2004 WRX vs 1998 Camaro Z28 - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

This is a discussion on 2004 WRX vs 1998 Camaro Z28 within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by 2004NeonSRT4 searched the web. first response 99 camaro dyno pull...stock ls1...301 rwhp and 318 - Truveo Video ...

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by 2004NeonSRT4 View Post
    searched the web. first response

    99 camaro dyno pull...stock ls1...301 rwhp and 318 - Truveo Video Search

    301/318 auto 99 ls1.


    stock 02 ss 6spd

    http://memimage.cardomain.net/member...3_125_full.jpg

    looks like 315ish


    they post dyno sheets at dragtimes.com, the 4 or 5 z28s and ss camaros under the year 2002 all showed between 260 and 290 whp. i think there was 1 with 292 that had a k&n

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #32
    Registered User Dan00Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    they post dyno sheets at dragtimes.com, the 4 or 5 z28s and ss camaros under the year 2002 all showed between 260 and 290 whp. i think there was 1 with 292 that had a k&n
    I've been to 10+ dyno days in the last 10 years featuring F-bodies of all sorts (20+ cars each dyno day). The only LS1's (1998-2002) that dyno'd under 300 rwhp were automatics and stock. Never seen one under 285 rwhp for the stock automatics, and they were typically right around 300 rwhp. All the six speeds were well over 300 rwhp.

    Remember, that 1997 and earlier are LT1's, and THOSE will dyno a bit lower than the LS1 and in the range you were mentioning.


    2007 VW GTI 6 spd. No times yet
    2000 Firehawk convertible 6spd- 12.52 @ 114.7 mph. 2.09 60'

    Sold: 2004 Mini Cooper S. 14.95 @ 93.8 mph.
    Sold: 2004 GTO 6 spd. 13.4 @ 104.5 mph
    Sold: 2002 WRX 5spd. 13.39 @100.7 mph. 1.81 60'

  4. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan00Hawk View Post
    I've been to 10+ dyno days in the last 10 years featuring F-bodies of all sorts (20+ cars each dyno day). The only LS1's (1998-2002) that dyno'd under 300 rwhp were automatics and stock. Never seen one under 285 rwhp for the stock automatics, and they were typically right around 300 rwhp. All the six speeds were well over 300 rwhp.

    Remember, that 1997 and earlier are LT1's, and THOSE will dyno a bit lower than the LS1 and in the range you were mentioning.
    out of curiousity, what difference does it make if the car is a standard or auto? I wouldnt think think it would matter but what do I know. check out dragtimes, maybe they were just an unfortunate few that dynoed low. they were all above 1997. either way I know the cars are quick but please provide some insight to the first question when you get a chance. thanks

  5. #34
    Registered User DubURX55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Justice IL
    Posts
    2,217
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post


    No wai, I has awd. My frend tolded me in study hall dat camero R slows.
    “You see a lot of smart guys with dumb women, but you hardly ever see a smart woman with a dumb guy.”

  6. #35
    Registered User turbo_bxr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    hamilton,oh
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by SRM View Post
    Only the LS1-based Fbodies were underrated. GM didn't want people to know that they made the same power as their flagship car, the Corvette.
    just like the Buick GN/GNX/regal T-types of the 80's,the typhoon/syclones. turbo awd suv's that run low 13's and a 2dr buick that'll knock down the same or better times as the corvette of the time.

  7. #36
    Registered User turbo_bxr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    hamilton,oh
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    out of curiousity, what difference does it make if the car is a standard or auto? I wouldnt think think it would matter but what do I know. check out dragtimes, maybe they were just an unfortunate few that dynoed low. they were all above 1997. either way I know the cars are quick but please provide some insight to the first question when you get a chance. thanks

    auto's lose more power because of the torque converter slipping. auto's lose 20-25% when sticks lose max of 20%. but typically 15-18% for the T-56 6spd. the auto's don't launch as fast just more consistent.

  8. #37
    Registered User Dan00Hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    out of curiousity, what difference does it make if the car is a standard or auto? I wouldnt think think it would matter but what do I know. check out dragtimes, maybe they were just an unfortunate few that dynoed low. they were all above 1997. either way I know the cars are quick but please provide some insight to the first question when you get a chance. thanks
    There is a higher driveline loss through an automatic than a manual transmission. Usually about 5%. On a 300 hp car, that accounts for 15 hp less for an automatic versus a manual trans. I checked out dragtimes, per your request, for Chevrolet Camaro ( Chevrolet Camaro Horsepower Torque Dyno Sheets - DragTimes.com ) , and the lowest ones were from a 1991, 1995 (LT1), and 1997(LT1) Camaro, which were all 260 rwhp or below. The 292 and 293 rwhp ones are both LS1's, and one is listed as an automatic (the other doesn't specify).

