LS1 Trans Am vs WRX - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28

This is a discussion on LS1 Trans Am vs WRX within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; the 2 autos that ran 13.0 and 12.9: I saw them run... I saw their slips... I took a peak ...

  1. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    212
    the 2 autos that ran 13.0 and 12.9:

    I saw them run...
    I saw their slips...
    I took a peak under both of their hoods... they both looked stock... yeah, yeah... I know... its hard to tell. But the guys seemed honest...you had to be there....

    And both guys were like 19. Both cars were '02....I think....

    I would not have believed it either... but they are quick.

    I ran a 13.2, and have been beat buy every LS1 I have raced after 100mph.... even ones that "only" run 13.8s or so will still pull a modified WRX running a quicker 1/4.

    I even ran a '98 Vette Auto... I took it up to about 90-100mph also... It will take alot more than what I have to beat them above that...

    Just a note- An independant Mustang magazine tested a STOCK F-body... cant remember if it was a WS6 or an SS... but anyway, to their surprise it ran 12.90s!! That was coming from a MUSTANG MAGAZINE!! They did not liek reporting that!!

    A guy that I ran a couple of weeks ago at the track ran 14.8 @ 105, to my 13.332 @ 101. It was a '00 Z28. He launched bad and missed 2nd gear BAD... and still trapped much higher than me! He said that stock, his car dynoed 290hp to the wheels!!

    Assuming 15-18% drivetrain loss for RWD, that puts him in the 341 to 354hp range...with a car thats only supposed to produce 310hp!! I think thats the Corvette specs... perhaps GM underrates the F-bodies to make the Corvette look better... Audi used to do that with the 1.8t, rated it 150 for VWs and 180 for Audis......they have since revised the ratings....

    GM UNDERRATES THE LS1's in the F-bodies!!
    '02 WRX - 10.780 @ 136.23
    '07 TBSS - 13.466 @ 103.23

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    Registered User VetteVert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    820
    Yes, GM does underrate the F-bodies. The LS1 in my C5 and the LS1 in the F-bodies are identical, just different exhaust manifolds. (no idea on tuning, but I'd bet it's virtually identical) Oh, and VW didn't just revise the ratings, they bumped the boost on the new 180 horse 1.8Ts.... And the 2 autos that ran 13.0 and 12.9...I'd love for my 3-400 lb lighter C5 to run those times (stock).

    VV

    Originally posted by dug-e-fresh
    the 2 autos that ran 13.0 and 12.9:

    I saw them run...
    I saw their slips...
    I took a peak under both of their hoods... they both looked stock... yeah, yeah... I know... its hard to tell. But the guys seemed honest...you had to be there....

    And both guys were like 19. Both cars were '02....I think....

    I would not have believed it either... but they are quick.

    I ran a 13.2, and have been beat buy every LS1 I have raced after 100mph.... even ones that "only" run 13.8s or so will still pull a modified WRX running a quicker 1/4.

    I even ran a '98 Vette Auto... I took it up to about 90-100mph also... It will take alot more than what I have to beat them above that...

    Just a note- An independant Mustang magazine tested a STOCK F-body... cant remember if it was a WS6 or an SS... but anyway, to their surprise it ran 12.90s!! That was coming from a MUSTANG MAGAZINE!! They did not liek reporting that!!

    A guy that I ran a couple of weeks ago at the track ran 14.8 @ 105, to my 13.332 @ 101. It was a '00 Z28. He launched bad and missed 2nd gear BAD... and still trapped much higher than me! He said that stock, his car dynoed 290hp to the wheels!!

    Assuming 15-18% drivetrain loss for RWD, that puts him in the 341 to 354hp range...with a car thats only supposed to produce 310hp!! I think thats the Corvette specs... perhaps GM underrates the F-bodies to make the Corvette look better... Audi used to do that with the 1.8t, rated it 150 for VWs and 180 for Audis......they have since revised the ratings....

    GM UNDERRATES THE LS1's in the F-bodies!!

  4. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    212
    right they did just recently up the boost on the VW 1.8t... I read about that too... but I also read, and maybe I was wrong with it regarding the US 1.8t, that Audi/VW will rate an Audi engine higher than an equalling performing VW version... just for the owners sake....you know paying 10 grand more for a car an owner wants more power, too... real or not.

    Doug

    BTW-

    C5 Hatch Auto = 3214lbs
    Trans Am Auto = 3499lbs
    Firebird Auto = 3452lbs
    Z28 Auto = 3439lbs

    of course the Z06 comes in the lightest at: 3116lbs....

    Thats a 225-285lbs difference (barring the Z06 and the LS6)... the trannies should weigh about the same so i would expect that the manuals would not be much different.
    Last edited by dug-e-fresh; 03-12-2002 at 10:13 AM.
    '02 WRX - 10.780 @ 136.23
    '07 TBSS - 13.466 @ 103.23

  5. #19
    Registered User VetteVert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    820
    Don't doubt it one bit....

    VV

    Originally posted by dug-e-fresh
    right they did just recently up the boost on the VW 1.8t... I read about that too... but I also read, and maybe I was wrong with it regarding the US 1.8t, that Audi/VW will rate an Audi engine higher than an equalling performing VW version... just for the owners sake....you know paying 10 grand more for a car an owner wants more power, too... real or not.

    Doug

  6. #20
    Registered User SGOSWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,059
    Well, I had another day at the Track. 1/8 mile - next week I'm going to the 1/4 mile track to try to beat my 13.3 @ 101

    Last night I had no trouble at all beating stock or near stock LS1s. There was an LS1 WS6 at the track and also a LS1 , z28. They were running high 8s and even low 9s in the 1/8 mile. My slowest run of the night was 8.60 in the 1/8. My best was a 8.40 @ 81 mph. Thats a very low 13 sec run for sure

    I can't say enough about this car. With just chip, exhaust, MBC, it really hauls butt.

  7. #21
    Registered User VetteVert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    820
    Very impressive

    VV

    Originally posted by SGOSWRX
    Well, I had another day at the Track. 1/8 mile - next week I'm going to the 1/4 mile track to try to beat my 13.3 @ 101

    Last night I had no trouble at all beating stock or near stock LS1s. There was an LS1 WS6 at the track and also a LS1 , z28. They were running high 8s and even low 9s in the 1/8 mile. My slowest run of the night was 8.60 in the 1/8. My best was a 8.40 @ 81 mph. Thats a very low 13 sec run for sure

    I can't say enough about this car. With just chip, exhaust, MBC, it really hauls butt.

  8. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN JOSE AREA
    Posts
    58
    Originally posted by SGOSWRX
    Well, I had another day at the Track. 1/8 mile - next week I'm going to the 1/4 mile track to try to beat my 13.3 @ 101

    Last night I had no trouble at all beating stock or near stock LS1s. There was an LS1 WS6 at the track and also a LS1 , z28. They were running high 8s and even low 9s in the 1/8 mile. My slowest run of the night was 8.60 in the 1/8. My best was a 8.40 @ 81 mph. Thats a very low 13 sec run for sure

    I can't say enough about this car. With just chip, exhaust, MBC, it really hauls butt.


    Never doubted you'll win against a stock LS1 in the 1/8.. What was your 60?
    LETS PLAY

  9. #23
    Registered User SGOSWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,059
    Originally posted by LIL SS




    Never doubted you'll win against a stock LS1 in the 1/8.. What was your 60?
    My best 60' time is something like 1.73
    On average is 1. 83 - 1.89

  10. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN JOSE AREA
    Posts
    58
    Originally posted by SGOSWRX


    My best 60' time is something like 1.73
    On average is 1. 83 - 1.89

    When I get some drag radials I'll be praying for a 1.73 60. My best is a 1.99 on the stock tires. I'm guessing I'll only pull high 1.8x 60's on Drag radials though..
    LETS PLAY

  11. #25
    Registered User WRXless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kelowna
    Posts
    231
    Hi all,

    Something I've noted in this thread, and others, is that a lot of people are referring to LS1s, LT1s, etc, as though they were cars. Keep in mind that they are used in F-body's, as well as in vette's (I've got an LT1 in my vette). To give you an idea, an LT1 in a stock Z28 puts out about 275hp, whereas the LT1 in a vette puts out about 300hp. So, classifying them as a group of like performers is not neccessarily the best idea. I know of a fellow on the corvette forum (Mr.Mojo, for reference), who runs low 13s in his stock LT1 equipped vette. That's just my two cents.
    Sheppe (aka WRXless)
    '02 Jetta GLS 1.8T

    Jetta Pic 1
    Jetta Pic 2
    Jetta Pic 3

  12. #26
    Registered User VetteVert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    820
    True to an extent with LT1s, but not really so with LS1s. The thing you have to consider then is weight. An LS1 is an LS1....

    and I'm VetteVert on the corvette forum as well....

    VV

    Originally posted by WRXless
    Hi all,

    Something I've noted in this thread, and others, is that a lot of people are referring to LS1s, LT1s, etc, as though they were cars. Keep in mind that they are used in F-body's, as well as in vette's (I've got an LT1 in my vette). To give you an idea, an LT1 in a stock Z28 puts out about 275hp, whereas the LT1 in a vette puts out about 300hp. So, classifying them as a group of like performers is not neccessarily the best idea. I know of a fellow on the corvette forum (Mr.Mojo, for reference), who runs low 13s in his stock LT1 equipped vette. That's just my two cents.

  13. #27
    Registered User WRXless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Kelowna
    Posts
    231
    Originally posted by VetteVert
    True to an extent with LT1s, but not really so with LS1s. The thing you have to consider then is weight. An LS1 is an LS1....

    and I'm VetteVert on the corvette forum as well....

    VV

    Granted - not so with the LS1s. In that case it is a matter of drag and weight that makes the vette a better performer. In the end, the better driver will win the race between an LS1 vette and an LS1 f-body.
    Sheppe (aka WRXless)
    '02 Jetta GLS 1.8T

    Jetta Pic 1
    Jetta Pic 2
    Jetta Pic 3

  14. #28
    Registered User VetteVert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    820
    Yep, with the f-bodies (live axle) having a little advantage out of the hole. The 300-500 lbs. makes up for a lot though

    VV

    Originally posted by WRXless


    Granted - not so with the LS1s. In that case it is a matter of drag and weight that makes the vette a better performer. In the end, the better driver will win the race between an LS1 vette and an LS1 f-body.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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