|
Author
|
Topic: FUCK GM!
|
Carless
¯
Member # 9119
|
posted
 
 
There pretty fast. I don't have anything against them. I like them. But im sayin completely stocc vs completely stocc. I think a 05 gt could take a 02 z28. Cuz they have almost thesame rwhp nd torque and the mustang is a couple hundred pounds lighter. I could be wrong cuz I haven't checced the specs on a camaro in alil while. Just my opinion though. I think this because my freinds too coccy wit his camaro.
--------------------
*89 LX 5.0(sold)
*86 GT 5.0(sold)
*90 GT 5.0
Posts: 702 | From: East Bay | Registered: Apr 2009
| :
|
|
90FoX
FoX
Member # 1974
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sovereign:
There pretty fast. I don't have anything against them. I like them. But im sayin completely stocc vs completely stocc. I think a 05 gt could take a 02 z28. Cuz they have almost thesame rwhp nd torque and the mustang is a couple hundred pounds lighter. I could be wrong cuz I haven't checced the specs on a camaro in alil while. Just my opinion though. I think this because my freinds too coccy wit his camaro.
But stock to stock, imo, would be a 02 GT vs a 02 z28.
How do those compare? I think the Z would eat the GT stock to stock. But then again they have a lot more C.I.'s ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
How do the new Maro and Stang stand up to each other? I haven't seen any Maro's out at the track yet or let alone a new stang so I guess time will tell. Anyone have any info on this besides magazines with shitty drivers?
[ June 12, 2009, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: 90FoX ]
Posts: 5364 | From: Shooting Skeet | Registered: Oct 2002
| :
|
|
Carless
¯
Member # 9119
|
posted
Haha yeah 02 vs 02 the gt would get eaten alive lol. They have way to many CI. Not to mention its a corvette engine.
Just curious, my freind think he can take a 99 to 02 cobra. He's got longtubes gears cai flows 3 inch pipin and what not. What would be the outcome of that. Cuz im pretty damn sure he can't take a 03 04 cobra.
--------------------
*89 LX 5.0(sold)
*86 GT 5.0(sold)
*90 GT 5.0
Posts: 702 | From: East Bay | Registered: Apr 2009
| :
|
|
Carless
¯
Member # 9119
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 90FoX:
quote:
Originally posted by Sovereign:
There pretty fast. I don't have anything against them. I like them. But im sayin completely stocc vs completely stocc. I think a 05 gt could take a 02 z28. Cuz they have almost thesame rwhp nd torque and the mustang is a couple hundred pounds lighter. I could be wrong cuz I haven't checced the specs on a camaro in alil while. Just my opinion though. I think this because my freinds too coccy wit his camaro.
But stock to stock, imo, would be a 02 GT vs a 02 z28.
How do those compare? I think the Z would eat the GT stock to stock. But then again they have a lot more C.I.'s
How do the new Maro and Stang stand up to each other? I haven't seen any Maro's out at the track yet or let alone a new stang so I guess time will tell. Anyone have any info on this besides magazines with shitty drivers?
All I remeber bout the stats is that they compared a ss to a gt mustang and a rt challenger. Instead of comparing it to a gt500 and a srt8 challenger.
But they said it gets like 420 to the wheels or somethin like that on a ls3 engine. I forgot. And its just as heavy as the shelby. I don't remeber everythin about it, except that there over hyping it.
--------------------
*89 LX 5.0(sold)
*86 GT 5.0(sold)
*90 GT 5.0
Posts: 702 | From: East Bay | Registered: Apr 2009
| :
|
|
Jessie P
¯
Member # 7073
|
posted
Well my 2002 Z28 ran bone stock 13.00 flat and it put down 307 and some change on the dyno. Now i put down 443 rwhp w/ a cam, bolt on's, 4k stall, w/ my cut outs closed and 461 and some change w/ my cut outs open. Ran an 11.60 @ 119 w/ bone stock suspension, transmission and rear end. Since then I've added a BMR short adjustable TA, BMR sub frames, BMR Pan hard,BMR adjustable LCA's, QA1 adjustable coil overs all the way around, and im adding the Spohn rear sway bar, Level 3 4L60E w/ trans brake, and gears. hoping to cut some low 60s and get my 10 second time slip.
