Steve Y

BOB, LOOK HERE FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT MY FINANCIAL SITUATION:

I certainly don't blame you for not wanting to be a part of this pissing match! That's the trouble with cheapskates like me. I have the cash but don't want to spend it. I guess that's why I have what I have. Most of the money is tied up in my house and the stock market. I lost about 50% of my money in the stock market over the last few years. I really don't want to sell low. I am trying to pay off a $4500 interest free loan to a friend, helping the wife through college, paying for 2 kids and 2 pets. I am scraping by each month w/o pulling money out of the house or the market. You really think 3.73s would give me .4 or .5 more in the 1/4 mile? Everybody rips people off around here for gear installs. It sucks. Do you know anybody around here that would do a good job for a decent price?

Steve Y

It's cool, sidestep the question at hand. Afraid to answer?

I know what I read. I don't really car what you think. Call them and ask them what they ran for the best stock time in that car.

Now your learning.

I don't care what you believe, it's the truth. Want a $10,000 bet on it? We can make a bet and you can come to my house and I will prove it to you. Be sure to bring $10,000 cash.

No, but you mislead everybody who goes there.


Your data lead people to believe you were way overweight. Your fault. How do I look like a fool when you have misleading data?


Everybody is wrong all the time, including me. Big deal, I can handle it. Can you?


Yes, I am definately overmatched at being an a-hole on the internet to everybody.

You've been like this for weeks, not just all of a sudden and not just because of me.


Yes, I understand this hp = tq * rpm thing. But that still doesn't add driveability to a small displacement engine with highway gears.

scott9050

I will put it this way, a guy at my old track (roxboro motorsports, 1/8th mile dragstrip) in North Carolina gained a full half second with a swap from 3.27's to 3.73's (from 9.2's on DR's to 8.7's ) on a basically stock GT at 800 ft elevation in fairly crappy weather. The gain will not be what it is with the Cobra's though. Hell, I gained 1.1 seconds in the 1/4 with my 5.0 AOD with a swap to 4.10's from 2.73's (I had quite a few mods though). I could see you running easy 13.4-13.5 times with your mods with gears and a good launch on DR's. With cams, some head cleanup and a few more boltons, 12 second N/A times with people scratching their heads wondering WTF was going on, looking for nitrous or a supercharger and finding neither. As far as finding someone to do the gears, I drove 80 miles to have mine installed by the Carolina master. Randy was so good he installed them correctly by feel using no measurements whatsoever. Never had a problem with them. Ask around at your track and see who some of the racers (real race cars) reccomend. You might be surprised at what knowlege some of the grubbiest looking people there know, and someone might even be able to set it up for you. If you are looking for a good deal on 31 spline T-loks you can find low mileage used ones on Ebay with higher clutch counts (usually from vans) for $75 or less. A rebuild kit is like $50, so you can have a good quality unit for about half of what motorsports wants for a new one. It is well worth the effort, I am a t-lok replacement and DR's from 12's myself on an AOD hatch that still weighs 3,190 with my big *** in it (270 lbs).

*Edit* I certainly understand the family responsibility thing, if not for child support, student loans, tons of bills etc I could have had my stang in the 9's by now. Scraping up a few grand here and there has been the best I can do for now, especially since I went back to school for a second degree Oh well, the future will see good things from that little red hatch

Steve Y

"According to one" is the key phrase here. I read that they ran a 13.4x at 102 in that car. You have no idea what I read. I'm telling you, call GMHTP and ask them the best time for that car on Monday morning. Crap, maybe I will call and give you the person's name that I talk to and the phone # for all to see. Would you like that? Just say the word and I will call! I've been to more than 3 dragstrips. I "frequent" 3 dragstrips.

Steve Y

In a PM a long time ago you wrote me this, remember?

From what I have seen on a semi stock car like yours gears really do not help that much. One of the guys I used to run with lost a .10th in et in the 1/8th mile with 3.73's but also lost 1 mph in trap speed. Randy Haywood at True Blue Performance told me when I was having some work done there in the past that the reason is that on the stock GT's the rpm's after the shifts takes it out of the modulars power band. If I were you I would look into investing in the power performance heads and cams package. I believe its in the $1700 range exchange and is one hell of a bang for your buck. This is the combo that one of the mags had on a GT putting out 320 rwhp.
AS far as your rear goes, I believe that your tranny will go out before the rear, the rear is decently strong (almost exact same design as a chevy 12 bolt) but if you are worrying about strength in the future (as in 300 rwhp and up) you can change to a 31 spline rear of your choice, forged Moser axles, a set of 9 inch axle ends and a rear cover that is reinforced. I would also have the torque boxes welded to make sure that they don't rip. Most of this you probably already know, but I thought I would throw it out anyway.

