boostedbuford

When I was stock I raced a 1996 LT1 Ws6 M6 with 9 thousand miles on it( so it was pretty much a perfect new car) From a dig he was right beside me the whole time, and by 110 or I pulled a half a car.

Of course this was a pristine example of a LT1.

burnzilla

iTrader: (3)

Everything youve said has been rambling.

Blah blah blah STFU Choco!
You said I didnt accept the fact the LS1 is faster. Have you read my posts?
Im not getting in a ridiculous argument like you seem to do every week with someone else, youre are youre ow biggest fan.
You just lied about what I stated, and mumble the facts everyone knows.

Ive raced LS1's and held them with just a few bolt ons to 100mph.
The 0-60 in close, that all I said.
STOP POSTING CHOCO.


No surprise for a taken care of LT1...

Greedynessnish

I've been around street racing and drag racing most of life,the L98 when it came out was the best thing since sliced bread. Until that happened I don't think that G.M. hit much over 200 horses in almost 20 years ( I think since the original LT1). Pro drag racing and nascar pushed new technologies for many years like Warren Johnson and Hurst/olds engineering blocks and heads for drag racing.The L98,LT1, and th LSX platforms are evolutions in SBC technology.Having a civil war here is pointless,don't we all have small block chevy's? Before the LSX the previous stock chevy valve angle for 30 something years was 23 degrees on the LSX it's 15 degree (probably based on racing R&D), so yes the LS1 will be a straight beast on the top end. all the power is in the heads and valve train the LS1 is superior and completely different to all other previous chevy and other small block platforms (ford and whoever). I do own an LT1 but it is a small block chevrolet and I think most LT1 owners feel the same way I do. Any LT1/LS1 owner knows he/she has a small block chevy with great potential for torque and horsepower.Advances in cylinder head and valve train technology is great but mustangs owners fear LT1's as well. Oh I much rather bash Fords but it seems we do have some mustang owners here that seem O.K. so I hope I did'nt offend them sorry.

ChocoTaco369

everything i've said has also been right, too. get the trend? i'm not bashing the LT1. i'm simply pointing out fact. stop getting butthurt. want me to stop posting? give me a reason to stop posting. you being butthurt because your car has a weaker engine is not a reason. when you come up with a real one, post up. until you do, shut the **** up.

no ****? does your mind function? it's just 0-60. race a civic Si. the 0-60 will be close. it'll be off by a second or so - almost nothing in real life.

wow, you held off an LS1 when you had bolt-ons. we're all very impressed. give me 5 grand. i'll hold off a ferrari. you had work done which makes your input useless. you've contributed nothing to this discussion. i suggest you move on unless you have something factual to say. i'll give you an example: the LS1 makes more power and is the faster engine at every RPM of the powerband.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

I'm afraid I also disagree with your logic Choco. I mean no disrespect here, but our motors peak torque is down low and HP is up high in the RPM band. Torque is the raw power that gets you moving (yeah I understand you have HP down low as well, but it is the torque that is doing all the big work down there). This same principle is why the LS1 is such a monster compared to the LT1 up top. And why pretty much everyone agrees on this, that an LS1 vs LT1 at 60-110 will walk the LT1.

Until someone can show me dyno sheets of a BONE stock cars, I still will not believe that all of what I have been arguing of the 0-60 is false.

darrensls1

This is incorrect. The LS1 airlid is dyno proven to gain 5-10 rwhp with 8 being about average. That's maybe one tenth in the quarter mile. The LT1 CAI is dyno proven to gain about 7 RWHP (similair gain as the LS1 lid). The LT1 and LS1 are also dead even in what catbacks and LT headers gain. Both were choked from the factory and both gain 7-12 rwhp for catbacks and 20-25 rwhp for LT headers with ORY. But when comparing the gains of say a torque converter, cam and or heads then I agree the LS1 has a clear cut advantage due to the engine design.

So that video on page two was accurate. It's my experience that the LT1 and LS1 come out dead even 0-60 and then the LS1 walks away. Thus making the LT1 > LS1 in lower RPM's a myth in my book. I have always seen it as LT1 = LS1 in lower RPM's and LS1 > LT1 in upper RPM's.

Just because you choose not to accept it doesn't make it any less true. 0-60 is even with equal trannys, gears and drivers. Above that is all LS1 and that's just the way it is.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

As before, (and before that as well), this is all between a stock LS1 and a stock LT1. You can argue all you want that same mods give same power, but that is not the argument. The argument is stock to stock (which is what the thread was titled). And, as before, anyone can throw their 2 cents in here of their opinion that they swear is fact, but both sides will argue that it is myth.

So far, I have been the only one to show a bone stock run of each car. The results yeild my side of the dispute. The majority opinion of the video was that "it sucked". I know the quality was bad, but it wasn't the quality that I was trying to put out. It may suck quality wise, but the results from the run are undeniable. The race wasn't computer generated. The LT1 stepped away from the LS1 at first until the LS1 got in it's powerband.