[ June 12, 2009, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Jessie P ]
--------------------
Member of The Track Legion
Know Your Worth... Expect Nothing Less
Posts: 594 | From: Roseville, Ca. | Registered: Sep 2006
| :
|
|
Carless
¯
Member # 9119
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie P:
Well my 2002 Z28 ran bone stock 13.00 flat and it put down 307 and some change on the dyno. Now i put down 443 rwhp w/ a cam, bolt on's, 4k stall, w/ my cut outs closed and 461 and some change w/ my cut outs open. Ran an 11.60 @ 119 w/ bone stock suspension, transmission and rear end. Since then I've added a BMR short adjustable TA, BMR sub frames, BMR Pan hard,BMR adjustable LCA's, QA1 adjustable coil overs all the way around, and im adding the Spohn rear sway bar, Level 3 4L60E w/ trans brake, and gears. hoping to cut some low 60s and get my 10 second time slip.
That's hella good. What's the difference between the level 3 4l60e and a regular one?
--------------------
*89 LX 5.0(sold)
*86 GT 5.0(sold)
*90 GT 5.0
Posts: 702 | From: East Bay | Registered: Apr 2009
| :
|
|
Jessie P
¯
Member # 7073
|
posted
built internals such as corvette servos, clutch packs, band etc etc etc. Just able to take a better beating.
--------------------
Member of The Track Legion
Know Your Worth... Expect Nothing Less
Posts: 594 | From: Roseville, Ca. | Registered: Sep 2006
| :
|
|
Jessie P
¯
Member # 7073
|
posted
Just so you guys don't think im a ford hater, im simply not. I love Fords owned a few and there are plenty of members on this site who will vouch for that ![[patriot]](graemlins/patriot.gif)
--------------------
Member of The Track Legion
Know Your Worth... Expect Nothing Less
Posts: 594 | From: Roseville, Ca. | Registered: Sep 2006
| :
|
|
Insurance Guy
¯
Member # 8241
|
posted
i was reading a magazine at my barbers (cant remember what the name is) but they were compareing the camarro, mustang, and charger. they also though in the GT, GT500 SRT8 in the mix. All 09 models by the way. In the end the over all rating was the mustang gt being the best buy becuase of cost and value. The reason i remmeber was the camarro is more expensive with not much diffrence. The magize also said that if money is not an issue for you that the undistubed king of new muscle cars was the GT500. Part of the reason they said this is becuase they could not get access to the camrro SS.
Posts: 597 | From: San Leandro | Registered: Feb 2008
| :
|
|
Insurance Guy
¯
Member # 8241
|
posted
here is a simlar article i found and posted on CAford a while back on this subject
The New generation of Muscle
a quote from the above article is below.
"Unchallenged 540-horse thrust and great street manners make the revised 2010 Shelby GT500 the undisputed muscle-car king. Since the price delves deep into the $40,000 range it’s not everyman’s car."
Posts: 597 | From: San Leandro | Registered: Feb 2008
| :
|
|
JOEFOX87
¯
Member # 8331
|
posted
I love when they compare it to the GT, cause their so "Top of the line" cars are just modestly faster than the GT. Even with a 100+ HP. Just to think that I can slap a turbo or supercharger and make it faster than them just at 5 psi of boost.
Still going to be cheaper, can have any look I want (Saleen, Shelby, Eleanor, etc.) The Mustang is the best value of any musclecar in America.
Posts: 824 | From: Union City, California | Registered: Apr 2008
| :
|
|
Jessie P
¯
Member # 7073
|
posted
blah blah blah Dude we could all sit here and piss on the tree higher. Bottom line, people are going to buy what they want REGARDLESS of who's faster then who. It really doesn't matter how fast it goes, if your happy then roll with it and be thankful.
--------------------
Member of The Track Legion
Know Your Worth... Expect Nothing Less
Posts: 594 | From: Roseville, Ca. | Registered: Sep 2006
| :
|
|
svfreerider87
¯
Member # 5748
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie P:
Well my 2002 Z28 ran bone stock 13.00 flat and it put down 307 and some change on the dyno. Now i put down 443 rwhp w/ a cam, bolt on's, 4k stall, w/ my cut outs closed and 461 and some change w/ my cut outs open. Ran an 11.60 @ 119 w/ bone stock suspension, transmission and rear end. Since then I've added a BMR short adjustable TA, BMR sub frames, BMR Pan hard,BMR adjustable LCA's, QA1 adjustable coil overs all the way around, and im adding the Spohn rear sway bar, Level 3 4L60E w/ trans brake, and gears. hoping to cut some low 60s and get my 10 second time slip.
do you have any head work done? those are some bad ass numbers, possibly an ls6 shortlbock?
