What are the specs on that cam...I hope it isnt the one on this page

http://www.thunderracing.com/catalog...&vid=8&pcid=51

Is it really 230/244 duration?

THAT IS MASSIVE

 

i hope your joking... cuz even if that is the cam... that aint massive.... at all.... that is a baby cam...

 

ok...it must be the total duration...not the duration at .050.

I am used to the way the ls1 cam are advertised.

.510/.540 lift is a lot bigger than the newer ls1 cams. The 97-98 ls1 cams are almost .500 lift I think...and the later ones are like 47x lift.

Yeah not much difference their.

And that cam is running a 112lsa...and it is an aftermarket cam with more aggressive lobes. You cant even compare that to a stock ls1 cam

How in the hell can you compare a performance camshaft, to a cam that comes stock in a car made for emissions and fuel economy requirements?

You guys are getting pathetic

So now we are comparing a car that had bolt ons-exhaust-and a "small " cam to a bone stock 98 ls1.

Wow...just WOW...I am flattered actually

 

so a bone stock ls1 a4 2.73 gear car traps 108???

right....

a lt1 with the shitty stock heads through a a4 with a 2.73 gear , small cam, no tune trapping 108 is kinnda impressive.

 

Camaro Z28 does have a fast lt1 he lives right by me and we talk all the time. We never argue who has the better car we hang out and talk bs, don't get me wrong I love my ws6 but I know you have to realize I spent a little bit more for my car as well. I agree with one of the original posts a couple pages back. When you spend five thousand for a decent lt1 and put five thousand into bolt ons, cam, heads of course you are going to outrun an ls1. What I am trying to say is that if I could spend five thousand on my car right now what would happen HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

 

on june 3rd we are lining up at the track
on another note the cammed ls1 has abigger cam and longtubes now. gonna run again soon. gonna run him on motor then spray, see how much it helps out

 

It's a pretty radical cam for a stock cube motor. I wouldn't call it massive. But it's definitely not a baby cam.

 

When I was looking for a Fbody, I came across 3 or 4 cars ( black of course ) that I really liked. I had about 9K to spend but I wanted a bike too, so I ended up getting a 5K car.

I looked at an 99 LS1 A4 and they guy wanted almost 10K for the car.

Now, i understand there are many possibilites and different ways of doing things, not to mention the occasional deal or good find.
But for the most part, a newer car with less miles will cost less.

If I was to put all 10K ( Total, thats includes buying the car ) into my Z, it would be an easy 11 second car, maybe even 10's.
No way would I have been to do that for the 99.


On the other hand...
Its possible nowadays to get an LS1 with around 70K-100K miles for around $5000-$7000.
So it goes either way.
What I am saying is that for the most part, the LS1 will cost more because its no doubt a better and faster motor and is easy to get power out off.

But that doesnt make it the best choice in every time, hence my situation.
I pegged my Z the 3rd day I had it and it shot right up to 145 pretty quick.
For a DD thats all I needed, and ive modded it some, but for the most part Im very happy with it, and I am looking forward to my future 02" SLP SS

 

What's that smell? bull

No way in hell a stock LT1 ran 13.3 @ 105. Not happening, no way, no how. And your weak attempt to show LT1's only 4 rwhp behing LS1's is just that, WEAK.

Here are the facts.

1). LT1 autos on average dyno 245-255 rwhp.

2). LS1 autos on average dyno 285-295 rwhp.

3). LT1 M6's dyno on average 255-265 rwhp.

4). LS1 M6's dyno on average 300-310 rwhp.

The average difference between two similair setups is a solid 40-50 rwhp. This is why the LS1's run low to mid 13's stock vs LT1's high 13's to low 14's. Yes it is true that half a second faster usually means 50 HP difference between cars with the same weight and gears.

The fastest F-body in the world (Mike Morans 6 second Camaro) is LS1 based (not LT1). You can try to twist numbers, make up unrealistic times and even call people names. But in the end the LS1 is still a mid 13 second car and the LT1 is still a low 14 second car with exceptions on both sides for faster and slower.

 

dude...I have been through all of this...it is no use.

I even posted a video.

Ignorance is bliss.
Just let this thread die.

 

Agreed.

And for the Record,
LT1 SS's have been known to go 13.5 and in some cases a tiny bit less in stock form.

And yes, the LS1 is faster stock... but it supposed to be.
Get off your pride horse.

I know many LT1's in the 11's and 12's eith just Bolts Ons, Gears and a Stall.
I dont care what you say, thats fast.

 

I have neither seen nor heard of any LT1 going faster then 13.6 in 100% bone stock trim. Seeing that 13.5 is only one tenth off of that I will concede the "possibility" that it could have happened somewhere sea level, decent weather, excellent driver, ect. But 13.3 @ 105-106 = no way. Something there was not stock. Maybe cutout, tires, weight reduction, ect.


It's not a "pride horse" I'm on. It's a reality horse. There is a big difference.


I never said that wasn't fast. I don't take anything away from anyone who mods thier ride (regardless of what type of car) to be 12 seconds or quicker. Fast is not vehicle or motor specific.

Believe me if I could afford it I would ditch my LS1 F-body for a new Z06 with the LS7 motor. I am by no means ls1 loyal when it comes to wanting an upgrade If I didn't need a van for hauling my boat/supplies I wouldn't mind a full bolt-on LT1 for a daily driver. I don't hate LT1's, in fact I love the way they sound and look (Z28 & SS's looked better then IMO). I just get annoyed by the LT1 fanbois who spew false information to make them sound better then they really are.

 

darren , ss's were lt4's so they did produce more HP. I would not be shocked to hear about one doing under 13.6 with a good driver.

 

not all of them were lt4's The lt4 SS is kinnda rare..

They did however run low 13's