was this fair? ls1 vs 5.0 w/ headstart

the other night i was driving home when i pulled behind a fox body 5.0, in left lane of a 2 lane road, traffic to our right. he starts revving up knowing their was nothing i could do. the light turns green and he floors it. i get on it lightly since hes in front and as soon as i cleared traffic on my right i gunned it. within an 1/8 mile i passed him with ease and shutdown. so he had over a full second leap and blew it. should i have given him more time?

My friend with a 3.8 camaro walks those cars like nothing. So he would need a big head start to beat you unless he had some serious mods or a motor swap. Good Kill if you can call that bad of a beating a kill.

sounds like a stock 5.0 guy having some fun with you :)

Ls1s are a hell of a lot faster then 5.0s thats for sure.

"My friend with a 3.8 camaro walks those cars like nothing"

Thats bs, must be some slow 5.0s where you live.

Why is it bs? Stock 5.0's run in the 15's just like the 3.8. My friends is a 95 with 3.42's, cai, high flow cat, and cat-back. I know he beats 5.0's because other friends I have is a 86 5.0 auto with cat-back and high flow cats. The 3.8 won by about 7-8 cars in the 1/4. And another 92 or 91 5.0 stick that had full exhaust the 3.8 won by about 1/2 a car. So yes a stock one would be nothing.

Dont take this the wrong way but BULL ****

http://car-stats.com/stats/showstats/showstatsgivenid.aspx

for the 86 5.0 gt. It has 200hp stock!!! Oh wait so does the 3.8 with a few more mods and 3.42's. The 91 or 92 gt runs about the same times stock. We also beat 95 or so stock as far as I can see gt's by a few cars. The mustang gt's until 99 were very underpowered but you should know that if you are claiming bs.

First of all thats 86, after that they had 225hp and 300 lb/ft.

"Oh wait so does the 3.8 with a few more mods and 3.42's"

Ya with mods, im comparing stock vs. stock and even with mods...What do gears have to do with hp?

"We also beat 95 or so stock as far as I can see gt's by a few cars"

Your telling me your v6 takes a 215hp/300lb/ft 4.6l v8 car by 3 cars?

"The mustang gt's until 99 were very underpowered"

Ya but they werent V6 slow....

"but you should know that if you are claiming bs."


I dont know what you mean. Also i believe the maro is heavier.


Ive driven v6 fbodies, and dont take this the wrong way but theyre pretty slow. I raced a new ford 3.8 in my buddies firebird 3.8 and the bird was a lil faster, so ill give you that. I have a friend with a 97 GT and im sure it would take quiet a few mods to that v6 to beat him, let alone pull 3 cars on him.

camaros are fast,and mustangs are slow .nuff said

For the most part your right. But not all mustangs are slow. ;)

WTF!! That camaro was me and I did beat those cars. Thats all I gotta say for it to be true. I hate how people have no faith in my V6, that is what those stang guys said and I beat them! If you dont want to believe it then dont but im tellin you right now that I beat them.

hey garbage, what badges does the mach 1 have on it? does it say mach 1 on the rear bumper as cobra has? never seen one yet. as far the ongoing v6 vs gt fight, its possible. stock vs stock is not likely. i have beaten my cousins 86gt with my 95 4.3 blazer, but condition were right for me and it wasnt a big win. he kills it the rest of the time. so fight nice.

Garbage, not to credit the other guy, or discredit you, but I've seen my share of mostly stock 3.8 camaros run 14.5-14.8 at the tracks here. That's factory five-oh range

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Why is it bs? Stock 5.0's run in the 15's just like the 3.8. My friends is a 95 with 3.42's, cai, high flow cat, and cat-back. I know he beats 5.0's because other friends I have is a 86 5.0 auto with cat-back and high flow cats. The 3.8 won by about 7-8 cars in the 1/4. And another 92 or 91 5.0 stick that had full exhaust the 3.8 won by about 1/2 a car. So yes a stock one would be nothing.

Auto, manual verts run low 15's.

Manual stock hatch's can/will run low 14's in the 1/4 stock. Notchs will run a tad quicker with a very well driven one dipping into the high 13's.