--------------------
Dreamspeed Motorsports
Posts: 1685 | From: Sunnyvale | Registered: Jun 2005
| :
|
|
RED@7kVERT *8850GT*
¯
Member # 5909
|
posted
when i get the blower buttoned up, i want to run you from a dig Mr. P.
mickey to mickey! lol
[ June 12, 2009, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: RED@7kVERT *8850GT* ]
--------------------
02 Z06-11.0 @ 132 1.9 60'
_ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _
Sold:05 CTS-V-13.1@114
Sold:01 Cobra Vert-12.0@119
Posts: 2432 | From: -916- | Registered: Aug 2005
| :
|
|
RED@7kVERT *8850GT*
¯
Member # 5909
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by svfreerider87:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie P:
Well my 2002 Z28 ran bone stock 13.00 flat and it put down 307 and some change on the dyno. Now i put down 443 rwhp w/ a cam, bolt on's, 4k stall, w/ my cut outs closed and 461 and some change w/ my cut outs open. Ran an 11.60 @ 119 w/ bone stock suspension, transmission and rear end. Since then I've added a BMR short adjustable TA, BMR sub frames, BMR Pan hard,BMR adjustable LCA's, QA1 adjustable coil overs all the way around, and im adding the Spohn rear sway bar, Level 3 4L60E w/ trans brake, and gears. hoping to cut some low 60s and get my 10 second time slip.
do you have any head work done? those are some bad ass numbers, possibly an ls6 shortlbock?
ya? do you have heads jessie??
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
02 Z06-11.0 @ 132 1.9 60'
_ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _
Sold:05 CTS-V-13.1@114
Sold:01 Cobra Vert-12.0@119
Posts: 2432 | From: -916- | Registered: Aug 2005
| :
|
|
87droptop50
Go Giants!
Member # 7185
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by svfreerider87:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie P:
Well my 2002 Z28 ran bone stock 13.00 flat and it put down 307 and some change on the dyno. Now i put down 443 rwhp w/ a cam, bolt on's, 4k stall, w/ my cut outs closed and 461 and some change w/ my cut outs open. Ran an 11.60 @ 119 w/ bone stock suspension, transmission and rear end. Since then I've added a BMR short adjustable TA, BMR sub frames, BMR Pan hard,BMR adjustable LCA's, QA1 adjustable coil overs all the way around, and im adding the Spohn rear sway bar, Level 3 4L60E w/ trans brake, and gears. hoping to cut some low 60s and get my 10 second time slip.
do you have any head work done? those are some bad ass numbers, possibly an ls6 shortlbock?
damn sounds like im pouring money into the wrong car
--------------------
HighSpeed Motorsports
87Mustang Gt Conv kurgan tuned
03Harley F150 #5023
69El Camino SS396 -sold
99 f350 7.3 DRW
Posts: 3855 | From: SF | Registered: Oct 2006
| :
|
|
RED@7kVERT *8850GT*
¯
Member # 5909
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 87droptop50:
quote:
Originally posted by svfreerider87:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie P:
Well my 2002 Z28 ran bone stock 13.00 flat and it put down 307 and some change on the dyno. Now i put down 443 rwhp w/ a cam, bolt on's, 4k stall, w/ my cut outs closed and 461 and some change w/ my cut outs open. Ran an 11.60 @ 119 w/ bone stock suspension, transmission and rear end. Since then I've added a BMR short adjustable TA, BMR sub frames, BMR Pan hard,BMR adjustable LCA's, QA1 adjustable coil overs all the way around, and im adding the Spohn rear sway bar, Level 3 4L60E w/ trans brake, and gears. hoping to cut some low 60s and get my 10 second time slip.
do you have any head work done? those are some bad ass numbers, possibly an ls6 shortlbock?
damn sounds like im pouring money into the wrong car
thats where your wrong.
build what you love, its so easy to go buy a maro and make it fast. personally i dont see why anyone can like a camaro, i think there hideous. the only other cars youd catch me pouring money into is a Z06, a 98-99 Viper, 300C SRT8. because i love them....not because some dude put X bolt-ons on the car and its fast. fuck all that. ya maros can be fast, sweet! an ugly, cheap, fast pos....
thats just me tho...
