An Argument Over 0-60

[CorollaRacer]

I think a few of you may have heard incorrectly about the 300ZX's performance. According to Grassroots Motorsports (the best auto mag out there), the '90-95 300ZX (the '96 had less power) ran the 1/4 mile in 13.5. Although the LT1 F-bodies may be able to take the ZX in teh 1/4, or at least tie it, the Z's top end power leaves the highway-style races in the hands of the Z.

The ZX was not a dog. It is still regarded as one of the best sportscars of all time. And although you guys will likely waste one on the strip, I'd think twice about track racing one.

[PG45]

Well the only other possible arguement for this is the price. With the money that you would save buying an f-body, you can use in parts that will put it ahead in all catagories. Now im not talking about getting a total piece for either one. The same year, miles, and condition, the f body will be about 5000-10000 less, roughly. 5000 is a blower and suspension. Forget 300z's look for vipers after all that!

[Joe 1320]

Originally posted by CorollaRacer
Grassroots Motorsports (the best auto mag out there),

That is strictly opinion. When dealing with performance quotes, there are so many variables that it is often a good idea to take a sampling of all available data from several sources. To simply settle on one is setting yourself up for possible disappointment.

[dimn]

Originally posted by Joe 1320
I'm stepping in here......

First, the 300 IS heavy.

Second, Motor Trend quotes anywhere from 13.8 - 14.2 in the quarter. With 300 HP and 283 lb/ft it is a decent performer but stock, it's claim to fame is handling, not dragstrip performance.
As a comparison, the mag also quotes the SAME times for a standard Z28. The 300Z clocked 3 mph higher in the slolam which like I said before, it's forte is handling. The Chevy was $10,000-$15,000 less. The mag also quotes a 0-60 time for the Camaro as 5.7 seconds. An auto trans 300TT 0-60 of 7.0 seconds (8/'91), the stick shift version 5.7 seconds (4/'92) with a time of 14.2 @100.6 mph. In 7/'93 they did manage a 13.8 in a 300TT, but the slolam was lower, braking was softer. In (11/95) they also got a 13.8 for the Camaro, with a 5.3 second 0-60. The bottom line is they are pretty darned close, most likely the winner will be up to the driver, stock for stock.

Third, you are trying to start a flame war by making it personal.


This is your second warning, you didn't even respond to the first. The next won't be a warning. Let's not let this go the way of many "less desirable" message boards.

I never said it wasn't heavy, it is. He just said it weighed 4000 pounds. I realize this forum is bias, but a 275HP LT1 vs a 300ZX TT the ZX is going to win. Magazines dont mean a whole lot when it comes to true life encounters. And as far as me making this personal, this is a message forum, where people discuss opinions - personally i think you're just too high strung. I dont think my first action even warranted a response.

[Joe 1320]

Originally posted by dimn
personally i think you're just too high strung. I dont think my first action even warranted a response.

Dude, you don't have a clue. I Have no emotion about this topic and could actually even care less about a 300Z. You seem to be the one with a passion, so just keep any personal referance to me out of here. Now that I think about it, let's make SURE that happens.......

[MN6WS6]

The word "he" is obviously directed at me, since I said the 4000 statement. I actually said 3800-4000, but that is just details. I also came back and said that my guess may not have been totally accurate. You failed to mention that. And considering that a couple of people have come in here and said 3800 pounds, I would say that my 3800-4000 is a dead on compared to your 3400-3500 estimate.

The bottom line is both of these cars have similar power to weight ratio's, however the f-body's is better. The f-body also has a suspension set up that is more friendly to 0-60 times and drag racing. So on paper, the 300ZX gets beat, stock for stock. All of my experiences in the real world have proven what paper says. Numbers don't lie. A car with less weight, equal horsepower, a better straightline suspension set up, and is all motor and not having to wait around on turbos is the faster car.