If you want to disagree, thats fine (and also makes for a good long thread). But back it up with some dyno sheets, or another BONE stock to BONE stock race video. Just claiming something here will be disputed easily on both sides. We need documented facts (dyno sheets/vids).

darrensls1

I was simply correcting misinformation. A lid is not worth two tenths in the quarter mile and exhaust mods yield the same net results.

I have read several threads over the last several years on this very subject (the LT1 has more down low myth). If it were true that the LT1 was more powerful down low then it wouldn't be called a myth. It would be called a fact. But the fact is that it has been debated and referred to as a myth for years in various threads. There must be a reason for that.

You have shown nothing but poor quality videos with unknown variables.

Thank you for your permission. You want documented facts that you will probably never find. Do a search on yahoo and google and you'll find out that nobody has stock dynos anymore. The links either don't work or the cars arn't stock by the time they went for a dyno.

Here is my "undocumented information".

When I first bought my LS1 it was stock. At that time the company I worked for had a stock 95 Z28 A4 that they used to use as a company vehicle. The owners son now owned that car and wanted to see what that car could do against mine. The parking lot at this company was huge. Close to a 1/4 mile from one end to another. We raced several times 0-75, 10-75, ect. The dig results varied depending on who launched better. The slow roll results were all the same.

Dead even with me pulling at the end. I can't document this, we never made videos, ect. But this was a real world result because it was two cars in the same location with the same gears, transmissions (autos too so there is no driver error factor), ect.

IMO in order for a dyno chart to be real world accurate it would have to be two stock cars dynoed on the same day and on the same dyno. You'll never find this so I would consider looking for videos more then I would look for dyno charts.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

Stock dynos maybe hard to find, however I am confident they can be found. You can't tell me just because both cars have been out for a while that no one has ever dyno'd them when they were stock, and that the dyno sheets aren't still available to post up or look at somewhere.

As for the rest, I put it best in my last reply.

"So far, I have been the only one to show a bone stock run of each car. The results yeild my side of the dispute. The majority opinion of the video was that "it sucked". I know the quality was bad, but it wasn't the quality that I was trying to put out. It may suck quality wise, but the results from the run are undeniable. The race wasn't computer generated. The LT1 stepped away from the LS1 at first until the LS1 got in it's powerband.

If you want to disagree, thats fine (and also makes for a good long thread). But back it up with some dyno sheets, or another BONE stock to BONE stock race video. Just claiming something here will be disputed easily on both sides. We need documented facts (dyno sheets/vids)."

Greedynessnish

The LT1 does make more torque down low but if i'm right the LS1 climbs in RPM a bit faster which is why most LS1's recover so quick out of the hole against an LT1 or anything else. The faster it climbs in rpm's the faster the LS1 gets to its peak power which will evem out the 0-60 between the 2.If i'm wrong please point me in the right direction.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

IMO, you are on about the same lines as what my argument here has been, except I believe that the LS1's don't really come in strong to over take the LT1 until after 60 MPH. Others here might agree with you totally, and then there are others yet who think we are both wrong, and that the LS1's will beat the LT1's (stock to stock on all this BTW) both 0-60, and in the quarter.

I think everyone here can agree that the two are close, which makes it difficult, and why many of us are of different opinions on the rest. I have posted a video of a stock race that shows my theory that the LT1's are quicker in the 1/8 (or 0-60), at which time the LS1 starts making its power and walks away from the LT1.

Really we are still in need of some more video of stock to stock (down to the paper air filter). Stock dyno's would be another good tool here. But as some one mentioned, they will need to be on the same dyno on the same day to be a good comparison (which I agree with).

ZFan88

iTrader: (4)

Unless you have equal drivers with equal-optioned cars, the videos aren't going to mean much in your theory. For a street/strip race for stock cars, the LS1 would be better 0-60 and in the 1/4 obviously. Launching the same, the LT1 would have a harder time hooking up due to the spike in torque so low, where the LS1 can roll into the throttle faster. As you know, the LS1's torque is higher in the rpm, but still more average/peak. I'm pretty sure there was a thread a while back that had stock dyno comparisons...it might have been in the LT1 section. Neither car is slow, so it's going to be close, but of course the newer LS1 will win any scenario.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

The video I put up had both cars getting out of the hole the same, and both seemed to shift equally (or close enough to it). Ideally, a race would be both automatic cars, from a 3 MPH roll, but so far my vid has been the closest.

As for the LS1 being faster everywhere (0-60 and 1/4 mile), it will still be in dispute until we can find those old dynos, or get more vids. Until then we will just have to agree to disagree on this one

darrensls1

Your vids proved nothing other then some people should not be allowed to use video cameras. I found some old threads where people linked a stock dyno but guess what? The links were no longer valid.

Just like your argument. You want to discredit the video on page two because both cars had an intake and catback. Whoopty friggin doo. Like adding 15 rwhp to BOTH cars is really going to skew the results. And it's not like an intake/catback aren't the first two mods most LT1/LS1 owners do anyway

LS1 and LT1 are going to be primarily equal down low. Here's a link to 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times for various vehicles.