--------------------
02 Z06-11.0 @ 132 1.9 60'
_ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _
Sold:05 CTS-V-13.1@114
Sold:01 Cobra Vert-12.0@119
Posts: 2432 | From: -916- | Registered: Aug 2005
| :
|
|
*EPIK*
¯
Member # 7481
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by RED@7kVERT *8850GT*:
quote:
Originally posted by 87droptop50:
quote:
Originally posted by svfreerider87:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie P:
Well my 2002 Z28 ran bone stock 13.00 flat and it put down 307 and some change on the dyno. Now i put down 443 rwhp w/ a cam, bolt on's, 4k stall, w/ my cut outs closed and 461 and some change w/ my cut outs open. Ran an 11.60 @ 119 w/ bone stock suspension, transmission and rear end. Since then I've added a BMR short adjustable TA, BMR sub frames, BMR Pan hard,BMR adjustable LCA's, QA1 adjustable coil overs all the way around, and im adding the Spohn rear sway bar, Level 3 4L60E w/ trans brake, and gears. hoping to cut some low 60s and get my 10 second time slip.
do you have any head work done? those are some bad ass numbers, possibly an ls6 shortlbock?
damn sounds like im pouring money into the wrong car
thats where your wrong.
build what you love, its so easy to go buy a maro and make it fast. personally i dont see why anyone can like a camaro, i think there hideous. the only other cars youd catch me pouring money into is a Z06, a 98-99 Viper, 300C SRT8. because i love them....not because some dude put X bolt-ons on the car and its fast. fuck all that. ya maros can be fast, sweet! an ugly, cheap, fast pos....
thats just me tho...
![[worship]](graemlins/worship.gif)
+1!!!
I love my slow ass stangs....
I didn't buy my cars because they are the fastest, I bought them because they are what I dig &!!! I respect the LSX cars, but the styling is not my Forte....
BTW, it doesnt take much to make a fox coupe faster than a maro... Power to weight ratio FTW!!!!
[ June 12, 2009, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: EPIK ]
--------------------
=91 Notch:12.31@110 **Under Construction**
=05 CTS-V: 418rwhp/393rwtq=13.01@111
http://www.djepikmusic.com
Posts: 6966 | From: 916 | Registered: Mar 2007
| :
|
|
asskickn88
¯
Member # 4957
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by N8:
quote:
Originally posted by RED@7kVERT *8850GT*:
quote:
Originally posted by 50 Deep:
Now wait a minute. Any company that puts the distibutor & half the motor unter the firewall is lightyears ahead ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
or the distributor under the water pump!!
true story! LT1....
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Or the battery placed where you have to take the wheel off to get to it.
This Trailblazer has all that shit beat, 4 wheel drive and the front drive axles go through the oil pan! No joke, there is a tube from one side of the oil pan to the other...... Not under the pan, not a notch in the pan but a full on axle through the pan! To pull the motor I have to pull the drive axles and front diff off the oil pan. To get the axles out I have to pull the whole spindle because it won't swing out far enough with just one end unhooked..... This is the biggest pile of shit design I've ran into yet. An 04 trailblazer with the vortech inline 6, 34,000 miles and a rod through the side of the block.
--------------------
Three 540 Bimmers and a 5.0 Explorer.... got a Ford back in the stable!
It's time for the country to do what Obama's own father did.
Abandon him.
Posts: 6069 | From: Rocklin, Ca | Registered: Oct 2004
| :
|
|
sic70stang
CAFords OG
Member # 4347
|
posted
bottom line is GM couldnt stay afloat. they made overpriced plastic muscle cars. that fell off in 2002. the pontiac line GONE. they made cars that couldnt out sell lower hp mustangs. bottom line is $$$ and sales is all that ford needed, not the faster car. so yea FUCK GM. Government Motors
--------------------
The anti-crew
1987 rolling safety violation.
Posts: 6940 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| :
|
|
asskickn88
¯
Member # 4957
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by BUICK GS:
bottom line is GM couldnt stay afloat. they made overpriced plastic muscle cars. that fell off in 2002. the pontiac line GONE. they made cars that couldnt out sell lower hp mustangs. bottom line is $$$ and sales is all that ford needed, not the faster car. so yea FUCK GM. Government Motors
Well said. No matter how I feel about GM they do make some cars I like but all are old. Anyone that can't admit the LS1 isn't a badass motor is delusional, it has a lot of power and a lot of potential.... if the engine in my Bimmer goes south I'll seriously consider tracking down an LS1 and 6 speed to swap into it.
Some of my biggest issues with GM is their epic design failure..... here's a few neat ones..... #1: the Pontiac Aztek... who decided to let their sisters retarded son design a car? #2: Chevy Citation.... garbage #3: 40% of the engine under the cowl.... stupid. #4: axle through the oil pan.... are you serious? #5: the Cadillac Cimarron.... duh
Some of the shit they do I can see happening on a car someone built in their garage. I've seen a front wheel drive Focus with a DOHC Cobra motor shoehorned in it and it was a better fit than a V8 in a newer Camaro.