A well maintained, properly driven 87-93 5.0 manual should have absolutely no problems with a stock v6 maro of any year. A auto should still beat a v6 maro, but it will be closer.

you keep talking about an lx. I said gt and if you look up the numbers on the gt you will see I am right. You can't argue with something that happend in real life stop trying to convince me that what happend couldn't of possibly happend it's stupid.

Well... I've beaten two of em'... one was crappy though, but still he had full exhaust and intake rebuilt heads and ignition.(He beat that sh@t up though.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
you keep talking about an lx. I said gt and if you look up the numbers on the gt you will see I am right. You can't argue with something that happend in real life stop trying to convince me that what happend couldn't of possibly happend it's stupid.


Hey man, I'm just staing what a cars capable of. Reaching that potential is up to the driver.

As for a gt, 150lbs is not going to make a huge difference. They are definatley still mid 14's capable.

I never said it didnt happen, so calm down. Should you have beat him...no. I should beat many of the cars that I have, as do quite a few people. But just because you beat one, it doesnt mean they are all slower than you stock.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
My friend with a 3.8 camaro walks those cars like nothing.

And guess what dude, .... I have some land in Idaho I swear it's good and has no land mines. :D

Originally posted by 1BadAzzGT
And guess what dude, .... I have some land in Idaho I swear it's good and has no land mines. :D

Well dude what this says makes no sense so I can't even comment on that.
http://car-stats.com/stats/showstats/showstatsgivenid.aspx

http://evo.qksrv.net/amp/imp/if?publisher=10192&placement=1&location=hs0142791&template=10167

I think a full second off of 0-60 and a second off of the 1/4 is more than a little. Maybe that is just me though.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Well dude what this says makes no sense so I can't even comment on that.
http://car-stats.com/stats/showstats/showstatsgivenid.aspx

http://evo.qksrv.net/amp/imp/if?publisher=10192&placement=1&location=hs0142791&template=10167

I think a full second off of 0-60 and a second off of the 1/4 is more than a little. Maybe that is just me though.

I don't want to read magazine quotes nor does anyone else here to be honest. I want to see "real time" at the track 3.8 go at it with a 4.6 GT stock for stock. Then come back and show me the video. I've never had any problems with any 3.8, period unless of course it's a Grand National 3.8 that might be a different story. :D

Oh and millhouse read the posts before you comment I said the 3.8 has cai, 3.42's, high flow cat, cat-back so he isn't stock.

Originally posted by 1BadAzzGT
I don't want to read magazine quotes nor does anyone else here to be honest. I want to see "real time" at the track 3.8 go at it with a 4.6 GT stock for stock. Then come back and show me the video. I've never had any problems with any 3.8, period unless of course it's a Grand National 3.8 that might be a different story. :D

Those magazine quotes are from real track times it is just hard to admit a v6 chevy could take a v8 ford huh.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Those magazine quotes are from real track times it is just hard to admit a v6 chevy could take a v8 ford huh.

Yes it's very hard for me to admit ... I'm humbled honestly. Thank you for the intelligent conversation and teaching me a thing or two :bow:

Oh and I live too far away from a track to do that or I would.

No man it isn't like I am trying to show you up I was just saying my experiences. Just like you it is hard for me to believe a 5.0 gt is in the 14's stock because I haven't seen it. The 5.0's my friend has raced didn't seem like 14 second cars because of the margin he won by. So that is why I say what I say. Or my buddy's 3.8 is :bow: :bow: :bow: if they are mid 14 second cars.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Oh and I live too far away from a track to do that or I would.

< yawn >... another magazine racer. You're boring me. Get your car to the track, then, come back and talk to me/us here in this forum. Your quoting of magazine articles does not impress me nor anyone else here in the forums the least bit. It's real life drag racing that I'm interested in. Once you've made a real pass at a real track with a real timeslip, then, and only then, come back and talk to me.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
No man it isn't like I am trying to show you up I was just saying my experiences. Just like you it is hard for me to believe a 5.0 gt is in the 14's stock because I haven't seen it. The 5.0's my friend has raced didn't seem like 14 second cars because of the margin he won by. So that is why I say what I say. Or my buddy's 3.8 is :bow: :bow: :bow: if they are mid 14 second cars.

I'm not trying to show you up either. What I'm saying is this. You're quoting bs stuff to me and all the others in this forum and we don't care about those #'s. I can't put it to you any other way.