Besides, who in the heck has a non-modified f-body? That's like finding a Mustang owner who doesn't have a "I can outrun everybody" attitude

[Joe 1320]

On an interesting side note..... I weighed my 94 Z the other day just for kicks. It is a hardtop, roll up windows, manual cloth seats, manual mirrors, no fog lights, stick, etc.... basically a 1LE car only no oil cooler. With no rear seat (it is out being cleaned) no jack and spare, 1/4 tank of gas and no driver, it weighed 3166 lbs. So add my 208 lbs and that gives a test weight of 3374 lbs. Assuming a 275 HP rating, thats 12.269 lbs per HP. Not too shabby for a stocker.

[Craig 94 TA GT]

Well, to get back to the original question, my best G-tech time (when I was bone stock) was 5.48 in the 0-60 sprint (2 people in the car). This is for a 94 TA auto.

[redbird94]

i have a 94 firebird formula with the LT1 and in 94 the stock hp was 275 HP. 0-60 times were quoted by several sources as 5.7 seconds 0-60. some were quicker some were slower it also depended whether u have the 273,323,or 342 rear end ratio and how good of a driver you are

[Kev70]

The only Jap cars of that vintage that you need to worry about out of the hole is the TT Stealth/3000GT. They can hit 0-60 in 5 flat with a good launch. A BPU can go mid-high 12s for a few hundred dollars. They are the ones that weigh in at 3800obs stock They are killing 300zx's in the quarter even with much less hp. After the quarter mile it was a different story though

[CorollaRacer]

Originally posted by redbird94
i have a 94 firebird formula with the LT1 and in 94 the stock hp was 275 HP. 0-60 times were quoted by several sources as 5.7 seconds 0-60. some were quicker some were slower it also depended whether u have the 273,323,or 342 rear end ratio and how good of a driver you are

Yeah, I've seen between 5.5 and 6.5

[CorollaRacer]

Originally posted by Kev70
The only Jap cars of that vintage that you need to worry about out of the hole is the TT Stealth/3000GT. They can hit 0-60 in 5 flat with a good launch. A BPU can go mid-high 12s for a few hundred dollars. They are the ones that weigh in at 3800obs stock They are killing 300zx's in the quarter even with much less hp. After the quarter mile it was a different story though

The Supra is quite a bit faster than that, as is the RX-7, but it's a time bomb.

[PG45]

The slowest LT1 F-Body time i EVER saw was 0-60 in 5.9. I dont remeber what the 1/4 was but i havent seen 6.6 since the late 80' and early 90's out of an f-body. the only 3000gt/stealth that even came close to 5 seconds flat was the 99. The put in a 6 speed to optomize the gearing for such a heave car. Oh and by the way, a 3000 gt tt weight 3994 lbs. My cusin has 2, one as a daily driver and his toy (800 HP, not bad for a ricer) and both weight the exact same. The RX7 is the fastest of the jap racers because of its rediculusly light wieght. But again, you are gonna pay about 5000 to 10000 more for one of these and since a F-body is so damn close to begin with throw in a few bones and you will piss all over them. And for that matter i was gonna spend 30000 on a used car, i would get a vette. Now which of these rices can even come close to the all around performance of a vette.

[Joe 1320]

Can this thread be left to die?.......

All it has become is a "which variety of rice is best". It has gotten way off the original topic of "what is the 0-60 of a certain year f-body.

[Craig 94 TA GT]

Again, back to the original question....
the slowest I've seen a magazine clock an LT1 f-body was when they first came out in '93. Motor Trend got the Z somewhere in the mid to low 6s (0-60), and in the 1/4 mile, 14.6. That was with a 6 speed too. We would think they had a lemon, but they also had a '93 T/A...was similar 0-60, but the 1/4 mile was 14.8!! I don't know what on earth they drove, but either the driver was absolutely terrible, or they had 2 pre-produciton lemons.
Actually, I recall Road and Track (which I do not consider reliable) clocking a ragtop A4 T/A, back in '95, at a 15.1 in the quarter mile, rougly high 6s in the 0-60 sprint. Top speed was ~145. Now that is ridiculous.
That's why I had to clock my own car with the G-tech...and at the strip. You can't trust the mags all the time. So back to the original question, buy or borrow a g-tech to test and see your own car.