AWD Jap Turbos vs LS1s?

**ndt/oos** · 02-26-2007, 07:40 AM

problem is having success finding a ls1 that hasnt been torn up street racing

**Roastem** · 02-26-2007, 07:43 AM

Well, I bought mine with a HARD 88K on it for cheap. I put a HARDER 10K on it. She still runs like a champ. Engine, tranny problems? NONE.

Rear end problems? Well, there is always a catch.

Hell, I burned a whole tank of gas out of it the FIRST day doing doughnuts, burnouts, and racing anybody who cared too. Talk about driving like you stole it.

**djvaly** · 02-26-2007, 07:46 AM

If I were to get a rice car, I'd get a twin turbo Supra and put a big ass single turbo on it to go 800rwhp... other than that RX7 are pretty cool too...
any other rice cars, it is a waste of time and money even is it's fully bolted on stage III, as you'll get killed by any moderate modded LSx. so LS1 with motor swap stroker 402 or 408 is ideal. but that will cost 12-15k in motor and labor to get 500rwhp with supported mods. my 2 cents.

**Roastem** · 02-26-2007, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by djvaly

If I were to get a rice car, I'd get a twin turbo Supra and put a big ass single turbo on it to go 800rwhp... other than that RX7 are pretty cool too...
any other rice cars, it is a waste of time and money even is it's fully bolted on stage III, as you'll get killed by any moderate modded LSx. so LS1 with motor swap stroker 402 or 408 is ideal. but that will cost 12-15k in motor and labor to get 500rwhp with supported mods. my 2 cents.

+1

Supras are sick as hell modded, and STILL expensive, even used and abused. One big turbo and you are looking at serious HP.

At Carolina Auto Masters Jeff Creech lists cars on a spreadsheet with MORE than 400 rwhp only. Who is at the top you wonder? A goddam Supra with alky/race gas pushing like 900 rwhp. It is Jeffs shop and he is like fourth or fifth on the list. In the top 20 there are like 5 Supras!

At a damn F-bod/Corvette performance shop for Chrissake's.

**djvaly** · 02-26-2007, 07:57 AM

true that, credit is due where it is due. Supras get my ricey respect...

**secondgearscratch** · 02-26-2007, 08:09 AM

If anything one thinks its alittle silly for a 5 year old ss with low miles to be between 17 and 20k then a supra is downright retarted. Low miles on f bodys is (usually) 20k 30k 45k. and for 20 grand thats pure unmolested (hopefully) muscle. a supra turbo, say a 94 that has about 95k on the clock will easily go for 26 grand and thats moderately priced. plus the damn parts are like a billion yen and about 20 billion yen later you can beat a hayabusa.
I agree that they are cool and with a big single turbo set up they can put down 800+ hp but last time i checked a single turbo set up on an F body would put down 800+ too. ls1 performance can be expensive but i for one dont have 4000 bucks to throw on a set of headers on my supra.

LS1

**Roastem** · 02-26-2007, 08:15 AM

Man, I was looking at getting a used 2000 M5 till I saw how much the aftermarket parts were. I saw 1800 dollars for the headers. And I thought that wasn't too awful bad considering the car, then I noticed that was for one header!

For that kind of money that bitch better be gold plated!

**tonyjnjz** · 02-26-2007, 08:19 AM

roasted my coworkers 03 m5 last summer

.......i always loved the 01-06 m3's ..theve come down in price a LOT..hot ass car.....to much money/performance value though......theere in c5z06 price range....hum which would i rather have? lol

**djvaly** · 02-26-2007, 08:30 AM

LSx is awesome with single turbo

leaves the Enzos in the dust...

**EE1983** · 02-26-2007, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Roastem

Man, I was looking at getting a used 2000 M5 till I saw how much the aftermarket parts were. I saw 1800 dollars for the headers. And I thought that wasn't too awful bad considering the car, then I noticed that was for one header!

For that kind of money that bitch better be gold plated!

I saw a pair of headers for a Ferrari that were $14,500!!!!!! At least they were titanium!

**tonyjnjz** · 02-26-2007, 08:51 AM

wow tubi's?

**EE1983** · 02-26-2007, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by tonyjnjz

wow tubi's?

They might have been but it was a long time ago. Either way, I guess if you can afford a Ferrari, you can afford 14,000 dollar headers too haha

**Wesman** · 02-26-2007, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Lostandinneedofhelp

Well thanks for all the imput. I guess that answered most of my questions. Heh "think ls1's are no dif than 305 camaros from the 80", I think I've just been insulted?

It's ok tho, my Z28 doesn't run half the time and I have to use my wife's Galant

Didn't mean to insult you, that wasn't my intention. I honestly didn't realize you had an 85 Z28, I must have skipped over that, sorry. But the truth is that American Muscle has come a long way since then, so an LT1 or LS1 is a much faster car than a 305 equipped 3rd Gen. So if your friends are basing their view of V8's off that, then they have a lot to learn.

Anyways my final question is whether or not the AWD makes any difference at all vs a RWD?

AWD is pointless in a sports car, IMO. All it does it sap up power, decrease fuel economy, add weight, and adds more parts to break. Sure you can launch the car hard and knock anywhere from a half to a full second off your 1/4 mile and 0-60 times, but whats the point?? All it does is make the car look faster than it really is. You tell people you run an 11.9, that sounds fast. You take them for a ride, and they say damn it doesn't feel any faster than my friends car that runs high 12's. Thats because it isn't, you just get off the line quicker which lowers your ET. They also get slaughtered from a roll very easily. Not to mention all those hard launches take their toll on the transmission, transfer case, CV joints, and especially the clutch. Thats just seems totally retarded to me, to sigificantly wear out or break your car in order to run your best times. AWD also doesn't help handling, unless you're a moron (not implying that you are) and you enjoy racing in foul weather, which is obviously just plain dumb, or you just plain can't drive worth a shit. Real race cars are RWD, and thats the way it should be.

**EE1983** · 02-26-2007, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Wesman

AWD is pointless in a sports car, IMO. All it does it sap up power, decrease fuel economy, add weight, and adds more parts to break. Sure you can launch the car hard and knock anywhere from a half to a full second off your 1/4 mile and 0-60 times, but whats the point?? All it does is make the car look faster than it really is. You tell people you run an 11.9, that sounds fast. You take them for a ride, and they say damn it doesn't feel any faster than my friends car that runs high 12's. Thats because it isn't, you just get off the line quicker which lowers your ET. They also get slaughtered from a roll very easily.

What about if it goes 11.9@118 with a light launch?

**Wesman** · 02-26-2007, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by EE1983

What about if it goes 11.9@118 with a light launch?

A light launch. Sure.

Like a 5K Clutch drop "light launch"?? Yea, thats more like it.

**EE1983** · 02-26-2007, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Wesman

A light launch. Sure.

Like a 5K Clutch drop "light launch"?? Yea, thats more like it.

No one drops a clutch for an AWD launch. Thats how you break stuff. IF you know how to launch, you rev up to around 4000rpm and quickly slip it, kind of like how I did. Thats coming from someone who got 52k out of their stock clutch with over 150-200 launches.

**Roastem** · 02-26-2007, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by EE1983

I saw a pair of headers for a Ferrari that were $14,500!!!!!! At least they were titanium!

Damn, I don't have that much tied up in my fully modded Z, including the car!

**tonyjnjz** · 02-26-2007, 09:34 AM

awd cars dont handle any better????? wtf???? how come the car mags ( motertrend, car and driver) compliment sti's/evo's for there exceptional handling and its due in part to the awd??????? they compared the handling of and evo to a 360 ferrari in one article ......u think evos/stis and there high center of gravity run 70 plus thru the cones and pull .90 plus G's on the pad due to ONLY there suspension?????? are u giving mitsubishi THAT much credit wes that they set up as suspension that well on such a tall car????? lol i think a lot of it has to do with the awd myself.

**Wesman** · 02-26-2007, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by tonyjnjz

awd cars dont handle any better????? wtf???? how come the car mags ( motertrend, car and driver) compliment sti's/evo's for there exceptional handling and its due in part to the awd??????? they compared the handling of and evo to a 360 ferrari in one article ......u think evos/stis and there high center of gravity run 70 plus thru the cones and pull .90 plus G's on the pad due to ONLY there suspension?????? are u giving mitsubishi THAT much credit wes that they set up as suspension that well on such a tall car????? lol i think a lot of it has to do with the awd myself.

Evos and STI's don't actually handle any better than any other car of similar performance, AWD or not. The advantage that those cars have is that they are easy to drive fast. They are very predictable, and and can make even the most novice driver look like a pro. They have relatively neutral handling, and you never have to worry about throttle indiced oversteer or understeer. You just point and shoot.

So the reality is that they AWD doesn't make them handle better, it just makes they much easier to drive, which gives the impression of better handling.