ls1 vs STI???

[ErikElvis]

Okay...but I don't think a folding rear seat makes the difference between being "useless" and being "practical"

Oh give me a break. I have a F-bod. I have a Eclipse. And I have a truck. I cant fit anything in the F-bod. I can fit Tv's, vacuum cleaners, and various other junk in the eclipse that I could never stuff in the Camaro. In my book it makes it useless for other than going fast and looking good. Thats what it is. If you argue a F-bod is a practical car your crazy.

[ErikElvis]

And no the eclipse is not very practical either.

[Fiend]

Interesting thread.

Stock for stock in the 1/4 mile, an LS1 vs. STI is pretty much a drivers race. The STI would get the launch due to AWD, and then the LS1 would quickly reel it in. So they end up finishing in about the same time, but the LS1 trap speed would be 7-9MPH faster, which is significant. Hence the reason an LS1will walk all over an STI from anything other than a dig.

I didn't think stock LS1s trap over 103-104? Most stock STis are about 101-102. I'd still definitely give the nod to the LS1 from a roll though.

[nhraformula]

I didn't think stock LS1s trap over 103-104? Most stock STis are about 101-102. I'd still definitely give the nod to the LS1 from a roll though.

stock i was trapping 106

[jking]

STI vs LS1 Vette Performance Figures. I've seen better for both. Very close, even past 80 and 1/4 mile. STI got there a little sooner, but the Vette is accelerating faster through the traps. It would be a close race. STI low end advantage LS1 high end advantage.

http://www.car-videos.net/performanc...D1=169&ID2=106

That has to be some sort of unofficial record for the slowest M6 C5 time.

My bone stock LS1 C5 with an M6 was running consistent 12.8-12.9's at 110.xx and 1.9-2.0 60's.

My good friend had a C5 hardtop like in that article and I watched him spin his ass off and run a 13.0 at 111.

Magazine racing sucks..

[jking]

even the m6s were having problems getting 13.3-13.4... with a pro driver...

are you sure your car was stock? if so, then I probably need to work on my launches... but I doubt my launches affect it .6 seconds... although I'd be glad if that were the case, cuz then I can improve for cheap...

My bone stock 2002 Z28 with an A4 and 2.73's ran consistent 13.3's at 106.xx and 2.0 60's. It was running 13.0's with only a lid and muffler.

I've personally witnessed a stock M6 Z28 run back to back 12.9's at Houston raceway.

[jking]

I don't remember if I've ever raced an STi or not, but I raced a modded EVO at the track one night with my lightly modded Mach 1 on DR's..

He was next to me in the staging lanes talking shit in ebonics to a guy behind me with an 03' Cobra on slicks and skinnys.

I don't know what he had, but his car idled like you were turning the key on and off and shit, and he had a bunch of stickers. He was pretty confident in it to say the least.

I got him off of the light and nailed a 1.6x 60'. I didn't witness the almighty AWD launch, and I ass raped him with a 12.6 to his 12.9.

[jking]

My opinion is that if you can drive your LS1 well enough to not let the race get too out of hand on the launch, then I wouldn't lose any sleep over an STi.

[ScrapMaker]

My bone stock 2002 Z28 with an A4 and 2.73's ran consistent 13.3's at 106.xx and 2.0 60's. It was running 13.0's with only a lid and muffler.

I've personally witnessed a stock M6 Z28 run back to back 12.9's at Houston raceway.

I never even knew they came with 2.73s!

I thought a4s had 3.23s??

[jking]

I never even knew they came with 2.73s!

I thought a4s had 3.23s??

3.23's were the "performance axle" option.

I'm not sure that the extra performance of the 3.23's is worth the traction you give up compared to the 2.73's.


You don't see much difference in their times..


My 2.73 car didn't spin at all, whereas my 99' with 3.23's had more traction issues and ran slower times.

[jking]

Talking stock cars on stock tires of course..

[ScrapMaker]

hrm.... plus you probably got better mileage on the highway...

[garrettjj]

That has to be some sort of unofficial record for the slowest M6 C5 time.

My bone stock LS1 C5 with an M6 was running consistent 12.8-12.9's at 110.xx and 1.9-2.0 60's.

