Track Kill Stories Race Track Victories, 1/4 Mile Times, Dyno Numbers - DRIVE RESPONSIBLY

The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 07:48 PM
  #46  
85_305's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,610
From: Holland, NY
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.
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 08:04 PM
  #47  
Steve Y's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 97
From: Reno, NV
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.

Originally Posted by 85_305
Autoroc.. congrats on that 400lb/ft
He was kidding, and you bought it.

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.
Did I ever claim 350 ft/lbs from my car? No. Torque is mostly a function of displacement and you don't have enough displacement to put out 350 ft/lbs unless you have nitrous, forced induction or are making your peak power at 6500+ rpm.
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 08:12 PM
  #48  
85_305's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,610
From: Holland, NY
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.
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 08:39 PM
  #49  
RedScreamin's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 39
From: Connecticut
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.

85_305, you have personally witnessed a stock 305 go down a 1/4 mile track and trap better than 91mph?
Old Jan 7, 2005 | 10:47 PM
  #50  
85_305's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,610
From: Holland, NY
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.

Not personally. But many a great article have I read that says so. (Never been to the local track, btw)
Old Jan 9, 2005 | 12:19 AM
  #51  
RedScreamin's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 39
From: Connecticut
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.
Old Jan 9, 2005 | 09:54 AM
  #52  
85_305's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,610
From: Holland, NY
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.
Old Jan 9, 2005 | 10:06 AM
  #53  
RedScreamin's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 39
From: Connecticut
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).
Old Jan 9, 2005 | 12:19 PM
  #54  
Steve Y's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 97
From: Reno, NV
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.

Motor Trend got about a 14.8 at 95.xx out of a stock 5-speed 305 Camaro. It was about a '91.
Old Jan 9, 2005 | 01:35 PM
  #55  
RedScreamin's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 39
From: Connecticut
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.

I've already said what I think about magazine articles.

BTW, even 95mph isn't going to beat a 2000 GT.
Old Jan 9, 2005 | 05:23 PM
  #56  
Steve Y's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 97
From: Reno, NV
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.

Originally Posted by RedScreamin
I've already said what I think about magazine articles.
So you think they were lying about the 14.8 at 95.xx?

Originally Posted by RedScreamin
BTW, even 95mph isn't going to beat a 2000 GT.
Duh, I know that. I was just answering the question about a stock one not topping 91 mph.
Old Jan 9, 2005 | 08:15 PM
  #57  
85_305's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,610
From: Holland, NY
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.
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
Old Jan 9, 2005 | 10:35 PM
  #58  
Steve Y's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 97
From: Reno, NV
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
Stock for stock a 305 Camaro will not "hang" with a 99+ GT. The GT will walk it slowly. No way a stock 305 Camaro + blower = 9s.
Old Jan 9, 2005 | 10:47 PM
  #59  
MikeRock's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 114
From: vancouver, WA
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.

Hey you guys remeber when i raced that ninja???

That was pretty sweet.
Old Jan 9, 2005 | 11:48 PM
  #60  
nuke61's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 52
From: Vista, Ca
Re: The 67 Vs. kawasaki ninja.

Originally Posted by MikeRock
Hey you guys remeber when i raced that ninja???

That was pretty sweet.
Hahahaha, yeah, good kill

Pretty darn rude to completely jack your thread.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 AM.