was this fair? ls1 vs 5.0 w/ headstart
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 77
From: Pasadena, Md, USA
Originally posted by BiGGinZ
I am talking about races on the street. You don't drive on the strip so strip times don't mean $hit to me. It is what your car is capable of on a day to day basis, unless it lives in a trailer.
I am talking about races on the street. You don't drive on the strip so strip times don't mean $hit to me. It is what your car is capable of on a day to day basis, unless it lives in a trailer.
Drag strip times mean $hit to you? LOL....... you're living a pipe dream seriously.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 805
From: California
Originally posted by millhouse
Which is why I mentioned stock for stock. Now if your friend runs mid 14's at 97-98mph, he would be a good match for a well driven, well maintained 5 speed 87-93 gt.
I guess it's hard to admit too that you didnt actually investigate that sight very well, did you. If you did, you would have came across this----> http://car-stats.com/stats/tools/faq.aspx
I didnt even bother looking for the data, as there is so many damn popups on that sight it's rediculious.
Which is why I mentioned stock for stock. Now if your friend runs mid 14's at 97-98mph, he would be a good match for a well driven, well maintained 5 speed 87-93 gt.
I guess it's hard to admit too that you didnt actually investigate that sight very well, did you. If you did, you would have came across this----> http://car-stats.com/stats/tools/faq.aspx
I didnt even bother looking for the data, as there is so many damn popups on that sight it's rediculious.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 77
From: Pasadena, Md, USA
Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Ok and what I read was- Each source is verified and entered into the system by car-stats personnel. Unverifiable resources are not entered into the system. So they are verifiable TRACK times. Just because it is from a magazine doesn't mean it isn't from a track.
Ok and what I read was- Each source is verified and entered into the system by car-stats personnel. Unverifiable resources are not entered into the system. So they are verifiable TRACK times. Just because it is from a magazine doesn't mean it isn't from a track.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 805
From: California
Just because you can get low 12's at the track means you are going to beat another 12 second car on the street. That is what I am saying what your car does day to day is better then the best time you can click off at the track.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 77
From: Pasadena, Md, USA
Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Just because you can get low 12's at the track means you are going to beat another 12 second car on the street. That is what I am saying what your car does day to day is better then the best time you can click off at the track.
Just because you can get low 12's at the track means you are going to beat another 12 second car on the street. That is what I am saying what your car does day to day is better then the best time you can click off at the track.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 37
From: Lansing/Howell/Farmington Hills
Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Ok and what I read was- Each source is verified and entered into the system by car-stats personnel. Unverifiable resources are not entered into the system. So they are verifiable TRACK times. Just because it is from a magazine doesn't mean it isn't from a track.
Ok and what I read was- Each source is verified and entered into the system by car-stats personnel. Unverifiable resources are not entered into the system. So they are verifiable TRACK times. Just because it is from a magazine doesn't mean it isn't from a track.
Magazine time are just not as accurate as someone who daily drives there car several month's and takes them to the track. There are very few people that can squeeze the cars potential out of a vehicle after a few runs. It seems as if none of the major magazines have been able to do so either.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 77
From: Pasadena, Md, USA
Originally posted by BiGGinZ
Show me a stock 86-92 gt running mid 14's then. Because if you don't then you don't even have magazines backing up your arguement.
Show me a stock 86-92 gt running mid 14's then. Because if you don't then you don't even have magazines backing up your arguement.
By the way, have you ever been to a real dragstrip? I mean actually sniffing the race gas and all that stuff or have you only watched it on ESPN?
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 805
From: California
I am not going to worry about these magistic 5.0's because everyone I have ever been in seemed really slow to me so until I see one in real life that is way faster then whatever I wont worry about it. Thanks for the good discusion though guys.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 77
From: Pasadena, Md, USA
Originally posted by BiGGinZ
I have never been to a open race night but I have seen funny cars.
I have never been to a open race night but I have seen funny cars.
Secondly, if you want to go toe to toe with me on technical knowledge I'm game because I probably know more about your LT1 then you do. Amazing, isn't it? Yes I learn quite a bit from other cars (LS1/LT1/L98, etc) and it helps to understand what you're talking about. Not only learning but also physically working on one of those cars helps too --- I mean physically turning wrenches.
Ok I'm done.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 37
From: Lansing/Howell/Farmington Hills
Ok, I couldnt resist looking into some of those times after the popups finally cleared.
The quickest times for a 99+ v6 camaro was a 16.1, while a 87 gt was recorded as 15.3. Quite a large differenc *if you actually believe mag times).
It's quite rediculious when you think about it. They have a 99 z28 running 13.8's for petes sake. Do you actually think that's all they are capable of?
They have a 01 mustang gt manual running 14 flat, and a 02 auto running 15.1! It's quite laughable really
The quickest times for a 99+ v6 camaro was a 16.1, while a 87 gt was recorded as 15.3. Quite a large differenc *if you actually believe mag times).
It's quite rediculious when you think about it. They have a 99 z28 running 13.8's for petes sake. Do you actually think that's all they are capable of?
They have a 01 mustang gt manual running 14 flat, and a 02 auto running 15.1! It's quite laughable really
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 159
From: bucks co pa
lol, its been fun watching you guys go at it. hate to see it if someone threw in the 93 cobra in the mix too. anyone have any pix what the new mach 1's look like? what looks differant on them then the gt?