LS1-SS, LT1-z28, WS6TA beat em all cant beat corvette

Sup yall, I have a stock 96 3000GT VR4, i beaten all the f-bodys but i just cant seem to beat the corvette. Those things are quick, sure i can take them off the line, after about mid second gear the corvette passes and keeps a good 2 or 3 car length ahead of me.

My best race was on the highway agianst a z28 LT1, i know i shouldnt take a V-8 on the open highway espically mid MPH range. We took off at about a 65mph, i stick it into 3rd he gets a good 3 car lengths ahead once i get the rpm up iam catching up quick hit 4th iam ahead by a car length, i keep fading away and he lets off but i want to see how fast i could go, i wasent paying attention to my speedo and the next thing iam at 170 and STILL GOING STRONG. Then i hit a curve in the highway scary sh!t. Then after some hard braking i slowed down back to highway speeds. I didnt think the stock VR4 could top out it's speedo but iam confident that it can. So when the weather here in IOWA gets better iam gonna get that 180mph picture for yall. If you dont belive me i got the 170 picture, give me a holla and i'll send it to you

Peace out

E-Mail me at carrrnuttt@hotmail.com. Title it, "pic for AF", and I'll host the pic for this thread.

Your car is kinda heavy, whereas a Corvette is light. That would explain you losing to one, especially since the new vettes can pull off low 13 sec. time slips (Sometimes even high 12's). That puts you at somewhat of a disadvantage. A few mods can take care of that though.

yeah the 3000GT has a really nice top end... a friend of mine in a modded forumla one (450+ whp) raced a 3000GT dusted him obviously but he said he took his car up to about 140ish and let off and that 3000 blew by him like a bat out of hell easily doing 150+

you were doing 160 if it said 170, our speedometers are off buy about 10mph at high speed, even at 60.

just wait till you run into a brand new vette standard with 500 HP.. then the C6 Z06 is said to have more 550+ course thats another year before that comes out.

the vette I think weighs in just a touch over 3200 lbs not sure about your car I've heard they are a bit heavy so the power to rate ratio goes in his favor.

just wait till you run into a brand new vette standard with 500 HP.. then the C6 Z06 is said to have more 550+ course thats another year before that comes out.

the vette I think weighs in just a touch over 3200 lbs not sure about your car I've heard they are a bit heavy so the power to rate ratio goes in his favor.


C6 is said to only have 400hp in the base model. The new LS2 is supposed to only be 400hp, but its got better heads, more compression, better intake and more displacement than the LS6 which makes 405hp now in the current Z06... Can you say slightly underated???

The C6 Z06 is rumored to get a 427ci LS2 small block power plant which would make 500hp.

Lots more HP and lots less weight than you...Don't expect to beat one with those two factors working against you. C5s will take you easy from a stop...And things just get worse from a roll.

C6 is said to only have 400hp in the base model. The new LS2 is supposed to only be 400hp, but its got better heads, more compression, better intake and more displacement than the LS6 which makes 405hp now in the current Z06... Can you say slightly underated???

The C6 Z06 is rumored to get a 427ci LS2 small block power plant which would make 500hp.

Which reminds me...the Ford GT, rated at 500 at the crank recently dynoed at 565 to the wheels.

Underrating is the wave of the future for fast-ass cars, it seems. Besides insurance, I suspect another reason they underrate them so bad nowadays is to throw-off the competition.

Which reminds me...the Ford GT, rated at 500 at the crank recently dynoed at 565 to the wheels.

Underrating is the wave of the future for fast-ass cars, it seems. Besides insurance, I suspect another reason they underrate them so bad nowadays is to throw-off the competition.

THe biggest reason is to leave room for improvement in future models, as well as to bolster the rating of other current models. For example, if they rate the car at 600hp, next year's rendition would have to improve upon that number...A possible, but daunting task. If they rate it at 500hp however, when it is already making more than that; they can simply change little things here and there and say the new model now makes 550hp. They haven't made any amazing technological advances. All they've done is told you how much the car is REALLY making now.

THe biggest reason is to leave room for improvement in future models, as well as to bolster the rating of other current models. For example, if they rate the car at 600hp, next year's rendition would have to improve upon that number...A possible, but daunting task. If they rate it at 500hp however, when it is already making more than that. They can simply change little things here and there and say the new model now makes 500hp. They haven't made any amazing technological advances. All they've done is told you how much the car is REALLY making now.

