View Poll Results: Which car to buy?
2010 camaro 1SS RS
29
23.97%
2005-2006 LS2 vette
56
46.28%
2004 Z06
36
29.75%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll
Which car would you buy?
04-17-2009, 02:43 PM
#41
11 Second Club
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Pasadena, Texas
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's say that I just bought an LS3 and next year they came out with an LS4 with 30 more horsepower. I might be a bit jealous and a bit angry at myself because if I had waited another year I could have the same car with more horsepower, and maybe it costs just a little bit more. Sour grapes? Then through denial, I would start looking for excuses how my LS3 is better than the LS4. I sense some of this on the LS3, and I also felt the same sense when the 2005 GTO offered 50 more horsepower than the 2004 did, and I seem to remember this on some forums.
This LS2 vs. LS3 argument can go on and on and on, just like the manual versus automatic debates. As it is I am very happy with my choice of cars. With good -DA I can turn 12.20's with an occasional 12.teen, and when we drove from Houston to Biloxi, we got 28 mpg.
All this aside, I would suggest the OP to get the 2005-2006 LS2 Vette.
04-17-2009, 02:52 PM
#42
TECH Addict
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cypress, TX
Posts: 2,264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think so. I think what he is saying is that a guy with zero track experience can run on a rare day of -1000 DA in Houston or ATCO and get a great time where a guy with a lot of experience can run at Denver or Las Vegas with horrible DA's and still not post great times.
About the list I posted, yes there is no weather or track involved, plus IMHO the first car has tuning issues, but it is something to go by, an average per se. Who is to say that the fastest LS2 didn't also run in great weather. I still stand by my thoughts that the LS3 is faster than the LS2.
My bone stock LS3 is gladly awaiting any bone stock LS2 down in Houston at the track, lets line 'em up.
About the list I posted, yes there is no weather or track involved, plus IMHO the first car has tuning issues, but it is something to go by, an average per se. Who is to say that the fastest LS2 didn't also run in great weather. I still stand by my thoughts that the LS3 is faster than the LS2.
My bone stock LS3 is gladly awaiting any bone stock LS2 down in Houston at the track, lets line 'em up.
Should have caught me in December when I still had my LS2 coupe. I would have loved to line them up. You probably would have won, but I think you'd be surprised how well it could hang, especially if it got the jump and torque management held you back off the line. Now from a roll, no question the LS3 is faster.
No sour grapes here. I've got an LS7 now.
04-17-2009, 04:45 PM
#43
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly.
Should have caught me in December when I still had my LS2 coupe. I would have loved to line them up. You probably would have won, but I think you'd be surprised how well it could hang, especially if it got the jump and torque management held you back off the line. Now from a roll, no question the LS3 is faster.
No sour grapes here. I've got an LS7 now.
Should have caught me in December when I still had my LS2 coupe. I would have loved to line them up. You probably would have won, but I think you'd be surprised how well it could hang, especially if it got the jump and torque management held you back off the line. Now from a roll, no question the LS3 is faster.
No sour grapes here. I've got an LS7 now.
04-17-2009, 05:22 PM
#44
TECH Addict
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cypress, TX
Posts: 2,264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And, no, GM is incredibly smart. That's why they are on the brink of Chapter 11.
04-17-2009, 05:44 PM
#45
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sugarland, TX
Posts: 2,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me put my feelings about where there is a debate between LS2 and LS3, and I will try to do it in a nice way.
Let's say that I just bought an LS3 and next year they came out with an LS4 with 30 more horsepower. I might be a bit jealous and a bit angry at myself because if I had waited another year I could have the same car with more horsepower, and maybe it costs just a little bit more. Sour grapes? Then through denial, I would start looking for excuses how my LS3 is better than the LS4. I sense some of this on the LS3, and I also felt the same sense when the 2005 GTO offered 50 more horsepower than the 2004 did, and I seem to remember this on some forums.
This LS2 vs. LS3 argument can go on and on and on, just like the manual versus automatic debates. As it is I am very happy with my choice of cars. With good -DA I can turn 12.20's with an occasional 12.teen, and when we drove from Houston to Biloxi, we got 28 mpg.
All this aside, I would suggest the OP to get the 2005-2006 LS2 Vette.
Let's say that I just bought an LS3 and next year they came out with an LS4 with 30 more horsepower. I might be a bit jealous and a bit angry at myself because if I had waited another year I could have the same car with more horsepower, and maybe it costs just a little bit more. Sour grapes? Then through denial, I would start looking for excuses how my LS3 is better than the LS4. I sense some of this on the LS3, and I also felt the same sense when the 2005 GTO offered 50 more horsepower than the 2004 did, and I seem to remember this on some forums.
