Another who will win thread.... sorry
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 26
From: Irmo, S.C
While I definitely agree with you on the horrible shifter, your off on the handling issue. A properly maintained Vr4 handles very well. The mags put it between .89 and .96 lateral g's and slaloms around 68 mph. Those are good numbers for a car of any weight....let alone 3800 lbs. I was very impressed with the handling on the 2 I've driven.
Jason
Jason
Originally posted by roadrage912
i ran dead even with a modded newer one when i was stock. it was also from a roll with him being a manual and me an A4. i have yet to see one grab 13s even with small mods. even if they are fast it's like driving a slushbox for a tranny and dragging a dead elephant behind you for handling. never heard of any LT1 having any problems with any of them that are stock or slightly modded. but hey, i bet every single one of them was a bad driver.
i'm not ******* on them and i like to give credit where credit is due. he should get u out of the hole but after that it's over, and from a roll u should take him also.
and similar trap speeds mean nothing
i ran dead even with a modded newer one when i was stock. it was also from a roll with him being a manual and me an A4. i have yet to see one grab 13s even with small mods. even if they are fast it's like driving a slushbox for a tranny and dragging a dead elephant behind you for handling. never heard of any LT1 having any problems with any of them that are stock or slightly modded. but hey, i bet every single one of them was a bad driver.
i'm not ******* on them and i like to give credit where credit is due. he should get u out of the hole but after that it's over, and from a roll u should take him also.and similar trap speeds mean nothing
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 11
From: Milledgeville, GA
Since they already run in the 13s stock, it'd be a pretty sad example that couldn't do it after mods. Give me just a $20 boost controller and I'll do better than 13.30 in any year model; with a 94+ it'll be 12.90s.
And trap speeds mean nothing? Obviously you haven't been racing cars for very long.
And trap speeds mean nothing? Obviously you haven't been racing cars for very long.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9
they run in the 13s stock just like lt1s dip in the 13s stock.
however the earlier vr4s were slower, and i suppose with a sick launch and a cold day you can go 13s, but it's not common.
the handling might be fine, it's inferior to all it's turbo import brethren of the 90s.
there's stock motor ls1s than dip into the 12s as well, it is also rare.
The one 10 second Trailer queen Stealth i've seen in my life got served by a heads/cam n20 C5. I don't know what he trapped, i know he got eliminated though.
however the earlier vr4s were slower, and i suppose with a sick launch and a cold day you can go 13s, but it's not common.
the handling might be fine, it's inferior to all it's turbo import brethren of the 90s.
there's stock motor ls1s than dip into the 12s as well, it is also rare.
The one 10 second Trailer queen Stealth i've seen in my life got served by a heads/cam n20 C5. I don't know what he trapped, i know he got eliminated though.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 11
From: Milledgeville, GA
Let's see. Wow, their lateral G's are awful. Only ahead of the C5, Supra, and NSX-T:
http://stealth316.com/images/mt_5-97-p16.jpg
Yep, it's 1.4 mph slower in the slalom than a Supra and NSX. Still ahead of a C5 by the same amount:
http://stealth316.com/images/mt_5-97-p17.jpg
Brakes must be awful. After all, it takes 2ft more than a Ferrari to stop from 60, 1 ft. more than the Supra, and ties a C5. It stops 4 feet sooner than the all-mighty NSX-T and its bargain basement price of $88,000.
How about vs. the 300ZX, the other uber-import? In a 1991 test, the Stealth stopped from 70 in 5 fewer feet. 94+ models have much improved brakes (4 piston calipers and +1 inch on the rotors) that would widen that gap even further. They had the exact same roadcourse times in that test.
http://stealth316.com/images/cd_8-91_p5.jpg
http://stealth316.com/images/cd_8-91_p6.jpg
That the car handles poorly is just as bad as when a Civic loses to an F-body and his friends say "That's ok, just wait till he gets into the twisties" like somehow a Camaro couldn't possibly handle as well as a $15k econobox.
Who gives a damn if a car weighs 3800 lbs when it can still post the numbers listed above? The only real shortcoming the 3kS platform had against the other cars of the era was power. They all made the same on paper but it's plain that 99-100 mph traps are not enough. Luckily, power is the easiest thing to add. They are not cars for highschool kids to own; the upkeep will kill them. At 10-12 years old there will be a lot of required maintanance to keep the car operating properly, much more than the average kid will do so you'll see a lot of them driving beaters.
It will always be the bastard redheaded stepchild of the imports. Those of us who own them accept that. I just try to answer people's questions here fully & truthfully so they aren't surprised when they race what everyone has told them is an easy mark. In the past 14 years I have left a lot of people slack-jawed after they picked a run with the overweight decade-old v6 with no obvious mods.
http://stealth316.com/images/mt_5-97-p16.jpg
Yep, it's 1.4 mph slower in the slalom than a Supra and NSX. Still ahead of a C5 by the same amount:
http://stealth316.com/images/mt_5-97-p17.jpg
Brakes must be awful. After all, it takes 2ft more than a Ferrari to stop from 60, 1 ft. more than the Supra, and ties a C5. It stops 4 feet sooner than the all-mighty NSX-T and its bargain basement price of $88,000.
How about vs. the 300ZX, the other uber-import? In a 1991 test, the Stealth stopped from 70 in 5 fewer feet. 94+ models have much improved brakes (4 piston calipers and +1 inch on the rotors) that would widen that gap even further. They had the exact same roadcourse times in that test.
http://stealth316.com/images/cd_8-91_p5.jpg
http://stealth316.com/images/cd_8-91_p6.jpg
That the car handles poorly is just as bad as when a Civic loses to an F-body and his friends say "That's ok, just wait till he gets into the twisties" like somehow a Camaro couldn't possibly handle as well as a $15k econobox.
Who gives a damn if a car weighs 3800 lbs when it can still post the numbers listed above? The only real shortcoming the 3kS platform had against the other cars of the era was power. They all made the same on paper but it's plain that 99-100 mph traps are not enough. Luckily, power is the easiest thing to add. They are not cars for highschool kids to own; the upkeep will kill them. At 10-12 years old there will be a lot of required maintanance to keep the car operating properly, much more than the average kid will do so you'll see a lot of them driving beaters.
It will always be the bastard redheaded stepchild of the imports. Those of us who own them accept that. I just try to answer people's questions here fully & truthfully so they aren't surprised when they race what everyone has told them is an easy mark. In the past 14 years I have left a lot of people slack-jawed after they picked a run with the overweight decade-old v6 with no obvious mods.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RX Speed Works
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Sep 11, 2015 03:31 PM
88IROC_Z
Computer Diagnostics and Tuning
2
Jul 22, 2015 11:38 PM