00 ss vs 96 or 97 ss

[Firebirdjones]

AMEN........ This needs to be said in every thread asking "who will win question"......... Simple race them and find out. Heck that is have of the fun finding out..

Yep. That's the whole point of racing right?? If you already know then the excitement is gone, why abuse it.

[karpetcm]

whats funny is i have friends that will refuse to race me unless they know they can crush my car. Once they have tons of power and know they can easily pull then they will run. The thing is i dont care if i lose or how much power they got i run them either way wether i think i have a chance or not. I ran my friends 435FWHP with reg octane and 490FWHP with high and he crushed me bad. When he was N/A with 259FWHP from a RSX TYPE S and i was N/A no bolt ons he refused to race. Even his friend that has a 330FWHP Eclispe will not race me even though its a strong possibility he can pull, he wants to crush me and have zero doubt he can win, lol.

[Firebirdjones]

Although Dan may be bias, he isn't that far off in his thinking.
I've had a few LT1 powered cars, and even used an LT1 for a retro swap, they aren't bad motors.
In 97 we bought a new 6 speed vert. At the same time a friend of mine bought a 97 WS6 6 speed. Or it may have been a firehawk, memory is fading. But I do remember it having the functional hood.

That car would routinely run 13.60's and 70's on stock rubber, right down to the paper filter. I can't remember the MPH exactly (it's been nearly 15 years ago) but I know it was well over 100 mph.
It would run circles around my wifes Z28 at the time. These were brand new cars at that time. Looking at one today with well over 100,000 miles on it (if it were still stock) probably wouldn't have the same outcome. These cars are getting old now and have been driven hard and put away wet.

[Firebirdjones]

whats funny is i have friends that will refuse to race me unless they know they can crush my car. Once they have tons of power and know they can easily pull then they will run. The thing is i dont care if i lose or how much power they got i run them either way wether i think i have a chance or not. I ran my friends 435FWHP with reg octane and 490FWHP with high and he crushed me bad. When he was N/A with 259FWHP from a RSX TYPE S and i was N/A no bolt ons he refused to race. Even his friend that has a 330FWHP Eclispe will not race me even though its a strong possibility he can pull, he wants to crush me and have zero doubt he can win, lol.

Oh I don't mind racing friends, even if we already know the outcome. It's just horsing around for us, it's all good.
We've all been beat. I've even come out on top while driving a lesser car on occasion. Makes for good elbow digging after it's over with

[BLKCLOUD]

Although Dan may be bias, he isn't that far off in his thinking.
I've had a few LT1 powered cars, and even used an LT1 for a retro swap, they aren't bad motors.
In 97 we bought a new 6 speed vert. At the same time a friend of mine bought a 97 WS6 6 speed. Or it may have been a firehawk, memory is fading. But I do remember it having the functional hood.

That car would routinely run 13.60's and 70's on stock rubber, right down to the paper filter. I can't remember the MPH exactly (it's been nearly 15 years ago) but I know it was well over 100 mph.
It would run circles around my wifes Z28 at the time. These were brand new cars at that time. Looking at one today with well over 100,000 miles on it (if it were still stock) probably wouldn't have the same outcome. These cars are getting old now and have been driven hard and put away wet.

I had a brand new (at the time) 1998 Cobra that went 13.60 @ 104 mph. Bone stock down to the original paper air filter, original radial tires, and even (dare I say it) the original oil. Now, who here thinks the LT1 and a 96-98 Cobra were a pretty good race? How about a 86-98 Cobra and an LS1?

[Firebirdjones]

I had a brand new (at the time) 1998 Cobra that went 13.60 @ 104 mph. Bone stock down to the original paper air filter, original radial tires, and even (dare I say it) the original oil. Now, who here thinks the LT1 and a 96-98 Cobra were a pretty good race? How about a 86-98 Cobra and an LS1?

I believe it. New and fresh is alot different than old and tired nowadays. Funny, I never raced my wifes car back then. It wasn't until 4-5 years ago I finally made a pass in her 97, but by then it had 125,000 miles on it, still on the original opti, but it ran like a top.
It' only went 14.20's at 99 mph on stock rubber, 6 speed car and 3,720 lbs. race weight. After all those years it was still a bone stocker too.
Not sure if it would have ran 13's when new, but as I said, on the street my buddies new WS6 at the time would put a whoopin on it handily and I know he went 13.60.

I still liked how the car ran over my current LS 4th gens. Not as fast but the power curve was alot more fun on the street.

[camarospade]

are you m6 or a4 ? what tires are you running ? what tires is he running ?

i'm an m6 and he's an a4. idk his tire setup but i have 295/35/18 firehawk ovals.
and i want to race this guy he just can't yet... i guess..

[Zinergy]

Although Dan may be bias, he isn't that far off in his thinking.
I've had a few LT1 powered cars, and even used an LT1 for a retro swap, they aren't bad motors.
In 97 we bought a new 6 speed vert. At the same time a friend of mine bought a 97 WS6 6 speed. Or it may have been a firehawk, memory is fading. But I do remember it having the functional hood.

That car would routinely run 13.60's and 70's on stock rubber, right down to the paper filter. I can't remember the MPH exactly (it's been nearly 15 years ago) but I know it was well over 100 mph.
It would run circles around my wifes Z28 at the time. These were brand new cars at that time. Looking at one today with well over 100,000 miles on it (if it were still stock) probably wouldn't have the same outcome. These cars are getting old now and have been driven hard and put away wet.

He came in here and said ls1 cars run a 13.9 which makes them slower than a 96 ss cause they run 13.4s. His thinking was way off, thinking all 96 lt1 camaros run 13.4s and ls1 camaros run 13.9s is retarded. 13.4 is damn good time in a lt1 car and 13.9 is a bad time in a ls1 car.

[Firebirdjones]

He came in here and said ls1 cars run a 13.9 which makes them slower than a 96 ss cause they run 13.4s. His thinking was way off, thinking all 96 lt1 camaros run 13.4s and ls1 camaros run 13.9s is retarded. 13.4 is damn good time in a lt1 car and 13.9 is a bad time in a ls1 car.

Ya, my point was that it could go either way. He owns an LT1 and could be a little bias. I've owned both and I can vouch for some slower LS cars out there as well as good running LT1's. I don't care either way.
My 02 SS stock only ran 13.70's at 102 mph. I've seen similar running stock LS 4th gens, so I wouldn't say it's abnormal, there are too many variances that come into play.
With that said, my buddies LT1 WS6 was technically faster than my 02 SS that is supposed to be superior. There are definately exceptions.

So I somewhat agree with him, and it's safe to say that LT1's and LS1's both can run 13's in stock trim. Where in the 13's seems to vary though.
Probably could say there are more low 13 second LS1's and a few high 13 second LS1's,,,,On the flip side there are more low 14 second LT1's and a few that run mid to high 13's.

[Zinergy]

Ya, my point was that it could go either way. He owns an LT1 and could be a little bias. I've owned both and I can vouch for some slower LS cars out there as well as good running LT1's. I don't care either way.
My 02 SS stock only ran 13.70's at 102 mph. I've seen similar running stock LS 4th gens, so I wouldn't say it's abnormal, there are too many variances that come into play.
With that said, my buddies LT1 WS6 was technically faster than my 02 SS that is supposed to be superior. There are definately exceptions.

So I somewhat agree with him, and it's safe to say that LT1's and LS1's both can run 13's in stock trim. Where in the 13's seems to vary though.
Probably could say there are more low 13 second LS1's and a few high 13 second LS1's,,,,On the flip side there are more low 14 second LT1's and a few that run mid to high 13's.

Agreed, best time in my 96 formula was a 13.9 @102mph stock other than filter and air intake but then again it had 2.73s. All other runs were in 14s.

[Firebirdjones]

Agreed, best time in my 96 formula was a 13.9 @102mph stock other than filter and air intake but then again it had 2.73s. All other runs were in 14s.

That's even better than my wifes car ran.

[Zinergy]

That's even better than my wifes car ran.