I am talking about races on the street. You don't drive on the strip so strip times don't mean $hit to me. It is what your car is capable of on a day to day basis, unless it lives in a trailer.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Oh and millhouse read the posts before you comment I said the 3.8 has cai, 3.42's, high flow cat, cat-back so he isn't stock.

Which is why I mentioned stock for stock. Now if your friend runs mid 14's at 97-98mph, he would be a good match for a well driven, well maintained 5 speed 87-93 gt.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ Those magazine quotes are from real track times it is just hard to admit a v6 chevy could take a v8 ford huh.

I guess it's hard to admit too that you didnt actually investigate that sight very well, did you. If you did, you would have came across this----> http://car-stats.com/stats/tools/faq.aspx

I didnt even bother looking for the data, as there is so many damn popups on that sight it's rediculious.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
I am talking about races on the street. You don't drive on the strip so strip times don't mean $hit to me. It is what your car is capable of on a day to day basis, unless it lives in a trailer.

Unless your running slicks and removing weight, the track is the best way to judge what your car is capable of on a day to day basis. There are way to many inconsistancies on the streets to accuratley judge what a car is capable of it's rediclious.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
I am talking about races on the street. You don't drive on the strip so strip times don't mean $hit to me. It is what your car is capable of on a day to day basis, unless it lives in a trailer.

Uhh.... do you realize what you're saying to me here in this Camaro forum? Yes I drive to the strip, make my passes, then head home. The same way the car made it to the strip is the same way it goes home ----- driving it. I continually clicked off low 12's with my old crappy setup, then, drove the turd home. What is so hard to comprehend about that? Sound like a trailer car to you?

Drag strip times mean $hit to you? LOL....... you're living a pipe dream seriously.

Originally posted by millhouse
Which is why I mentioned stock for stock. Now if your friend runs mid 14's at 97-98mph, he would be a good match for a well driven, well maintained 5 speed 87-93 gt.



I guess it's hard to admit too that you didnt actually investigate that sight very well, did you. If you did, you would have came across this----> http://car-stats.com/stats/tools/faq.aspx

I didnt even bother looking for the data, as there is so many damn popups on that sight it's rediculious.

Ok and what I read was- Each source is verified and entered into the system by car-stats personnel. Unverifiable resources are not entered into the system. So they are verifiable TRACK times. Just because it is from a magazine doesn't mean it isn't from a track.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Ok and what I read was- Each source is verified and entered into the system by car-stats personnel. Unverifiable resources are not entered into the system. So they are verifiable TRACK times. Just because it is from a magazine doesn't mean it isn't from a track.

Put the magazine articles down....................... STEP AWAY FROM THEM.

Just because you can get low 12's at the track means you are going to beat another 12 second car on the street. That is what I am saying what your car does day to day is better then the best time you can click off at the track.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Just because you can get low 12's at the track means you are going to beat another 12 second car on the street. That is what I am saying what your car does day to day is better then the best time you can click off at the track.

Really? You're educating me here... please go on. I need Mr. Assclown to watch this thread as it gets more ridiculous by the second.

Show me a stock 86-92 gt running mid 14's then. Because if you don't then you don't even have magazines backing up your arguement.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Ok and what I read was- Each source is verified and entered into the system by car-stats personnel. Unverifiable resources are not entered into the system. So they are verifiable TRACK times. Just because it is from a magazine doesn't mean it isn't from a track.

And just because they are ran on a track (which not all of them do), doesnt mean that they are accurate.

Magazine time are just not as accurate as someone who daily drives there car several month's and takes them to the track. There are very few people that can squeeze the cars potential out of a vehicle after a few runs. It seems as if none of the major magazines have been able to do so either.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Show me a stock 86-92 gt running mid 14's then. Because if you don't then you don't even have magazines backing up your arguement.

I DO NOT need magazines to back up anything. Where is Mike92Lx when you need him? Mikey... where are you? LOL....

By the way, have you ever been to a real dragstrip? I mean actually sniffing the race gas and all that stuff or have you only watched it on ESPN?

So you are saying you would be happy with your car if you could go to the track and run 12's then on a day to day basis you wouldn't care if you got beat by a stock gt or z28 or whatever?

