Silverado SemiSport test in C&D
05-23-2003, 10:49 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Originally posted by IZ28
Guion, L98's IROC's were getting 6.2 0-60 times since 87 and it only got faster with each year, I recall a test in 92 which a Z28 got a 5.9 or 5.8. Probably the same goes for Corvettes too. I think some M*stang 5.0 5-Speed LX's did better than 6.3, but maybe not.
Guion, L98's IROC's were getting 6.2 0-60 times since 87 and it only got faster with each year, I recall a test in 92 which a Z28 got a 5.9 or 5.8. Probably the same goes for Corvettes too. I think some M*stang 5.0 5-Speed LX's did better than 6.3, but maybe not.
Hot Rod Magazine--1990 Mustang GT- 0-60 in 6.1 seconds
Note how they're the heavier GT, and not the Lx
.
05-23-2003, 10:49 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 329
Originally posted by guess who
If looking at specifics,The SS has the "same" transmission/engine as the C3 so WHY would it be faster???Hmm>>.?And for Motor Trend to get a 15.1-2 which is the same as the C3 it shows me there is no difference.No way is it "under powerd"
How much does the thing weight anyway?
If looking at specifics,The SS has the "same" transmission/engine as the C3 so WHY would it be faster???Hmm>>.?And for Motor Trend to get a 15.1-2 which is the same as the C3 it shows me there is no difference.No way is it "under powerd"
How much does the thing weight anyway?
05-23-2003, 11:09 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Originally posted by 87camracer
same engine and tranny as a C3? its got a 6.0 liter LS1 based GEN III engine in it. think LS1 and LS6. not a GEN I SBC. hell if anything it resembles a BBC and it doesnt even do that well....
same engine and tranny as a C3? its got a 6.0 liter LS1 based GEN III engine in it. think LS1 and LS6. not a GEN I SBC. hell if anything it resembles a BBC and it doesnt even do that well....
Last edited by RiceEating5.0; 05-23-2003 at 11:11 PM.
05-23-2003, 11:32 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kennesaw, GA
Posts: 269
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
But isn't the 6.0 in the trucks Ls-1 based as well? The one in the C3 is pushing 325hp, which is only rated 20hp less than the SS. That may explain near identical performance #'s guess who is trying to get at.
But isn't the 6.0 in the trucks Ls-1 based as well? The one in the C3 is pushing 325hp, which is only rated 20hp less than the SS. That may explain near identical performance #'s guess who is trying to get at.
BTW, 14.8 @ 90mph is NOT fast.
05-24-2003, 10:49 AM
#24
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Originally posted by IZ28
Guion, L98's IROC's were getting 6.2 0-60 times since 87 and it only got faster with each year, I recall a test in 92 which a Z28 got a 5.9 or 5.8. Probably the same goes for Corvettes too. I think some M*stang 5.0 5-Speed LX's did better than 6.3, but maybe not.
Guion, L98's IROC's were getting 6.2 0-60 times since 87 and it only got faster with each year, I recall a test in 92 which a Z28 got a 5.9 or 5.8. Probably the same goes for Corvettes too. I think some M*stang 5.0 5-Speed LX's did better than 6.3, but maybe not.
But just the same, I'm still pretty surprised at that truck's acceleration. Just the idea something that big can keep up with cars like that is pretty amazimg.
Guess the Lightning and SRT-10 made me forget that just because something is slower, doesn't me it still can't be very quick. The price is still insane, though.
05-24-2003, 11:27 AM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 10,287
GMC C3 = http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...2_0108_sierra/
THe following year they named it GMC Sierra Denali and gave it 4 wheel steering
THe Silverado SS is fast for a truck that big, and of course it is going to cost a lot when it comes fully loaded, a loaded regular silverado is like $38K+
14.8 is pretty good, it's faster than a 454SS or Dakota R/T and about the same as a 5.0 Mustang or GTP.
THe following year they named it GMC Sierra Denali and gave it 4 wheel steering
THe Silverado SS is fast for a truck that big, and of course it is going to cost a lot when it comes fully loaded, a loaded regular silverado is like $38K+
14.8 is pretty good, it's faster than a 454SS or Dakota R/T and about the same as a 5.0 Mustang or GTP.
05-24-2003, 11:34 AM
#27
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Originally posted by RiceEating5.0
Hot Rod Magazine--1989 Mustang GT - 0-60 in 5.9 seconds
Hot Rod Magazine--1990 Mustang GT- 0-60 in 6.1 seconds
Note how they're the heavier GT, and not the Lx.
Hot Rod Magazine--1989 Mustang GT - 0-60 in 5.9 seconds
Hot Rod Magazine--1990 Mustang GT- 0-60 in 6.1 seconds
Note how they're the heavier GT, and not the Lx
.
05-25-2003, 07:10 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Originally posted by It's Cochese!
Who was the retard that came up with that?
C3 = Corvette
Who was the retard that came up with that?
C3 = Corvette
05-25-2003, 10:45 PM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Michigan's left coast
Posts: 2,405
90 MPH trap speed in a 5400 lb vehicle (gotta include a driver) is only 265 HP to the wheels. Certainly the AWD system is partially to blame, but either the 345 HP SAE rating is pretty accurate, or the engine is underrated and this thing is heavier than GM claims (which is extremely likely as those that have had their truck products on a scale know all too well).
05-26-2003, 09:48 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mich.
Posts: 562
Originally posted by Eric Bryant
90 MPH trap speed in a 5400 lb vehicle (gotta include a driver) is only 265 HP to the wheels. Certainly the AWD system is partially to blame, but either the 345 HP SAE rating is pretty accurate, or the engine is underrated and this thing is heavier than GM claims (which is extremely likely as those that have had their truck products on a scale know all too well).
90 MPH trap speed in a 5400 lb vehicle (gotta include a driver) is only 265 HP to the wheels. Certainly the AWD system is partially to blame, but either the 345 HP SAE rating is pretty accurate, or the engine is underrated and this thing is heavier than GM claims (which is extremely likely as those that have had their truck products on a scale know all too well).
A 1500 4x4 curb. wt. is 4925 (that sure is light)
A 2500 4x4 curb. wt. is 5524
now the kicker,GMC Sierra Denali W/ Quadrasteer 5013.
It seems to me that the SS is on a 2500 frame with the Denali drivetrain.?Whatdya think?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Nayr
LT1 Based Engine Tech
7
03-03-2023 08:34 PM
Aaront810
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
13
08-29-2020 09:34 PM
jackpawt883
LT1 Based Engine Tech
7
09-10-2015 08:53 PM