It was a no option, cloth interior no t-top car. But my ls1 T/A m6 ran a 13.3 @ 106mph stock. I had probably close to 10 friends with bolt on lt1 cars some a4s some m6s when i got my 2000, i added headers, catback, tune and a lid and was able to easily take them all by multiple cars. I also ran a 12.8 @ 110mph with that setup. I raced my buddies 94 camaro with a small stall, 3.73s, nittos and bolt ons and beat him by 2 cars 4 times in a row. Then i cracked 3 valve springs at once during the 5th race lol

[dans96ss]

well 1st of all i said a tested 2000 ss ran 13.9 i never said all ls1 ran that. im sure there is much quicker 2000s i go by what the car mags say road track motorweek ect. are they always right? fuck no! i do take offense being called a retard and on drugs though. im just reporting on what ive read or seen. i dont pull these # out of my ass! my car might just run mid 13s its never been abused and has 40,000 miles on it. but i have more sense then to wreck a rare car. for shits and giggles look up the fastest modern american muscle cars see how many of your cars are on that list? mines#10

[Zinergy]

well 1st of all i said a tested 2000 ss ran 13.9 i never said all ls1 ran that. im sure there is much quicker 2000s i go by what the car mags say road track motorweek ect. are they always right? fuck no! i do take offense being called a retard and on drugs though. im just reporting on what ive read or seen. i dont pull these # out of my ass! my car might just run mid 13s its never been abused and has 40,000 miles on it. but i have more sense then to wreck a rare car. for shits and giggles look up the fastest modern american muscle cars see how many of your cars are on that list? mines#10

Well since ls1 cars have run high 12s stock then i guess our ls1 cars should be higher on that list. You have more chance of getting in an accident on the street than crashing a stock car at the drag track. Oh and fyi a 96 or 97 SS may be rare, but they are still only worth 6-7k even with lower mileage.

[BLKCLOUD]

I still want to try them there drugs....

[wooddaniel]

Best I ran in my 97 Z28 was 13.79@103. I consistently ran 13.9-14.1 when it was stock. It was an A4 3.23 geared hardtop car with only exhaust and KN filter when I ran the lower time. The LS1 is without a doubt most of the time the faster car stock vs stock. My brother's stock LS1 TA Convertible used to win almost every time when we went to the track.

[00z28bubba]

well 1st of all i said a tested 2000 ss ran 13.9 i never said all ls1 ran that. im sure there is much quicker 2000s i go by what the car mags say road track motorweek ect. are they always right? fuck no! i do take offense being called a retard and on drugs though. im just reporting on what ive read or seen. i dont pull these # out of my ass! my car might just run mid 13s its never been abused and has 40,000 miles on it. but i have more sense then to wreck a rare car. for shits and giggles look up the fastest modern american muscle cars see how many of your cars are on that list? mines#10

were you referring to these lists?
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...s-50fast.shtml
the 2nd list is modern cars but the 00 ws6 and 02 z28 were running very sub par times for their traps. they need to update their list. might as well show all of their record times not records for some and regular times from others. i know its not your list and all but there we some good times on the list but many that were not that special.

[BLKCLOUD]

That list is utter crap. Magazine/internet race all you want. Those of us that actually race - and watch racing at the racetrack (vice our computers) - are quite aware that on average, with all else being equal, an LS1 F-body is 5-7 tenths and 5-7 mph quicker/faster than an LT1 F-body.

Don't want to believe me? Darn.

And you'd be hard-pressed to pin the "LS1 Fanboy" label on me.

Enjoy your car. It's a nice one, no doubt.

[Zinergy]

were you referring to these lists?
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...s-50fast.shtml
the 2nd list is modern cars but the 00 ws6 and 02 z28 were running very sub par times for their traps. they need to update their list. might as well show all of their record times not records for some and regular times from others. i know its not your list and all but there we some good times on the list but many that were not that special.

That list is bad and way outdated. Newest car is a 2002, and that c5 z06 that ran a 12.5 can run a 11.8-12.0 at 118mph.

[00z28bubba]

That list is utter crap. Magazine/internet race all you want. Those of us that actually race - and watch racing at the racetrack (vice our computers) - are quite aware that on average, with all else being equal, an LS1 F-body is 5-7 tenths and 5-7 mph quicker/faster than an LT1 F-body.

Don't want to believe me? Darn.

And you'd be hard-pressed to pin the "LS1 Fanboy" label on me.

Enjoy your car. It's a nice one, no doubt.

That list is bad and way outdated. Newest car is a 2002, and that c5 z06 that ran a 12.5 can run a 11.8-12.0 at 118mph.

he said google that list so i did. and as far as the times and vehicles go, again they need it updated and should at least try to find the record times or something that shows some trap speeds that match the cars et.