Ive been in awhole lot of mustangs and maros. Sry but the v6s are turds and the v8s will win. Those 5.0s that your 3.8 beat were pos's, most 5.0s these days are, the youngest 5.0 you can get will be 10 years old.

I have never been to a open race night but I have seen funny cars.

I am not going to worry about these magistic 5.0's because everyone I have ever been in seemed really slow to me so until I see one in real life that is way faster then whatever I wont worry about it. Thanks for the good discusion though guys.

Originally posted by BiGGinZ
I have never been to a open race night but I have seen funny cars.

Thank you, enough said. Do us all a favor. Can you at least try to open yourself up to learning more about "other" vehicles before quoting off bogus stuff to us? Am I just a Mustang enthusiast ---- NO! I've owned them all and I'm no BRAND LOYAL so please don't come off to me like that.

Secondly, if you want to go toe to toe with me on technical knowledge I'm game because I probably know more about your LT1 then you do. Amazing, isn't it? Yes I learn quite a bit from other cars (LS1/LT1/L98, etc) and it helps to understand what you're talking about. Not only learning but also physically working on one of those cars helps too --- I mean physically turning wrenches.

Ok I'm done.

Ok, I couldnt resist looking into some of those times after the popups finally cleared.

The quickest times for a 99+ v6 camaro was a 16.1, while a 87 gt was recorded as 15.3. Quite a large differenc *if you actually believe mag times).

It's quite rediculious when you think about it. They have a 99 z28 running 13.8's for petes sake. Do you actually think that's all they are capable of?

They have a 01 mustang gt manual running 14 flat, and a 02 auto running 15.1! It's quite laughable really

lol, its been fun watching you guys go at it. hate to see it if someone threw in the 93 cobra in the mix too. anyone have any pix what the new mach 1's look like? what looks differant on them then the gt?

Mach1s come with a 305hp/320 lb ft. (Machs actually dymp closer to 325 hp and 330 lb/ft) 4.6l n/a v8. Its the fastest n/a stang. Stock machs can run as low as 13.1s with a great driver. They come with tockicos, heavier springs, different interior/exterior.
Heres mine:

http://s93908519.onlinehome.us/15701.html

I cant beleive that this got into such a big argument. Everyone is argueing about my car and what they think it can beat and how fast it really is...well I dont care what you believe but me and Bigginz are the only people who have seen it so thats that.

Originally posted by SkillZ25
I cant beleive that this got into such a big argument. Everyone is argueing about my car and what they think it can beat and how fast it really is...well I dont care what you believe but me and Bigginz are the only people who have seen it so thats that.

If it's as fast as your friend has said, why are you selling it to buy a V8 if I may ask? Doesn't make sense to me. I would keep it and continue mod'ing..............

Originally posted by 1BadAzzGT
If it's as fast as your friend has said, why are you selling it to buy a V8 if I may ask? Doesn't make sense to me. I would keep it and continue mod'ing..............
Ok...It may be pretty fast, even fast enough to beat some v8 mustangs. But I would like to beat V8 F-bodies someday, and to do that I think i'll need a Z28. And plus a stick shift is funner to me. Basically my car is quick but its not fast till I get a V8.

They don't make emmisions legal things for v6's for cali and we don't have the money to pay people under the table when we need to get it smoged.

2000 3.8L Camaro w/ 5-speed 14.467@95.45 $0 in mods!

This is the sig of MustangEater82 so there is a v6 running better then the 16's.

Originally posted by SkillZ25
Ok...It may be pretty fast, even fast enough to beat some v8 mustangs. But I would like to beat V8 F-bodies someday, and to do that I think i'll need a Z28. And plus a stick shift is funner to me. Basically my car is quick but its not fast till I get a V8.

Ok thanks although I understand 100% that you didn't have to explain. Good luck with your new car if/when you buy it.

BigginZ,
14.4 in a 3.8 is very impressive to say the least. If that's the case then yes, it would give some mustangs a fit.

I wasn't trying to say all stock 3.8's will work the older v8's I was just saying the expirences I have had with them in my friends 3.8 with the mods so he is about a half second faster then stock we have won s it should be nothing to an ls1. Not tryin to start a flamming war.

Good luck with your new car if/when you buy it.

Thanks, so we're all cool now...ok:thumb: