'02 vs '93

[Joe 1320]

I have to admit when I am wrong. I happen to thumb through the Novermber 2002 issue of GMHTP and found the road test of a 35th anniversary Z. I was going by memory and was way off on the times..... a best run of 13.579 @ 101.91 Even slower than I remember. It did run 102.35 on a different run, but still around the same ballpark. Like I said before, it depends on production tolerances, weight etc..... that car happen to be one of the slower ones. That would be an easy target for a LT1 that is on the faster end.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by Mirroredshades
Ahh shoot. Ignore Joe's thread. I love smokin a cocky LS1 owner. Screw PC. Lets set up an LT1 vs LS1 battle in the spring. The Rock, Bristol, Bradenton, I don't care.


LS1 owners are a bunch of pretty boys.

The reason you see many modded LT1's running faster than LS1s is that they have been around for a longer time, and people have been able to put more money in to mods... it's the same reason it is so hard to find a 5.0 foxbody, or MKIV Supra that is still completely stock. Everyone mods their cars, you guys have a head start. Gimme a couple years, and I'd love to

LT1 owners are a bunch of old has-beens who are just resistant to change

HAHAHAHAHA

uh-oh...

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Joe, I guess it is just that on so many of the forums I go to, and from the times I have seen at tracks, I have never seen an LS1 that struggles to trap over 101... never.

I fully acknowledge that the 12.8 was a freakishly strong car or freakishly strong driver (or both, most likely)... but every stock LT1 that I have seen does struggle to get into the 13's.

[Flash 97 WS/6]

Hey you LT1 bashers!....Blow ME! Oh....Wait....I'm already blown!

I have to agree that the LS1 cars are faster from the factory than the LT1's, on average. My LT1 car was no factory freak, but by keeping it a while I saved up and got a supercharger...(just a small one ), enough to run right around fairly stock LS1s.

Either car can do the same amazing things, once it's rolled off the dealers lot, anything goes! Something as simple as gears can sometimes put an LT1 car ahead of an LS1...you just never know...that is, until the race is over.

[Craig 94 TA GT]

Jay, the time I posted by Mike C happened years ago when I was on this board. Actually, he was one of the best launchers I have ever heard of, and his car was not that "freakish". To show his driving skills, he was able to put a stock (well, without the air filter) 2001 WS6: 12.9@110. His '95 LT1 was 13.5@103, roughly. Again, that was a few years ago.

Now, regarding, modded LT1 vs LS1, I just wanted to throw in a quick question here. Does the LS1 come with 1.7 RRs, and the LT1 have 1.5 stamped steel?

I totally agree with Joe regarding the .4 barrier. Taking a baseline from some mediocre magazine is perfect, IMHO. Car and Driver got an 02 WS6 at 13.6. Motor Trend's 1999 WS6 was 13.5. They also tested our LT1s at 14.0-14.1 respectively. So taking the same drivers with similar driving patterns, there's a .4 to .5 difference. No factory freaks, no slow as heck f-bodies. Just mildly decent performing cars. I may be biased, but that's just my view! lol

[fastTa]

LT1 vs. LS1!! Sounds good to me! Bring it on

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by Craig 94 TA GT
Jay, the time I posted by Mike C happened years ago when I was on this board. Actually, he was one of the best launchers I have ever heard of, and his car was not that "freakish". To show his driving skills, he was able to put a stock (well, without the air filter) 2001 WS6: 12.9@110. His '95 LT1 was 13.5@103, roughly. Again, that was a few years ago.

Now, regarding, modded LT1 vs LS1, I just wanted to throw in a quick question here. Does the LS1 come with 1.7 RRs, and the LT1 have 1.5 stamped steel?

I totally agree with Joe regarding the .4 barrier. Taking a baseline from some mediocre magazine is perfect, IMHO. Car and Driver got an 02 WS6 at 13.6. Motor Trend's 1999 WS6 was 13.5. They also tested our LT1s at 14.0-14.1 respectively. So taking the same drivers with similar driving patterns, there's a .4 to .5 difference. No factory freaks, no slow as heck f-bodies. Just mildly decent performing cars. I may be biased, but that's just my view! lol

To be fair to the LS1 car that ran a 12.8... I believe its trap was 107. So that time was more due to the driver's ability also- and not really a freakish car... look at my trap -- 109... I wonder what I could hit with some more practice???

[N20LT4Bird]

Jay, A high trap speed speed is not due to good driving; its due to a strong engine. A low E.T. and sixty foot is a good driver.

By the way, I'll be there for the LT1 vs. LS1 shootout. I'll bring my stock 96 WS6. It traps almost 120mph. Its a factory freak.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by N20LT4Bird
Jay, A high trap speed speed is not due to good driving; its due to a strong engine. A low E.T. and sixty foot is a good driver.

I know. That's exactly why I said what I did. A 107 trap for an LS1 is not freakish.

... the 12.8 was NOT a freakish car, just good driving. With my trap of 109, my time of 13.3 was actually due to rather poor driving, since there is enough power there to hit the 12's... see what I was saying?

[Craig 94 TA GT]

I definately agree. The driver can mean everything.
But, the car definitely also matters. There was an article in Popular Mechanics a few years ago. It was "The 13 fastest cars in America 1999" or something like that. The 1999 Firebird Formula WS6 ran a 13.15@ 107 to 108 or so. (The 3rd or 4th fastest car behind the Viper, Ferarri something, and C5). A very good time for a 1999, right? The exact same driver took the SS and ran the quarter right after. He got a 13.42@106 to 107, roughly 1 mph and nearly 3 tenths slower. We all know these are the exact same cars. However, the driver had a reason for these different times. He said that the WS6 launched at 2500 and took off, no problem. Now the SS was difficult. He said anything over 1500 would smoke the tires, and anything under would bog it. Now this is the exact same driver, theoretically with the same clutch, rear end, tires, etc. I guess it goes to show that driver and horsepower doesn't mean everything! The SS just wouldn't launch like the WS6. So I guess there's another unexplained factor: traction on the exact same car + driver and engine. Just thought I'd throw that it to confuse things lol
PS I'm not exactly sure on the numbers since it was quite a while back, but they are pretty close. Just use them for estimated reference.

[N20LT4Bird]

Originally posted by Jay 02 TA ws6
I know. That's exactly why I said what I did. A 107 trap for an LS1 is not freakish.

... the 12.8 was NOT a freakish car, just good driving. With my trap of 109, my time of 13.3 was actually due to rather poor driving, since there is enough power there to hit the 12's... see what I was saying?

I got you now. Your 109 trap is completely stock? If so, you got a freak.

[Joe 1320]

As a point of referance, here are a few members from a local area in Florida and the times they post for a stock or near stock LS1:

(02 SS)
*I pulled off a 13.3 @ 106 with mine.
Cold weather helped too.
I usually ran around 13.7 or 13.8.

*my neighbor has a 2000 Z28 and he pulled off a 13.8

(00 Z28)
*Pulled a 13.4@105.4 in a heavy convertible. Other than driver there is really no reason for an LS1 to run slower than that especially a hardtop. My stock 96 TA LT1 ran 13.7s all day long. My 96 Z heavy convertible ran 13.8s stock.

(00 Z28)
*I ran a best of 13.285 @ 106.16 last night, very lightly modded car w/ crap 2.73's.

(99 Z28)
*Here's my best run out of 3, first time at the track.

R/T .596
60’ 2.354
330 6.221
1/8 9.268
MPH 82.06
1000 11.86
1/4 14.065
MPH 102.63

That last car (99 Z28) is a slower car with poor driver performance, so it does look like 105-106 should be the average. Since the thread involved someone asking what a stock or near stock LS1 should run, the guys reporting are LS1 owners. Doubtful they would quote a slower time than what was actually run. Several cars are in the 13.7-13.8 range, several in the 13.3 range. One owner had several LT1s previously that ran the same times as several of the LS1 cars.

I would have to say a 109 mph is indeed on the high end. Must me nice.....

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Originally posted by N20LT4Bird
I got you now. Your 109 trap is completely stock? If so, you got a freak.

completely stock except for a K&N air filter... I put that in as soon as I got the car home.

[casey02ws6]

Oh now he had to go and make it personal! LOL! I have had 2 LT1s, a 94 Formula 6spd, and a 96 Z28 autop conv't. The Formula was much quicker than the Z (obvious - 6 spd coupe no t-tops vs auto convt) but either the LT1s I had were dogs or the LS1 I have is a beast (or both) cause there is no comparison in my experience. All 3 cars had similar basic mods (exhaust and intake) Just like you guys though I have seen numbers all over the board. I am anxious to get my new car to the track to find out. Unfortunately Old Man Winter is here and that'll have to wait.

[Rhode Island Red]

I have an early 2002 Firehawk #35 to be exact. I consider that I have an average car and I am still learning to drive the car (even after 70+ passes at the track)

This is my experience racing an 02, ( I burn oil) . I have no prior experience driving an LT1 so I am unbiased when comparing the LS1/LT1

I started with consisten 14.4's @ 100.101 mph or so (I was still learnign to launch the car) with consistent 2.2-2.3's+ 60's. For the life of me, I could not get any traction, or I couldnt get ointo 3rd due to the restriction in the slave for the clutch.

After drilling out the restriction, My best was still 13.9's/13/89X's @ 101/102X with getting 2.2 and even with dead hooking, my best 60' was 2.15X

at 4000 miles I dynoed, SAE corrected @ 307.3 hp and 325 tq. at 23k, I feel I am still at the exact same hp level, even after being worn in.

This past season, I bought some DR's to reduce my 60's (as they were killing me), and went to 2 private track rentals at Lebanon Valley Dragway (1-2 tenths slower than sea level)

I got consistent dead hooks and consistent 2.10X's My majority of runs were 13.7XX @ 103MPH..this Is with NO BOLT ONS save SFC's and a STB (which adds weight!) . My absolute best was 13.600 @ 104.7XX witha 60' of 2.110 MPH this was on a average warm sunny, but not hot day.

Upon massive investigation with some buds that have LS1 edit that help shops dyno tune LS1's , and have done LOTS of FBODS, and Vettes'. The reason IU am not making the massive HP and high 100's at the track is because as GM added better components, (LS6 intake for ex) the more timing they pulled, and smaller cam was installed as to not step over the vette and for corporate mileage purposes as well. In matter of fact for 2002's the total timing that has been observed in my car to be 25* earlier LS1's had more timing. It seems GM changed the tuning of the car as the model year prgressed or when a different part from a different supplier was availabe.

I consider my Hawk to be average, my driving average.

Observiong a Dyno tune of the LS1, there is roughly 25hp/17tq that can be gained at the rear wheels with just tuning alone, so there is roughly a tenth-and-a-half right there. I witnessed this on a 97 vette in stock form go from 298 - 32h in the same day in the exact same air/temp/pressure.

Given a stellar Driver, I feel my car probably do 13.50X at 105.XXX MPH

This I feel is most accurate as an averge LS1 engine can get for comparisons to the LT1


Yes I have seen low 13.2's with stock tires at 107.XXX ...then again I burn oil and some of those cars that rans the better times did not burn as much as I did. I have also seen non-oil burners do about the exact same as me, stock for stock.