, its not my problem if you can't read.
Yes, they are chassis numbers. Now you have to use some big math here, and you might hurt your little ricer brain, so I don't know if you should even try it. Here it goes:
285 x 15% drivetrain loss = 242.25ft/lbs of torque.
The Sti puts down about 230ft/lbs of torque at its peak, due to the 25% AWD drivetrain loss.
242ft/lbs > 230ft/lbs - Understand?? Its really not that hard for anyone with a brain, of course that would explain why you can't understand it.
Yes, they are chassis numbers. Now you have to use some big math here, and you might hurt your little ricer brain, so I don't know if you should even try it. Here it goes:
285 x 15% drivetrain loss = 242.25ft/lbs of torque.
The Sti puts down about 230ft/lbs of torque at its peak, due to the 25% AWD drivetrain loss.
242ft/lbs > 230ft/lbs - Understand?? Its really not that hard for anyone with a brain, of course that would explain why you can't understand it.
03-07-2006, 08:01 PM
#57
Originally Posted by diambo4life
You were comparing motor to motor. There is no argument there from the statement quoted above. Regardless, even if you were talking about TQ as measured at the wheels, you should compare 2WD dyno numbers to 2WD dyno numbers to make a legit claim. In this case, it's not possible since the power is put down differently between the 2 cars (2WD v/s AWD). Only fair way to compare the numbers is by chassis dyno numbers. Fact is, you were wrong and didn't expect your statement to have any holes. You are an expert at misdirection though. Nice work Einstein.
Your wrong. We all know it. Either stop posting or admit it. Certanly stop the cheap ricer comments and embarrasing yourself. You posted two (GM provided) dynos of an LS6 and LS2. Nothing on the LS1. Further, your dynos, while imprecise, are more like 275-280, not at all 285 at idle. And guess what? Using your oversimplified math, your looking at 233.75WTQ with 275 at the crank. Why are you tweaking this and that just to make a doomed argument look better? Its a waste of time. Also Note that the dyno I posted is regarded as being a bit of a dog. There are in fact stronger stock dyno numbers posted in that very thread. On top of that, I'd say a 6L LS2 and 405HP LS6 might make just a wee bit more than the stock LS1.
03-08-2006, 05:42 AM
#60
TECH Regular
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sparetire
Oh its damned impressive. It really shows how vastly different methods can acheive similar end results in different ways. It also shows why stock on stock STis and Evos just do not hang from a roll.
Ok stock vs stock an Evo/Sti will lose some top end to an LS1 car, but they are not dead up top like most think. From personal experience, now with $2500 in power mods, an SS, WS6 etc better be running very well to stay close to my Evo. Anyways done with my rant for now