--------------------
Three 540 Bimmers and a 5.0 Explorer.... got a Ford back in the stable!
It's time for the country to do what Obama's own father did.
Abandon him.
Posts: 6069 | From: Rocklin, Ca | Registered: Oct 2004
| :
|
|
04 S281
¯
Member # 9229
|
posted
LS-1's are nice, but 52ish HP per Liter off the showroom floor is kinda FAIL IMHO... they respond well to bolt-ons, whoop de doo... they better! 5.7 liters of inefficiency has alot bottled up, no surprise there...
but GM is putting, what, a 6.2 liter in the new Camaro? and it's less than a half a second faster than a 4.6?! i mean, Ford supposedly has a 5 liter modular coming to the 2010 platform that, naturally aspirated, is within 30 hp of the LS3...
give Ford a 5.4, or better, a 5.8, with 3 valve heads or 4, naturally aspirated, and they will shit on GM...
even when price is no object, the supercharged 6.2 LS motor is the new ZR-1 Vette is matched in Horsepower by a 5 liter supercharged modular in the S302 Extreme by Saleen...
Posts: 1570 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2009
| :
|
|
Black 02 SS
¯
Member # 5939
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 04 S281:
LS-1's are nice, but 52ish HP per Liter off the showroom floor is kinda FAIL IMHO... they respond well to bolt-ons, whoop de doo... they better! 5.7 liters of inefficiency has alot bottled up, no surprise there...
but GM is putting, what, a 6.2 liter in the new Camaro? and it's less than a half a second faster than a 4.6?! i mean, Ford supposedly has a 5 liter modular coming to the 2010 platform that, naturally aspirated, is within 30 hp of the LS3...
give Ford a 5.4, or better, a 5.8, with 3 valve heads or 4, naturally aspirated, and they will shit on GM...
even when price is no object, the supercharged 6.2 LS motor is the new ZR-1 Vette is matched in Horsepower by a 5 liter supercharged modular in the S302 Extreme by Saleen...
6.2L for the LS3, 430hp, and still pull over 30 MPG on the freeway is inefficient? Wow, my math must be WAY off. GM is still using old school pushrod technology because it still works. Same with the single transverse leaf spring suspension in the C6 vettes. Talk all the crap ya want No one can deny the shitty fisher price interiors though, thats one thing I fckn hate about GM.
--------------------
Schwinn 18speed
Posts: 949 | From: East Bay | Registered: Aug 2005
| :
|
|
RED@7kVERT *8850GT*
¯
Member # 5909
|
posted
im putting an LS7 in the cobra
thread/
lol
[ June 13, 2009, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: RED@7kVERT *8850GT* ]
Posts: 2432 | From: -916- | Registered: Aug 2005
| :
|
|
04 S281
¯
Member # 9229
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Black 02 SS:
quote:
Originally posted by 04 S281:
LS-1's are nice, but 52ish HP per Liter off the showroom floor is kinda FAIL IMHO... they respond well to bolt-ons, whoop de doo... they better! 5.7 liters of inefficiency has alot bottled up, no surprise there...
but GM is putting, what, a 6.2 liter in the new Camaro? and it's less than a half a second faster than a 4.6?! i mean, Ford supposedly has a 5 liter modular coming to the 2010 platform that, naturally aspirated, is within 30 hp of the LS3...
give Ford a 5.4, or better, a 5.8, with 3 valve heads or 4, naturally aspirated, and they will shit on GM...
even when price is no object, the supercharged 6.2 LS motor is the new ZR-1 Vette is matched in Horsepower by a 5 liter supercharged modular in the S302 Extreme by Saleen...
6.2L for the LS3, 430hp, and still pull over 30 MPG on the freeway is inefficient?
yeah, 60something hp per liter is great... pshh... and 30 miles per gallon ON THE FREEWAY is a testament to a well gear 6-speed DOUBLE OVERDRIVE... not the engine. if it got 25 or 30 MPG in the city, THAT would be efficiency...
besides, when i talk efficiency, i mean how much power it can make for a given displacement, not MPG... 385 hp out of a 5.4 ala 2000 Cobra R (70hp per liter) or 400 out of a 5.0 ala 2010 Mustang, who product development director Russell Christophers has already confirmed being developed under the code name "coyote" by Ford USA for deployment in late 2010... (80hp per liter)
[ June 13, 2009, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: 04 S281 ]
Posts: 1570 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2009
| :
|
|
|
Email this post to someone!
Printer friendly view of this Ford topic