Scott
__________________
1990 AOD 5.0 LX
13.42 at 104.68
2200 foot D/A

Which way is it?

I feel your pain about the family money thing. I am in the same boat. But family is more important to me than a faster car.

Bob Cosby

What does all this garbage say? That you have bills, you have to pay your bills, and it isn't easy sometimes? So? And? Does this in any way, shape, or form provide any evidence at all that says you have $80,000 cash lying around to go buy a Viper with?

Bet those pets get expensive. Shew!

Sure.

Not in the least. I was holding that back waiting for you to tell the world how it couldn't be possible - hopefully in nausiating (incorrect) details. Then I'd show you how it was possible, and make you look normal. IE....foolish.

I just posted a link to "what you read". Didn't support your claim.

Fancy that, eh?

Learning is a good thing. Too bad you're a bit backwards on this one.

Sorry, don't have $10,000 cash to bet. Further, I never claimed I did. You did. I still think you're full of it. You can either deal with it, or not.

ROFLOL. I've mislead you - and everybody else, I suppose - about my personal body weight because I haven't updated my car's information on my website in several months?

Holy schmoly is it getting deep in here!

As for how you look like a fool...that's easy. Find a mirror, then go get someone to point out the obvious.

Sure, but I'm not about to give you any examples - if I can help it.

Not everybody, jr. But you and your boy lovescamaro are just too much fun.

Of course. As far as you know.

A) I don't think you understand it at all.
B) Drivability is fine with a stock 99+ GT. An extra 50 lb/ft of torque @ 2000 rpm doesn't add "driveability". It does add the ability to pull a bigger trailer though.

Wait! I was wrong! If pulling a bigger trailer is the definition of "drivability", then you're right! Woo hoo! I have seen the light!

...**** Y A W N ****...

Sounded good anyways.

Oh, you read something different? I see. But you can't prove it? Uh huh. So you want me to prove that you can't prove it? Uh huh. Sure.

You're welcome to call. Talk to Evan Smith - he probably drove the car. Please do call, and tell him I said hi. I haven't talked with him for a long time.

Oh, I see. Is this like the old gameshow "Change that Tune"?

Now lets get your boy again...

Interesting. Please - let me attempt to get this straight....using your logic, if the F-body had retained the LT1 instead of going to the LS1, it might not have been killed? Is that what you are saying? Please (pretty please) clarify. Thank you.

Better listen to this lovescamaro guy - he's the king of making sense.

Zoooom! Whole point went so far over your head that you couldn't have hit it with the space shuttle.

Correct (except for the 93 F-body, of course - but I'm betting you knew about those differences, right?).

Not correct. Go ask Steve what wins races. It should be an entertaining response.

This is the idle to 3000 rpm race, right?

scott9050

You have a few more mods since then (you have also admitted to shedding weight on the car since) so what I said about the gears (this time) stands With the weight reduction and mods you have done (and especially the DR's) you should gain well. The person I was racing with (old friend) didn't have DR's and didn't do very well . The fact that he wasn't very experienced didn't help either. Now remember what Randy said? He was talking about STOCK GT's in general. The GT that ran half a second faster was running the same trap speed (78-79) but cutting killer 60 foot times Sounds strange I know, but the difference between stock with gears and no DR's versus weight reduction, mods DR's and gears is totally different

The gear thing still stands as well, your HP would be wel below 300 with your mods and gears

Anyway, I will bow out because I do not want to be sucked into this, I am in too good of a mood

Bob Cosby

If you can get traction, and don't overgear the car to the point that you are beyond redline in 4th before the last mph cone, then gearing can only help - not hurt. See torque multiplication (and the formula for HP).

Bob Cosby

Chicken.

scott9050

I've been in too many of them here over the past 5 1/2 years. I am getting passive in my old age

lovescamaros25

ok Bob,Ill answer your question.No the camaro probably would of not been spared if it kept the lt1 platform.Answer me something.Why does the lt1 make more low end torque than the ls1?The ls1 has a 3.90b and a 3.62s compared to 4.00b and 3.48 of the lt1.Normally wouldnt the car with the longer stroke,and smaller bore make more low end torque?I suppose it is mainly the difference in the cam grind between the two engines.I know the stock lt1 uses a cam with 268in and 270ex duration,although im not sure about the lsa.I think lift is .450in.460ex.Enlighten me with your superior knowledge Bob.

Steve Y

I'm very tired of these arguements and this thread. Believe what you want about me. I have no money. Never been to the dragstrip. Stock LT1s run a best of 14.0. Torque does not help driveability at all. Crap I can't even operate a motor vehicle and my i.q. is 3. Whatever. I don't care anymore. You proved you can argue anything to the moon and back. You win. I'm done arguing with you. I've added you to my ignore list. Out.

