'99 SS vs. '92 3000GT TT....how did this happen?

My buddy (3000GT VR4) raced a local guy with a '99 SS this weekend. It's stock except for a catback (flowmaster). They raced up to around ~135. I wasn't there, but from what my friend with the 3000 said, he barely lost (it was a ~.4-5 mile race).

So the SS won but it was only by a matter of feet. Matt's 3000 GT is bone stock too and hasn't even had a tune up since he bought it. I always thought those Mitsu's were high 13 second cars? And both of them can drive, and drive well. SS was a 6spd and GT was a 5spd. Maybe the SS just isn't running well?

yea, i think something might be wrong wit the ss or the 3000gt went on a diet
they have great hp stock plus awd to boot (if its a vr4, which i assume it is) but their weight kills them
did they race from a roll or from a dig?
roll, ss hands down should win
dig, i still put the money on the ss but it'd be closer

Originally posted by unvc92camarors
yea, i think something might be wrong wit the ss or the 3000gt went on a diet
they have great hp stock plus awd to boot (if its a vr4, which i assume it is) but their weight kills them
did they race from a roll or from a dig?
roll, ss hands down should win
dig, i still put the money on the ss but it'd be closer

Went from a stop. Being such a long race, I don't see the 3000 staying ahead for long at all. Like I said though, the VR4 is absolutely 100% stock. As long as I can beat them both with my new setup, I'm happy. :)

Yeah, those AWD monsters weigh in around 2 tons IIRC :shock:

If it was from a stop the VR4 most likely jumped on the SS since most LS1's have a traction problem.

From a roll I hand my buddy his a$$ in his late model VR4. But from a stop he can jump on me pretty good. I make up for the take off plus a few lengths (3-4) in the end.

3000 GTs run strong in cood mechanical condition ....Doesnt sound like he was stock though, they get crazy fast w/ the right mods, or maybe it was the ss driver

not saying vr4 slow, i love em, but my friend has a pretty modded one and ran 12.99 although he blew something up, he thinks his fuel pump died right before he trapped at the track, and his 5th piston is rly fooked. (not drivable atm) said about 3-5 k work of damage.

Originally posted by Klypto
not saying vr4 slow, i love em, but my friend has a pretty modded one and ran 12.99 although he blew something up, he thinks his fuel pump died right before he trapped at the track, and his 5th piston is rly fooked. (not drivable atm) said about 3-5 k work of damage.

Yeah, they are mad expensive too! So am I right though, high 13, low 14 second cars?

Chances are the guys, like most do, were just exaggerating the whole thing. I'll just have to race them this summer and show them what's up :cool:

NOTE: The 3000 GT VR4 is BONE STOCK he's not really into modding cars and doesn't know the first thing about his turbo motor.

Waiting for JohnM to clue you all in :cool:

Originally posted by Bluntdogg
Waiting for JohnM to clue you all in :cool:

Yeah, where is John M when we need him? He is very knowledgable about these cars. Maybe the 3000GT was a freak and the SS Camaro an auto. vert. anti freak. Maybe the SS had something wrong with it or a bad driver?

I'm very surprised to see this outcome. The 5spd (91-93) models are't as quick as I would think you'd need to be to run an LS1, especially after 60. Add that to the fact it's a 12 year old car and it's even more remote.

Let's assume the VR4 performed as well as the best stocker I've seen and the LS1 was the slowest LS1 I've seen. That'd put the VR4 running ~ 13.80 @ 100-101 and the LS1 running 14.0 @ 101-102. That might be fair considering 2wd traction on the street is a huge variable.

A well launched VR4 should take off ahead of a standard radial LS1. My experience with the 5spd (2nd gear goes to 80) is that boost drops off steadily after 60, especially on a bone stock car (no gutted precats). This loss of power should have an LS1 passing it pretty quickly on the top end.

I guess it all depends on how big the launch advantage was. Using the video & timeslip on my site, you can see how a decent rwd 60ft of 2.1 compares to a 1.80, and I usually do in the 1.7's. Perhaps the lead was big enough that it took a 1-3 mph trap advantage longer than a half mile to overcome. Once the VR4 hit 3rd, boost is restored (lower rpms) and it begins making more power again. This could also account for a stronger than expected top end pull.

In the case of this story, the difference in cars would be much more dramatic if it was from a roll. All in all, I think it was running from a stop that made it such a close contest.

Yea I would drive a 3000gt vr4 they are nice cars. But I would think that this outcome would be more likely with a light modded lt1, then an ls1 with catback. That's just what I would imagine though, I have no stats or anything to back that up.

dodge stealths have the same motor as the vr-4 by the way.

well, off of car-stats.com it says
0-60 4.8
1/4 mile 13.6
trap speed 100 (low mph makes sense, AWD launch)

go to 3si.com and read up on them a bit. Some people claim they have ran low 13's stock. Here's a thread about what the car can do stock by one board member.

http://www.3si.org/forum/showthread.php?t=192478

and what do ls1's run? like 13.8 with good driving?

i guess the 3kgt had the advantage, and the SS was just hanging tight.

and what do ls1's run? like 13.8 with good driving?

i guess the 3kgt had the advantage, and the SS was just hanging tight. [/B]

no, i ran 13.5@104.87 stock, and i by NO means conider myself a good driver....

Originally posted by Klypto
no, i ran 13.5@104.87 stock, and i by NO means conider myself a good driver....


well damn, I'd still expect a close race in that case with a 3000gt.

Hey whoa, I would do a little research if I was you.

A lightly modded LT1 can nail a 13.8, A stock LS1 is a low 13 second car.

Why? The Ls1 traps 5 mph + more the the 3k. On the street that wouldn't be close except from 0-60.

Jason

Originally posted by whoa
well damn, I'd still expect a close race in that case with a 3000gt.