My good friend had a C5 hardtop like in that article and I watched him spin his ass off and run a 13.0 at 111.

Magazine racing sucks..

I've seen better numbers for both cars in that article(And those were not the worst I've seen either). I haven't taken my car to the strip yet but some of my forum friends have run 12.9s @ 103.97 and very low 13.0xxx in their stock STIs. You're always going to have people that run better times than the mags, but most will run worse times. Magazine racing might suck, but professional drivers on controlled conditions testing cars does give you a good idea what they are capable of.

[Wesman]

I've seen better numbers for both cars in that article(And those were not the worst I've seen either). I haven't taken my car to the strip yet but some of my forum friends have run 12.9s @ 103.97 and very low 13.0xxx in their stock STIs. You're always going to have people that run better times than the mags, but most will run worse times. Magazine racing might suck, but professional drivers on controlled conditions testing cars does give you a good idea what they are capable of.

Very rarely do you see cars run better than what the magazine times report. The mag times are a good indication of what the car is capable of under optimal conditions, with a near perfect driver. So running the same time as reported in a car mag is probably the best time/trap that the car is capable of doing. I've never seen a stock STi or Evo break into the 12's in any mags nor in person, even with 6K RPM clutch drops. The launch can only give you so much time, what it comes down to is that those cars arelimited by their Horsepower and drivetrain loss. The trap speeds of 100-103MPH is a much better indication of how fast the car really is, not how quickly is can go from point A to point B.

[jking]

You guys hang out with some shitty drivers or yall are racing in Denver or some shit. It's been my experience that the magazine times are very slow compared to the drag strip. Go to the 1/4 listings on some of these sites and see what folks are really running.


I wish the old site had not crashed.

Several years ago a magazine tester from Road & Track (or someone like that) was on LS1.com answering questions, and the subject of shitty times in magazines came up. He explained why the times they recorded were slower than what you see at the strip.

He explained that the times were taken in real world conditions, on a street type surface, without power shifting or extremely hard launches. They wanted to give you a real world indication of what a car will do on the street.

A track that has been prepped for an optimized launch, and a driver willing to abuse his car is always going to nail much better times.

Look at what Evan Smith at MM&FF runs compared to the other magazines. 12.9's in a Z28, 12.7's in an LS1 C5, 13.1's in a Mach 1, 13.3's in an 05' GT, 12.4's in an 03' Cobra.

All of those were factory stock. He goes to an actual race track, and beats on the cars to get the best times out of them. Some of those times are a second faster than what some other magazines run.

You will notice that his times always rival what the better drivers on these forums run.

I also think that there is sometimes bias involved in magazines claimed times. Like the time Hotrod magazine ran an STi against an 03' Cobra, and they got a faster time out of the STi. I think the STI was in the 13.3's, and the Cobra was slower.

A 14 year old girl who learned to drive a standard yesterday could probably go run a 13.3 in an 03' Cobra. That is a mid to high 12 second car with a decent driver.

Hotrod was just looking for a story.

[garrettjj]

You guys hang out with some shitty drivers or yall are racing in Denver or some shit. It's been my experience that the magazine times are very slow compared to the drag strip. Go to the 1/4 listings on some of these sites and see what folks are really running.


I wish the old site had not crashed.

Several years ago a magazine tester from Road & Track (or someone like that) was on LS1.com answering questions, and the subject of shitty times in magazines came up. He explained why the times they recorded were slower than what you see at the strip.

He explained that the times were taken in real world conditions, on a street type surface, without power shifting or extremely hard launches. They wanted to give you a real world indication of what a car will do on the street.

A track that has been prepped for an optimized launch, and a driver willing to abuse his car is always going to nail much better times.

Look at what Evan Smith at MM&FF runs compared to the other magazines. 12.9's in a Z28, 12.7's in an LS1 C5, 13.1's in a Mach 1, 13.3's in an 05' GT, 12.4's in an 03' Cobra.

All of those were factory stock. He goes to an actual race track, and beats on the cars to get the best times out of them. Some of those times are a second faster than what some other magazines run.

You will notice that his times always rival what the better drivers on these forums run.