    If you care to spend some time on LS1tech.com, you can see some casual discussion about where the LS1's typically dyno at:
    stock ls1 dyno question - LS1TECH



    2007 VW GTI 6 spd. No times yet
    2000 Firehawk convertible 6spd- 12.52 @ 114.7 mph. 2.09 60'

    Sold: 2004 Mini Cooper S. 14.95 @ 93.8 mph.
    Sold: 2004 GTO 6 spd. 13.4 @ 104.5 mph
    Sold: 2002 WRX 5spd. 13.39 @100.7 mph. 1.81 60'

  9. #38
    Registered User 2.0Rs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    King of Prussia, Pa
    Posts
    1,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jpjester View Post
    Well .. I raced my friend's Z28 tonight. The outcome was crappy as anything as I thought I would of done alot better. Please tell me why he destroyed me as i like break downs. I understand I really need to learn how to launch as I think thats my biggest issue.

    First Race: From a Dig, I missed Second

    Second Race: From a Dig, I missed Second

    Third Race: From a Dig, Took him off the line beautifully, got into second and still had a car on him. Third gear he just WALKED past me.

    40MPH Roll: I would pull on him by a car, then he would WALK past me. Again and Again and Again

    Setups:

    2004 Subaru WRX
    SPT Short Ram Intake
    Invidia Up-Pipe
    Invidia Down-Pipe
    Invidia G200 Exhaust
    Cobb Light Main Pulley
    STI Intercooler
    Perrin Hose Kit
    Cobb Stage 2 Accessport running 93 <-- I am thinking of having the car ProTuned before going as I dont believe my car is running at it's full potiental with this Stage 2 as I have additional Modifications.

    vs.

    1998 Camaro Z28
    Intake
    Exhaust (No Headers)
    Automatic
    I just had pretty much the same race with my buddies 99'. Only difference is I slowly pulled on him. Then again I'm 400 lbs lighter.

  10. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    316
    [QUOTE=Dan00Hawk;2278773]There is a higher driveline loss through an automatic than a manual transmission. Usually about 5%. On a 300 hp car, that accounts for 15 hp less for an automatic versus a manual trans. I checked out dragtimes, per your request, for Chevrolet Camaro ( Chevrolet Camaro Horsepower Torque Dyno Sheets - DragTimes.com ) , and the lowest ones were from a 1991, 1995 (LT1), and 1997(LT1) Camaro, which were all 260 rwhp or below. The 292 and 293 rwhp ones are both LS1's, and one is listed as an automatic (the other doesn't specify).

    I didnt think there would be that much of a difference between the 2. then again all real sports cars are standard

  11. #40
    Registered User turbo_bxr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    hamilton,oh
    Posts
    2
    [QUOTE=chrisp;2279074]
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan00Hawk View Post
    I didnt think there would be that much of a difference between the 2. then again all real sports cars are standard
    true that

  12. #41
    SRM
    SRM is offline
    Registered User SRM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by turbo_bxr View Post
    just like the Buick GN/GNX/regal T-types of the 80's,the typhoon/syclones. turbo awd suv's that run low 13's and a 2dr buick that'll knock down the same or better times as the corvette of the time.
    This brings back memories! I remember watching those GN's race from a stop on the street. They would launch and then as soon as the turbo kicked-in, the tires would break traction and chirp as it accelerated! It was great watching them destroy the popular 5.0 mustangs of that time.

    They also had the turbo transam, circa 1989 I believe, that used the same engine from the GN.
    Mine: 2010 Camaro 2SS RS
    Hers: 2010 Wrangler Sahara

    Previous cars: 2000 Z28, 2007 WRX TR

  13. #42
    Registered User turbo_bxr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    hamilton,oh
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by SRM View Post
    This brings back memories! I remember watching those GN's race from a stop on the street. They would launch and then as soon as the turbo kicked-in, the tires would break traction and chirp as it accelerated! It was great watching them destroy the popular 5.0 mustangs of that time.

    They also had the turbo transam, circa 1989 I believe, that used the same engine from the GN.
    yeah it was 89 and had the same motor, heard the rating was a bit different but even as young as i am, i would love to buy a GN or T-type for color options

  14. #43
    Registered User jpjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Doylestown PA
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by 2.0Rs View Post
    I just had pretty much the same race with my buddies 99'. Only difference is I slowly pulled on him. Then again I'm 400 lbs lighter.
    What setup are you running?
    Previous Subarus:
    2004 Subaru WRX, 18G Deadbolt Zilla setup w/ Supporting Mods
    2009 Subaru WRX Hatchback Stock!

  15. #44
    Registered User budahrocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Agoura Hills
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SRM View Post
    Only the LS1-based Fbodies were underrated. GM didn't want people to know that they made the same power as their flagship car, the Corvette.
    you beat me to it, the ls#'s are nice engines, GM likes to swap them around a lot, the 04 GTO had the ls1 as well. I was very close to getting a ls1 camaro when i thougbt I couldnt afford a wrx, but they wouldnt insure me for it. I couldnt be happier with my subaru though.
    '02 PSM WRX stg 2
    '67 camaro (my dad's, but hopefully one day i can delete these parenthesis)

    bugeye mafia #161

  16. #45
    Registered User 2.0Rs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    King of Prussia, Pa
    Posts
    1,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jpjester View Post
    What setup are you running?
    99' Rs probably weighing a little bit less then 2800 lbs. Complete 04' wrx swap with a cobb intake, 3" turboback, Cobb stage 2 map. That's pretty much it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •