Can i beat a 04 vette?

My friend's dad has a 04 vette, and he wants to race me. His is completely stock and they claim 350 hp. This should be an kill, what do you guys think?

car and mods are in sig.

If you drive right I dont see any reason why not.

As long as you can drive decently you will win. If it is an auto from a roll then definatly.

It should be close if the Vette is driven well. Let us know.

It should be close if the Vette is driven well. Let us know.

I brought it over there the other day and he checked it out, and said "You might beat me, but it will be the last time i race you until i could win, and i'm too tired to race you rite now." So atleast if i beat him, hes smart enough to not embarrass himself more than once. But, its all in fun! I'll let ya'll know the outcome when we race. later :cz28:

Whip some vette a$$!!! :Owned:

The autos aren't that fast and they aren't that easy to launch well.Your car is only mildy modded with the headers and the vette is several hundred pounds lighter ..you didn't mention if its a vert ,auto or what.I would likely put my money on you if you don't blow the launch or misgears.If his is an m6 would say they would be very close with slight edge to the vette but it also depends on what gears and stuff are in the vette.The z06 has great gears but not sure about the other ones.

I was planning on my own little dual with another guy I know.His is a 98 auto vert.I am actually not afraid to try it with any of my cars they are all reasonably modded.Maybe this summer.

The autos aren't that fast and they aren't that easy to launch well.Your car is only mildy modded with the headers and the vette is several hundred pounds lighter ..you didn't mention if its a vert ,auto or what.I would likely put my money on you if you don't blow the launch or misgears.If his is an m6 would say they would be very close with slight edge to the vette but it also depends on what gears and stuff are in the vette.The z06 has great gears but not sure about the other ones.

I was planning on my own little dual with another guy I know.His is a 98 auto vert.I am actually not afraid to try it with any of my cars they are all reasonably modded.Maybe this summer.

It is an auto and its a conv. which makes it heavier than the coupe, and it's stock. I'm pretty sure i could take him. :Owned:

c5 verts are not really any heavier than a coupe. Now c4 is a different story.
c5 frame is very rigid and no need for an x brace.........fyi

My friend's dad has a 04 vette, and he wants to race me. His is completely stock and they claim 350 hp. This should be an kill, what do you guys think?

car and mods are in sig.
You should have NP beating this guy at all . You should be pushing quite a bit more power then him .
If he has an auto you should really lay it on him . I took an 01 auto vette once in my LT1 from a roll@5mph pretty good for the 1st 2 gears .

Some things have already been said, but...
1) a C5 vert is no heavier than a base C5. I mean, it might be 30 lbs or something, but nothing significant.

2) with an auto C5, it really depends on the gearing. The base auto has 2.73 gears, so it's a dog. My wife's car has them. The optional performance gears are, I *think*, 3.23 gears. There's roughly a 1/2 second difference between a base and Perf geared auto C5.

3) given that you have an M6 with light mods, I think it will be a drivers race if up against a Perf geared auto. Even with an auto, you can be a bonehead and spin the tires off the line and then not lift.

I love all the auto bashing here. I actually think he has a better chance of beating you because he's an auto IF the race is from a dig. It's very easy to launch an auto on street tires. Just gun it off idle and hold on. You want to run him from a 35 mph roll. Guaranteed victory. From a stop you can still beat him but your shifting will need to be smooth and fast. Remember his automatic will not miss a shift or bounce the rev limiter so once it's moving he's just gotta keep it floored.

You have the power advantage but he has a weight advantage. In the end I think your driving will determine victory or defeat.

Good Luck!

Yeah, i like all of the auto bashing going on too. My friend with a 95 M6 with LT's still hasn't beat my time. I think you will beat him though.

TONY

2) with an auto C5, it really depends on the gearing. The base auto has 2.73 gears, so it's a dog. My wife's car has them. The optional performance gears are, I *think*, 3.23 gears. There's roughly a 1/2 second difference between a base and Perf geared auto C5.


1/2 second? That seems like too much. I think the Vette perf. gears are about 3.07s. I saw a bone stock C5 auto. vert running consistent 14.1s at 99 at 4000' elevation. That's pretty fast at this altitude. Autos kick ass from a dig!

Thanks guys, Hopefully i'll race him soon and i'll let know the outcome! I'm feeling pretty confident though. :metal:

2) with an auto C5, it really depends on the gearing. The base auto has 2.73 gears, so it's a dog. My wife's car has them. The optional performance gears are, I *think*, 3.23 gears.


I think the Vette perf. gears are about 3.07s.

C5 A4 either comes with 2.73 or 3.15 (performance) gears.

1/2 second? That seems like too much. I think the Vette perf. gears are about 3.07s.
Why does it seem like too much? The LS1, for a push-rod motor, is rev-happy, and the difference between the base and Perf gears is significant. I tested my wife's C5 auto w/2.73 gears (using GTech) and it was right around 1/2 second slower than the slowest of the magazine times. To give you an idea, it's virtually impossible to spin the *stock* rear tires on clean asphalt in her car. Every indication on various corvette forums is that with the Perf gears, it's quite easy to spin the rear tires. The two gear ratio's, as stated by 03EBZ06, are 2.73:1 and 3.15:1.

http://corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/2004/2004prod.html

C5 A4 either comes with 2.73 or 3.15 (performance) gears.

Thank you. I knew it was something wierd like 3.15s. Why didn't GM just put in the 3.23s?

Why does it seem like too much? The LS1, for a push-rod motor, is rev-happy, and the difference between the base and Perf gears is significant. I tested my wife's C5 auto w/2.73 gears (using GTech) and it was right around 1/2 second slower than the slowest of the magazine times. To give you an idea, it's virtually impossible to spin the *stock* rear tires on clean asphalt in her car. Every indication on various corvette forums is that with the Perf gears, it's quite easy to spin the rear tires. The two gear ratio's, as stated by 03EBZ06, are 2.73:1 and 3.15:1.

http://corvetteactioncenter.com/specs/2004/2004prod.html

I would think more like 2-3 tenths faster with the 3.15s. But if you tested it then 1/2 second must be true. Testing is always better than bench racing. :) I never understood why GM and Ford put in these lame a** "economy" gears. :mad:

Why does it seem like too much? The LS1, for a push-rod motor, is rev-happy, and the difference between the base and Perf gears is significant. I tested my wife's C5 auto w/2.73 gears (using GTech) and it was right around 1/2 second slower than the slowest of the magazine times. To give you an idea, it's virtually impossible to spin the *stock* rear tires on clean asphalt in her car. Every indication on various corvette forums is that with the Perf gears, it's quite easy to spin the rear tires. The two gear ratio's, as stated by 03EBZ06, are 2.73:1 and 3.15:1.

Were you talking about 0-60 or the 1/4 mile? I tested two bone stock Z28s (see sig.). One had 2.73s, the other had 3.23s. The 3.23 car did 0-60, 4 tenths faster than the 2.73 car. The 3.23 car also had about 220 extra pounds in it at the time. So that would mean how much faster 0-60 if both cars had the same weight? Maybe 5-7 tenths? How much faster in the 1/4 mile?

When your talking about jumping from 2.73 to 3.73 or even 4.10 then your gonna see a significant increase in 1/4 mile performance. But from 2.73 to 3.23 is only worth maybe 2 tenths in the 1/4 mile. As autos we don't need gears (they just increase our mpg). We need higher stall torque converters that bring with it higher shift extensions.

I would think more like 2-3 tenths faster with the 3.15s. But if you tested it then 1/2 second must be true.

You might be right, and maybe there's just something wrong with my wife's car. I just know that it runs significantly slower than any mag times I've seen (or what I've seen at the track) for a C5.

As autos we don't need gears (they just increase our mpg). We need higher stall torque converters that bring with it higher shift extensions.

Look what I wrote above: "I tested two bone stock Z28s (see sig.). One had 2.73s, the other had 3.23s. The 3.23 car did 0-60, 4 tenths faster than the 2.73 car. The 3.23 car also had about 220 extra pounds in it at the time." Both cars were bone stock and had all the same options. Gears really help. Do you think a stalled 2.73 car on stock tires would run as fast as a non stalled 3.23 car on stock tires?

You might be right, and maybe there's just something wrong with my wife's car. I just know that it runs significantly slower than any mag times I've seen (or what I've seen at the track) for a C5.

Give it a tune up. Was it carrying any extra weight when you ran it? Does she run low octane gas in it? Was it a hot, low baro. day or at altitude when you ran it?

Look what I wrote above: "I tested two bone stock Z28s (see sig.). One had 2.73s, the other had 3.23s. The 3.23 car did 0-60, 4 tenths faster than the 2.73 car. The 3.23 car also had about 220 extra pounds in it at the time." Both cars were bone stock and had all the same options. Gears really help. Do you think a stalled 2.73 car on stock tires would run as fast as a non stalled 3.23 car on stock tires?

Absolutely it would. A stalled (2800-3500) 2.73 car would destroy a stock stalled 3.23 car if they don't blow the launch. Sorry Steve but the difference between a 2.73 car and a 3.23 car is small. I'm not even gonna debate 0-60 crap because it's 1/4 mile ET that I care about and the difference is still only about .2 between the standard gears and the performance (chuckle) gears.

Absolutely it would. A stalled (2800-3500) 2.73 car would destroy a stock stalled 3.23 car if they don't blow the launch. Sorry Steve but the difference between a 2.73 car and a 3.23 car is small. I'm not even gonna debate 0-60 crap because it's 1/4 mile ET that I care about and the difference is still only about .2 between the standard gears and the performance (chuckle) gears.

You really think 5-7 tenths faster 0-60 is only 2 tenths faster in the 1/4 mile? The seat of the pants difference between a 3.23 and 2.73 car is huge! I've driven both cars hundreds of miles. Also from a rolling punch the 3.23 car has a lot better chance of taking off hard.

You really think 5-7 tenths faster 0-60 is only 2 tenths faster in the 1/4 mile? The seat of the pants difference between a 3.23 and 2.73 car is huge! I've driven both cars hundreds of miles. Also from a rolling punch the 3.23 car has a lot better chance of taking off hard.

Go to ls1tech.com and ask in the tech section about what the difference is between 2.73 and 3.23 gears in the 1/4 mile. Your gonna find out like I did a long time ago when researching gears that the difference is minimal. If your gonna switch gears then 3.73's are the way to go but many say don't bother if you get the right torque converter.

You can debate with me all you want but I still don't believe you. I believe them.

Go to ls1tech.com and ask in the tech section about what the difference is between 2.73 and 3.23 gears in the 1/4 mile. Your gonna find out like I did a long time ago when researching gears that the difference is minimal. If your gonna switch gears then 3.73's are the way to go but many say don't bother if you get the right torque converter.

You can debate with me all you want but I still don't believe you. I believe them.
I know guys that have that have shaved off as much as 4 tenths in the quarter . The average is probably 3 . But , do you realize how big a difference it is ? 3-4 tenths is a HUGE difference .
If you took the best time you could get out of your car. Added cam and headers " stock gears " You would likely see 3-4 tenths in the quarter.
Thats about how big the diff is between those 2 gears .
It simply makes the your cars HP and torque more usuable .

I have know many people in stock 2:73 LT1's running 14.2 and I know a people in stock LT1's with 3:23's running 13.8 .

Not trying to argue but this is what I have seen for the time I have spent around other F-bod owners and at the track So these are real world numbers.
And My formula had a few bolt on's adn I raced my best friends stock 3:23 car VS my 2:73" with some bolt ons " He whooped my A$$ and my car had WAY less miles and was like brand new.

I know guys that have that have shaved off as much as 4 tenths in the quarter . The average is probably 3 . But , do you realize how big a difference it is ? 3-4 tenths is a HUGE difference .
If you took the best time you could get out of your car. Added cam and headers " stock gears " You would likely see 3-4 tenths in the quarter.
Thats about how big the diff is between those 2 gears .
It simply makes the your cars HP and torque more usuable .

I have know many people in stock 2:73 LT1's running 14.2 and I know a people in stock LT1's with 3:23's running 13.8 .

Not trying to argue but this is what I have seen for the time I have spent around other F-bod owners and at the track So these are real world numbers.
And My formula had a few bolt on's adn I raced my best friends stock 3:23 car VS my 2:73" with some bolt ons " He whooped my A$$ and my car had WAY less miles and was like brand new.

I stand by my statement that .2 is the average gain for a 3.23 geared car vs 2.73 geared car. Maybe .3 but you guys that think it's worth .4, .5 or more are crazy or full of wishfull thinking. But add a 3500 2.5 str torque converter to both cars and the gain from gears may actually lessen since both cars now have a 3500 stall flash, 2.5 str for off the line grunt and 4700 rpm shift extenstion.

I believe you could gain .4 maybe .5 from going 2.73 to 3.73 gears. That's a healthy upgrade. But then you pay the price with really bad gas mileage which is fine for weekend warriors but some of us daily drivers might want to reconsider that one. Besides, after all my research I have found the 3.23 gear and 3500 stall are a very nice match and go real nice with N20 :D

I stand by my statement that .2 is the average gain for a 3.23 geared car vs 2.73 geared car. Maybe .3 but you guys that think it's worth .4, .5 or more are crazy or full of wishfull thinking. But add a 3500 2.5 str torque converter to both cars and the gain from gears may actually lessen since both cars now have a 3500 stall flash, 2.5 str for off the line grunt and 4700 rpm shift extenstion.

I believe you could gain .4 maybe .5 from going 2.73 to 3.73 gears. That's a healthy upgrade. But then you pay the price with really bad gas mileage which is fine for weekend warriors but some of us daily drivers might want to reconsider that one. Besides, after all my research I have found the 3.23 gear and 3500 stall are a very nice match and go real nice with N20 :D
3:23's or 3:42's are both nice for an auto . I wouldnt get 3:73's cause the get HORRIBLE gas milage .unless like you said its nothing but a weekend car .

You can debate with me all you want but I still don't believe you. I believe them.

What don't you believe me about? 4 tenths faster 0-60 with 3.23 gears and a 220 lb. weight disadvantage? Way better seat of the pants acceleration? Less dead spots from a roll?

I stand by my statement that .2 is the average gain for a 3.23 geared car vs 2.73 geared car. Maybe .3 but you guys that think it's worth .4, .5 or more are crazy or full of wishfull thinking.

I never made any 1/4 mile difference claims about 2.73s vs. 3.23s. I asked you a question. I asked you if you thought 5-7 tenths faster 0-60 would only be 2 tenths faster in the 1/4. What do you think?

What don't you believe me about? 4 tenths faster 0-60 with 3.23 gears and a 220 lb. weight disadvantage? Way better seat of the pants acceleration? Less dead spots from a roll?

All of the above. I actually own a 3.23 geared car that wasn't that impressive stock (13.5 @ 103). I have dead spots galore and know for a fact it does not have way better sotp acceleration. Believe me, I wish you were right because then I could say I am leaps and bounds faster then the rest of the 2.73 geared crowd. But I know that my car stock was not much faster then a 2.73 geared TA I raced and I had a slight weight advantage on him.

Trust me when I say (and I can say it because I own the car in question) the 3.23 geared auto LS1 is not at a loss for dead spots :p

I never made any 1/4 mile difference claims about 2.73s vs. 3.23s. I asked you a question. I asked you if you thought 5-7 tenths faster 0-60 would only be 2 tenths faster in the 1/4. What do you think?

I have no idea what or how 0-60 times could relate to a 1/4 mile time. Maybe there is a formula to figure it out but I have no idea what it would be.

It just occured to me, traction plays a huge role in the 60' time so it would have to be the same for 0-60 mph. I have had passes where I had a 2.2 60' time and others where I had a 2.0 60' time. Auto LS1's should be in the neighborhood of 5 second 0-60 but that number could be affected by your launch. So in other words Steve, if you had a 2.0 60' time when you ran the 3.23 geared car from 0-60 and a 2.1 60' time when you ran the 2.73 geared car from 0-60 then some of the number increase could be from the launch and or tires and not just the gears.

Besides that, we all know LS1's don't dyno the same. It's possible that you could have a 3.23 geared auto that has 295 rwhp and and race an auto with 280 rwhp and 2.73 gears. It's also possible that the 3.23 geared car got a slightly better launch for whatever reason. Then when the two cross the finish line it appears that the the 3.23 geared car is greatly superior which it is but not because of the gears alone.

Now take a 2.73 geared car with 300 rwhp and race a 3.23 geared car with 280 rwhp. Suddenly the cars don't look so different in 1/4 mile times. I still stand by my statements that in a 1/4 mile the 3.23 gears are worth 2 MAYBE 3 tenths but that's it. Like I said before, I researched hours and hours of threads on gears and torque converters and at least 20 out of 25 people were saying what I am here about how gears help but not as much as a torque converter and only one jump up (like say 3.23 to 3.42) is a minimal gain in 1/4 mile ET. Oh and the other general concensus was that all LS1's should have come with 3.42 gears because 2.73 & 3.23 gears suck ass. This I agree with 110%.

I still stand by my statements that in a 1/4 mile the 3.23 gears are worth 2 MAYBE 3 tenths but that's it.

I believe that. The two cars I raced had LT1s not LS1s. They were run on a g-tech, so I don't have 60' times. But, I launched each car as well as I could. I ran both cars 5+ times. The best time with the 3.23 car was 4 tenths faster than the 2.73 car. The 3.23 car also had an extra 220 lb. passenger in it at the time. The sotp difference was huge between these two LT1s, as well as less dead spots in the 3.23 car. I also drove an LT1 auto. with 3.73s. Talk about NO dead spots at all! That thing took off SO hard from ANY speed roll.

I went from 2.73 gears to 3.73's. SOTP was a big jump with new gears. Also my gas mileage didn't go down much at all. I still get an easy 20mpg. Now that i got myself a good Daily Driver truck i'm good to go with the major mods (stall, DR's, LT's) Looking for low 13's.

TONY

PS i don't think i shaved a 1/2 second off my 0-60 time with gears. I did get a 5.2 0-60 time on a new G-tech.

Stock for stock, back in July when i was stock with 3.23's, I raced another LS1 car with a flowmaster catback, lid, DR's, and 2.73's. We both cut a 2.0? 60", and by the end of the 1/8, I beat him with a 8.9 @ 81 or 82 ( dont have the slip in front of me) to his 9.5 @ 75 mph. I say stock, but my car had a LS6 cam already....Everything else was stock, though! And BTW on stock tires, just about all of the 3.23 auto cars beat the M6 cars at our track. My 91' with the HOT LT1 has a M6 and I only cut like 2.11's on street tires. I was amazed how much better the auto launched at the track. On the street though, the 91' doesnt spin hardy any where it fries the tires on the track!!??! Need NITTO's!! Now in the 99, Im cutting 1.98-1.99 60" times with the same tires....Guess the HOT LT1 builds more bottom end torque. Maybe if the auto ever goes out, Ill swap me in a T56...Who knows!!

Your gas mileage is still that good? I went from 3.23s to 4.10s and my mileage suffered big time. That was with just my SLP flowpac and hypertech tuning. I think at that time my milage was around 16mpg. With my current setup it's a lot worse, but I mostly use the car for racing now.

I went from 2.73 gears to 3.73's. SOTP was a big jump with new gears. Also my gas mileage didn't go down much at all. I still get an easy 20mpg. Now that i got myself a good Daily Driver truck i'm good to go with the major mods (stall, DR's, LT's) Looking for low 13's.

TONY

PS i don't think i shaved a 1/2 second off my 0-60 time with gears. I did get a 5.2 0-60 time on a new G-tech.

I believe that. The two cars I raced had LT1s not LS1s. They were run on a g-tech, so I don't have 60' times. But, I launched each car as well as I could. I ran both cars 5+ times. The best time with the 3.23 car was 4 tenths faster than the 2.73 car. The 3.23 car also had an extra 220 lb. passenger in it at the time. The sotp difference was huge between these two LT1s, as well as less dead spots in the 3.23 car. I also drove an LT1 auto. with 3.73s. Talk about NO dead spots at all! That thing took off SO hard from ANY speed roll.


to ad to this arguement between you two. I have a stock 93 z with 3.23 gears and i raced a 95 trans am (10 more horse than me from the factory) he had a full length exhaust cold air intake and a prted intake and i took him by half a secont at the strip. And ha had 2.73 gears

Just got back from a road trip to Fl. from S.C and could put 375 miles on a full tank. Could have gone MAYBE 400 miles, but didnt want to run out of gas out on I-95!! Does our cars have 15 gallon tank??? Thats the most Ive ever fillled mine was like 14 gallons. I was also running an average of about 80 mph or so at around 2700-2900 rpms average. Cleaned my filter after I got home and you could definately tell on the filter where the FRA cutout is!! That thing pulls in alot of air it seems!!

to ad to this arguement between you two. I have a stock 93 z with 3.23 gears and i raced a 95 trans am (10 more horse than me from the factory) he had a full length exhaust cold air intake and a prted intake and i took him by half a secont at the strip. And ha had 2.73 gears

No argument to add to. He was talking about LT1's and I was talking about LS1's. Two different worlds.

The autos aren't that fast and they aren't that easy to launch well.Your car is only mildy modded with the headers and the vette is several hundred pounds lighter ..you didn't mention if its a vert ,auto or what.I would likely put my money on you if you don't blow the launch or misgears.If his is an m6 would say they would be very close with slight edge to the vette but it also depends on what gears and stuff are in the vette.The z06 has great gears but not sure about the other ones.

I was planning on my own little dual with another guy I know.His is a 98 auto vert.I am actually not afraid to try it with any of my cars they are all reasonably modded.Maybe this summer.

actually when they tested a C5 auto vs manual
the manual was only few inches faster