The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.
Autoroc.. congrats on that 400lb/ft 
Steve Y.. how do you KNOW this *turd* doesn't put down 350lb/ft? Just because your rustang cant put more than 350lb's down, doesn't mean my Camaro can't put down 350 lb's.
Redscreamin.. 91mph in the 1/4 is quite slow compared to some 305's I have seen.

Steve Y.. how do you KNOW this *turd* doesn't put down 350lb/ft? Just because your rustang cant put more than 350lb's down, doesn't mean my Camaro can't put down 350 lb's.
Redscreamin.. 91mph in the 1/4 is quite slow compared to some 305's I have seen.
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.
Originally Posted by 85_305
Autoroc.. congrats on that 400lb/ft 

Originally Posted by 85_305
Steve Y.. how do you KNOW this *turd* doesn't put down 350lb/ft? Just because your rustang cant put more than 350lb's down, doesn't mean my Camaro can't put down 350 lb's.
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.
Oh *****.. are you freaking serious (regarding autoroc)? Whaaat an idiot (myself..)
In case you didn't know (not being a dick) torque is what a 305 does best. Hp on the other hand
But torque
is DEFFENINTLY not a problem.
In case you didn't know (not being a dick) torque is what a 305 does best. Hp on the other hand
But torque
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.
There are also articles that say that LT1 fbodies run high 14's, and articles that say LS1's have 305hp, but we all know that neither of those things is true.
Don't believe everything you read, see for yourself.
Don't believe everything you read, see for yourself.
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.
LT1'a run mid to low 14's.. but how does an LS1 not have at LEAST 305 hp? (in the lower-powered models..)
EDIT: Ooops.. sorry, I didnt relize you said STOCK 305.. I was thinking modded. In that case, No, I have NOT seen/heard of a stock 305 going 91mph. But Then again I have not looked into the higher-powered 305's making that i posted earlier.
EDIT: Ooops.. sorry, I didnt relize you said STOCK 305.. I was thinking modded. In that case, No, I have NOT seen/heard of a stock 305 going 91mph. But Then again I have not looked into the higher-powered 305's making that i posted earlier.
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.
Refering to the LS1's power, I wasn't saying that they make less than 305hp, I was just saying that the magazines peg them at 305 and they really make closer to 340-350 (probably like 305 at the rear wheels).
Yes, I definitally agree that a modded 305 could go faster. I've seen a superchrarged 305 go 9's (but that's just insane). I was just refering to when you said a stock 305 could beat a 2000 mustang GT. A 91mph car isn't going to come close to beating a 97-100mph car (the GT).
Yes, I definitally agree that a modded 305 could go faster. I've seen a superchrarged 305 go 9's (but that's just insane). I was just refering to when you said a stock 305 could beat a 2000 mustang GT. A 91mph car isn't going to come close to beating a 97-100mph car (the GT).
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.
Originally Posted by RedScreamin
I've already said what I think about magazine articles.
Originally Posted by RedScreamin
BTW, even 95mph isn't going to beat a 2000 GT.
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.
Originally Posted by RedScreamin
I've already said what I think about magazine articles.
BTW, even 95mph isn't going to beat a 2000 GT.
BTW, even 95mph isn't going to beat a 2000 GT.
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.
Originally Posted by 85_305
No... but that 20+ year old 305 "turd" will HANG with that 2000 GT. But 9's with a supercharger? That is f'ing INSANE! I might look into twin turb's later in life, but for right now I think I will be satisfied 

Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.
Originally Posted by MikeRock
Hey you guys remeber when i raced that ninja???
That was pretty sweet.
That was pretty sweet.
Pretty darn rude to completely jack your thread.