I also think that there is sometimes bias involved in magazines claimed times. Like the time Hotrod magazine ran an STi against an 03' Cobra, and they got a faster time out of the STi. I think the STI was in the 13.3's, and the Cobra was slower.

A 14 year old girl who learned to drive a standard yesterday could probably go run a 13.3 in an 03' Cobra. That is a mid to high 12 second car with a decent driver.

Hotrod was just looking for a story.

Road and Track is notorious for slower times compared to many other mags out there(Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Automobile, Turbo Mag, etc).

They, unlike the other mags do exactly what you mentioned. Like I said in my last post, I've seen better numbers for both cars and know people that have yielded better times. But most casual racers are not professional or experienced drivers and will get closer to mag times which is the point I was making. I see it all the time on all car forums-most get near mag times, while a small percentage do better. I do agree, it's possible to improve upon mag times especially with broken in engines and better conditions.

I remember that STI vs Cobra mag and the issue was traction with the Cobra on it's stock tires w/ 2.2 60 ft-s and they couldn't launch it. The STI slightly beat it in the 1/4 but the Cobra had it easily beat in the traps. Believe what you want, but a number of people involved in that comparison chose the STI over the Cobra as a better overall street car. I don't think it was some conspiracy theory. They were impressed by the car, how it felt and drove.

[jking]

Road and Track is notorious for slower times compared to many other mags out there(Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Automobile, Turbo Mag, etc).

They, unlike the other mags do exactly what you mentioned. Like I said in my last post, I've seen better numbers for both cars and know people that have yielded better times. But most casual racers are not professional or experienced drivers and will get closer to mag times which is the point I was making. I see it all the time on all car forums-most get near mag times, while a small percentage do better. I do agree, it's possible to improve upon mag times especially with broken in engines and better conditions.

I've subscribed to C&D since I was a teenager, and their times are always very slow. Especially on the domestics. IIRC, their last 2002 Z28 test was like a 13.8. You don't see that with a car in good condition with a half assed driver unless they are at a high elevation. Most LS1's with a good DA run under 13.50 with an A4 and 2.73's. Low 13's with an M6.

They ran a 14.0 in a Mach 1 M5, which is a solid 13.1-13.4 car with a good driver.

At least they got the new Cobra into the 12's I guess...

I'll continue to base my opinion on what I do, and what others do on the track in real life.

You can tell from a time slip if someone can't drive for shit, like cutting 2.2 60's in a Cobra with new tires on a track.

I remember that STI vs Cobra mag and the issue was traction with the Cobra on it's stock tires w/ 2.2 60 ft-s and they couldn't launch it. The STI slightly beat it in the 1/4 but the Cobra had it easily beat in the traps. Believe what you want, but a number of people involved in that comparison chose the STI over the Cobra as a better overall street car. I don't think it was some conspiracy theory. They were impressed by the car, how it felt and drove.

To each his own.

IMO, either the driver couldn't drive for shit, or HR was trying to cash in on the new import craze and win over some new fans.

All things equal, a Cobra should run a half a second faster on average.

Maybe it was raining that day...

[jking]

I'm not looking for a debate here.

You go off of your experiences and I'll go off of mine.

If you want to test the accuracy of magazines, then look up the last road tests of the Mach 1, and the STi. IIRC, it was a 14.0 for the Mach and a 13.3 for the STi.


Get an STi and go over to the Mach forum and call out a stock M5 Mach owner and tell them you will give them 5 lengths.

[Wesman]

I'm not looking for a debate here.

You go off of your experiences and I'll go off of mine.

If you want to test the accuracy of magazines, then look up the last road tests of the Mach 1, and the STi. IIRC, it was a 14.0 for the Mach and a 13.3 for the STi.


Get an STi and go over to the Mach forum and call out a stock M5 Mach owner and tell them you will give them 5 lengths.

Hah thats a good example. A Mach 1 with 5 lengths advantage wouldn't just beat an STI, it would rape it. Mach 1's put down about 50 more Horsepower at the wheels than an STI, so it would also destroy it from a dig, as well as in trap speeds.

[mavrikZ]

Yea, theres a good one. STI beats a COBRA in the 1/4. Wow, I guess that extra 100HP doesnt count for shit! Please post that article!