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html

Here are just the Pontiac Formulas/TA's from that list:

Year__Make___Model________0-60-1/4

1993 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 6.3 14.8
1994 Pontiac Firebird Formula 5.8 14.1
1995 Pontiac SLP Firehawk 5.3 13.9
1995 Pontiac Firebird Formula 6.7 15.1
1995 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 5.6 14.0
1996 Pontiac Firebird Formula 5.8 14.3
1997 Pontiac Firebird 3.8l 7.2 15.5 (C&D Jun '97)
1998 Pontiac Firebird Formula 5.3 13.9 (C&D Jun '98)
1998 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 5.1 13.4
2000 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am (WS6) 4.9 13.4

They show the LT1's in the mid to upper 5's for 0-60 while the LS1's are lower 5's. But like I said, I feel they are closer then that. Probably both in the 5.2 second 0-60 range. But after that

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

darrensls1; first off, thanks for putting up some actual posted times. Although they are posted by the "experts" at C&D, I think we can mostly all agree that these are probably not the average times (15.1 1/4 mile from a 95 Formula, 14.8 1/4 mile from a 93 Trans Am, 13.9 1/4 mile from a 98 Formula ect.) They may call themselves pros, but if they are getting those times out of those cars (even stock), I would say they are far from pros. It would almost be better getting vids of stock cars with F-body owners who know how to drive them to their potential at the track.

As for another bash on my video's, you can say what you want, but the video shows the closest thing to documented truth on vid of a stock to stock race so far. Everyone says the video "sucks". Why?? Is it because you don't believe what you are seeing? Or because it goes against your beliefs here? The video was real, as well as its results. If we were talking about mod to mod stuff here, then sure, the other video would count. But AGAIN, we are talking about bone stock cars here (NOT MODDED ONES).

If people want to make a valid case here, continue to post up sites with times (hopefully more accurate ones), or actual dyno sheets, or best yet, some vids of STOCK runs either against each other or at the track.

ZFan88

iTrader: (4)

This thread needs to end...

ChocoTaco369

again, this is incorrect. power gets your car moving. torque is NOT a measure of power. torque is simply a measure of how much twisting your engine makes. watts is a measure of power, and horsepower is a larger scale to measure watts. low rpm horsepower is what gets your car moving. horsepower increases in high rpm's because it's a multiplication of rpms x engine torque, so of course it's going to increase higher in the rpm range.

again, power moves the car. low rpm grunt is NOT torque, it's low rpm horsepower. the LT1 feels like it has more horsepower down low because it twists at a low rpm than the LS1 making it feel more powerful down low. the LS1 is still making more power than the LT1 down low, and that is all that matters. power you "feel" and power you make are two totally different things.

CALL911

iTrader: (17)

If you no longer wish to discuss what we are discussing, end your subscription to this thread and look on.

ChocoTaco; I won't even continue to try to argue the basics of difference between HP and Torque with you. It's probably best we just agree to disagree on it.

However, on your theory of the LS1 cars being faster down low compared to the LT1 cars, show me proof. Show me another stock to stock race? Show me stock to stock dyno's? (I feel like a broken record here) Show me something other than ChocoTaco says so. Your statement of LS1's are faster off the line isn't any more valid or fact than my statement of LT1's are faster off the line. We need documented proof here.

darrensls1

No problem. And while there were some times that were off there were plenty of others that were right on. You have to remember that not all cars were tested at sea level.

But how about:

1995 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 5.6 14.0
1996 Pontiac Firebird Formula 5.8 14.3
1998 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 5.1 13.4
2000 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am (WS6) 4.9 13.4

Those numbers look to be right on. Here is another link for more 0-60 times:

http://www.geocities.com/edmodscarspecs/

The ones I was looking at specifically was:

1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.8 14.4
1994 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.7 14.2
1994 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 Conv. 6.2 14.5
1995 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.7 14.2
1995 Chevrolet Camaro 3800 7.4 15.7
1996 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 5.7 14.1
1996 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 SS 5.3 13.8

Looks about right to me.

The videos sucked IMO for three reasons.

1). Both were taken at night and you can't see ****.

2). Both show two cars racing with no indication of transmission types or gears to be sure we are dealing with apples to apples.

3). Both can not be verified that they were in fact "stock".

You can give me all the speculation you want and descredit all the 0-60 times you like. But what you can't do is convince to believe what I all ready know is not true. Because unlike those dark videos, I know the 95 Z28 I raced was stock because I know the original and current owner. I know my car was stock (back then). I know we had the same gears and A4 transmissions so our 1/8 mile roll races were as fair as they could possibly be. And I know we were neck and neck with neither of us gaining until I finally started pulling towards the end. We both ran 1/4 miles at Rt. 66 Speedway and I know his car ran 14.2 @ 99 while mine ran 13.5 @ 103 in good weather. Add .2 to both our times on hot and humid days.

darrensls1

Here is a video I found. This is a full quarter mile race but I can not confirm if the transmissions are the same. But you'll see the intro says stock LT1 Vs stock LS1. Now after you watch this race picture me and my buddy in that parking lot because this is what our races looked like.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/...412021d38d806&

Notice how they are neck and neck until about the 1/8 when the LS1 starts to pull.