Steve Y

Now I just need to find a good installer, cheap.

bowtieforpower

Not always the case in this situation...because not every motor dynos the same. My 96 when it was stock and an a4 raced my friends 98 z28 a4 and i took him on the line and he didnt pass me until high rpms, and even then i stayed on his butt. also my tranny was all jacked up at tnos and didnt shift good at all. so maybe his dads lt1 dynos more. just my 02.

Bob Cosby

Good morning! It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, eh?

I'm sorry, but the idea that the LS1 had anything at all to do with the demise of the F-body, or that the LT1 may helped save it had it stayed between the fender rails is just 100% looney tunes. The LS1 is more powerful, lighter, and more efficient. Get over it.

Golly Wally, I don't know.....head volume? Camshaft? Intake runner length?

Assuming your numbers are accurate (I didn't check), what you're saying is that my 4.6L should be more of a "torque monster" than your LT1. Why? Because I have more stroke (3.55 vs 3.48) and a smaller bore (3.55 vs 4.00). It should be LOADED with trailer pulling torque, right?

Best go get a different book.

Perhaps. Perhaps the heads have something to do with it too (that's a rhetorical question, btw).

[quoe]I know the stock lt1 uses a cam with 268in and 270ex duration,although im not sure about the lsa.I think lift is .450in.460ex.Enlighten me with your superior knowledge Bob.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I can't enlighten you on many of the internal specs of either motor. But the fact remains (as stated above) that the LS1 is signficantly more powerful, lighter, and more efficient than the LT1 that it replaced.

Once again, that's not a slam at all on the LT1. It is a fine motor, and was one of the best in its day. It's called progress - and it continues. The LS2 is going to upstage the LS1 in virtually every category too.

BTW....I consider the LS1/6 to be the best mass-produced performance V8 ever made. That is, of course, personal opinion.

Good Morning Stevey,

If I were in your shoes, I'd not doubt be tired of them too.

Thank you, I will.

Come on now, we don't believe that! We just don't believe you have $80,000 cash lying around to go buy a Viper.

LOL. Or at least 3, right?

Most of em. BTW...your attempt at sarcasm is poor.

Torque rules all - and that's a fact. When combined with engine rpm, we make power. Can't have one without the other. The problem is your silly references to races from "idle to 3000 rpm" and that 20 lb/ft of torque @ 2000 rpm is going to make a car feel so much different. I guess my butt-o-meter just isn't calibrated very well. Must be my age.

I'm REAL tempted to believe this, but I won't.

ROFLOL. You know what? All kidding aside - that's certainly possible.

There's a winner in all of this? I didn't know.

Ok. To answer the MPG question from a few pages earlier in this mess.

My 99 Cobra when brand new got a best of 26.5 mpg, pure highway driving. Going back and forth to work, I usually got about 19-20 mpg (65/35 highway/city, 26 miles each way).

This past spring, I drove from Va Beach to DC and back (work related). This is with the new class motor (NMRA Factory Stock rules), 4.56 gears, T5 tranny, etc. I had been getting 20-21 on my to work and back circuit, and was pleasantly surprised when I got 28 mpg on this trip.

Counterintuitive? Sure. So how can it be?

With the original, stock motor, but all the mods I had done (including the gears), I was still able to pull down nearly the same mileage as when I was bone stock. Several factors allow this:

- Free exhaust not only helps power, it is more efficient and thus helps mileage.
- 295/50/15 rear tires are 26.7" tall - about an inch taller than the stock 17" tires, reducing tire speed and thus engine rpm (effectively killing some of the gear)
- A T5 with a .59 5th gear vice the .67 5th gear in the stock T45. This by itself knocked off almost 300 rpm at 70 mph. The taller tires knocked another 100 rpm off. So with the 4.56 gears, I was running ~2400 rpm @ 70 mph. Very moderate indeed.
- Though the engine is turning higher with that gear, the load is less. This can easily be seen if you have a vacuum/boost gauge hooked up (I have a vacuum gauge for unrelated reasons). So although the motor was spinning higher, it had less load on it, which offset some of the extra fuel needs (I have no idea how much).

All that allowed me to run near-stock mileage. I was able to get the 28 mpg with the new motor simply because it is more efficient internally than the stock motor. The class I run requires stock cams, unported heads and intake, flattop pistons, etc. That means that the engine builder looks for efficiency to try and gain power. We gained over 40 RWHP under those rules (stock cams, unported heads/intake, etc), mainly through being more efficient. That contributed greatly to the better gas mileage.

There you go. Have a great day!