This LS2 vs. LS3 argument can go on and on and on, just like the manual versus automatic debates. As it is I am very happy with my choice of cars. With good -DA I can turn 12.20's with an occasional 12.teen, and when we drove from Houston to Biloxi, we got 28 mpg.
All this aside, I would suggest the OP to get the 2005-2006 LS2 Vette.
04-17-2009, 07:18 PM
#46
11 Second Club
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Pasadena, Texas
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be perfectly honest, I don't know.
However (from what I understand) a tune should take out the torque management, then all this torque management stuff becomes a non item, for those who go on and on about it.
However (from what I understand) a tune should take out the torque management, then all this torque management stuff becomes a non item, for those who go on and on about it.
04-17-2009, 09:19 PM
#47
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Naperville, Ill
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. I feel like I just called in some backup. At any rate the OP isn't even around this thread anymore, so i think we can call it quits for now. Goat is as happy with his LS3, as Cy is with his LS7 
, and I am with my LS1. Good times folks! Long live LSX power!
, and I am with my LS1. Good times folks! Long live LSX power!
04-18-2009, 04:00 PM
#48
11 Second Club
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Pasadena, Texas
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****, back in those days (mid 70's- mid 80's) an American muscle car would be hard pressed to break 15.5 or better in the quarter.
Here is just a small portion of this website, for those of you who are too young to remember the bad old days.
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html
The first time is 0-60, then the quarter mile time.
1975 Chevrolet Corvette 350 9.6 16.4
1976 Chevrolet Corvette 350 8.1 16.5
1977 Chevrolet Corvette 8.8 16.6
1979 Chevrolet Corvette L82 7.3 15.7
1980 Chevrolet Corvette L82 7.4 15.4
1982 Chevrolet Corvette 9.2 16.6
1974 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 8.1 15.4
1975 Chevrolet Camaro 350 11.0 17.4
1975 Chevrolet Camaro RS 8.5 16.8
1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 9.7 N/A
1983 Chevrolet Camaro 9.5 17.5
1983 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 H.O. 6.7 15.0
1980 Ford Mustang Cobra (225ci) 11.3 18.4
1981 Ford Mustang M81 McLaren (2.3L Turbo) 9.7 17.3
1982 Ford Mustang GT 8.0 N/A
1984 Ford Mustang SVO 7.9 15.8
1974 Pontiac Firebird 400ci 10.4 17.1
1975 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 400 9.8 16.8
1975 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 455 7.8 16.1
1977 Pontiac Firebird Formula 12.0 17.9
1978 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 6.5 15.3
1979 Pontiac Trans Am W72 400 4-spd) 6.7 14.6
1980 Pontiac Firebird Turbo Trans Am 9.0 17.0
1983 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am 9.2 17.0
1984 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am HO 7.9 16.1
1987 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA (auto) 7.1 15.5
1988 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am GTA 7.4 15.9
1977 Dodge Charger 400ci 11.8 17.4
1982 Dodge Charger 2.2 10.1 N/A
1983 Dodge Charger - Shelby 10.0 17.5
1974 Dodge Challenger 318ci 9.6 16.9
1982 Dodge Challenger 12.1 18.4
1986 Dodge Daytona Turbo I 8.6 16.4 (allpar.com)
1987 Dodge Daytona Turbo II 7.6 15.8 (allpar.com
1973 AMC Hornet Hatchback 360ci 8.6 16.5
1973 AMC Hornet Sportabout 10.7 17.1
1974 AMC Hornet 4dr 258ci 15.6 19.4
1974 AMC Hornet 360ci 8.5 17.0
1976 AMC Hornet Sportabout 18.3 20.1
1973 AMC Javelin AMX 401ci 7.7 15.5
1974 AMC Javelin 304ci 11.2 17.3
04-20-2009, 01:31 PM
#53
TECH Addict
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cypress, TX
Posts: 2,264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are $80K cars that are going for $50-60K now. GM is dumb because they made too damn many of them. And they are spending billions annually on people who don't work (UAW).
Last edited by CySevans; 04-20-2009 at 01:54 PM.
04-20-2009, 01:39 PM
#54
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have a dealer auction license and can get one for in the 30's easily. and i completely agree with you about them making too many. i wish they wouldnt have. im not trying to start a big fight, just wanted to know what you thought.
Last edited by kmgsix08; 04-20-2009 at 04:21 PM.
04-20-2009, 01:53 PM
#55
TECH Addict
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cypress, TX
Posts: 2,264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have a dealer auction license and can get one for in the 30's easily..so yes i have a clue. how am i to know you dont have a license yourself? thats why i said 40k. and i completely agree with you about them making too many. i wish they wouldnt have. im not trying to start a big fight, just wanted to know what you thought. take it easy lol
I'll come find you when I'm ready for my next car.