Sounds familiar...(SRT-4 ;))

C5s will take you easy from a stop...And things just get worse from a roll.

thats a little over exaggerated, a c5 can't take a 96 vr4 from a stop with ease, c5's run average 13.4-3 and they don't have a take off like the vr4, of course it will catch up down the 1/4 somewhere but it will not take it with ease. were talking .1 sec diff in there 1320's.

Hell no a c5 corvette cant take me off the line. I take anything off the line. Off the line i have beaten a corvette by about 3 car lengths then i shift into second gear then the vette comes up but no even then does the vette pull away hard. He has 2 to 3 car lengths top. ZO6 is another story though. ZO6 has came the closet to me in the off the line accelaration i only had about 1 car length. So for you vette lovers out thier sorry i win in the off the line accelaration.

So for you vette lovers out thier sorry i win in the off the line accelaration.


Yeah, we know you've got AWD. Most any AWD car owns off the line.

Now days, it's nothing special to hear a person who drives a AWD car say "OOOOoo I beat him off the line!!!". It's what we all would expect from you.;)

Hell no a c5 corvette cant take me off the line. I take anything off the line.

you take anything off the line ha, skyline, viper, sti, evo-8.
your not that damn fast, someone maybe needs to blow your doors off for you too learn even your 0-60 is 5.2 that means by second gear a c5 vette will start eating you(with a good driver).

oops said 500, meant 400 don't want to look like a dumb ass but its already said and done :lol2:

under rating will work for awhile, my dad said insurance company's will catch on and then get ready to bend over cause they'll give it to you in rates.

Said a bunch of that happened in the 70's think he said one mustang (not sure if it was a stang or not) was said to have 280-300 HP when it had more, forgot exactly what.

Not everyone can handle power like this, pretty scary when you think about it. I sure as hell don't want to go fast with a newb driving the car to the max or racing for the first time.

I agree 5.2 0-60 is good with AWD might win the jump but can you hold it? I'm hittin low 4's with out it :grinno:

How many C5's have you raced? Cause as I think was mentioned the driver plays a huge part, in addition to possible mods, weight, etc...

It sounds like you've beaten a lot of LS1 F-Body's, and if you've only raced a C5 once or twice I wouldn't worry about it - that guy probably knew what he was doing and/or had some help from the aftermarket.

However, if you go up against LS1 C5's all the time as well and simply cannot outrun the Vette then something sounds strange. I've had countless great runs with C5's and then had my ass handed to me by an LS1 WS-6 with little more than a K&N air filter. The way I see it, if you've got a long track record of LS1 F-Body kills then your first C5 kill is right around the corner.

you take anything off the line ha, skyline, viper, sti, evo-8.
your not that damn fast, someone maybe needs to blow your doors off for you too learn even your 0-60 is 5.2 that means by second gear a c5 vette will start eating you(with a good driver).
What the hell are you talking about you obviouly do not know much about VR4's. Evo 8 are slower than VR4's. Viper 0-60 time is faster but put it agiasnt AWD, AWD is gonna win off line anyday. Your VR4 is only pushing 300 stock to my 320 and my gears are way diffrent from yours do. And i know a C5 can take me in second gear isnt that what i wrote in the first place. VR4's are pretty damn quick. If you compared my car agisnt a 1996 vette i would rape it. Same with the 1996 f-bodys Hell i can beat any LS1, besides the vette. And plus my car isnt stock, it was when i was racing the z28 in my story, but it has came along way.

[QUOTE=DVS LT1]How many C5's have you raced? Cause as I think was mentioned the driver plays a huge part, in addition to possible mods, weight, etc...

Yes i have raced alot of LS1 vettes. I still have to beat one but time being i havent yet. I only have the normal bolt ons so far. Dont even have exhaust yet. Biggest thing i have is the boost from 11 psi to 12.3 psi. Guess the uderdrive pulley but that dosent make horsepower just frees some of it. But when i do beat a LS1 vette it will be a glorious day. And so far iam 100% in taking LS1 f-bodys

And i dont think youngvr4 knows what he's talking about. How can a speedometer be off by 10mph espically when ur going 60????
So that's mean when iam going 60 iam really going 50............And anyday anything anywere i would put my car up agiasnt his anyday show him what a true driver can do with a VR4 i'll even take out my mods and race him stock and still whoop his ass in his 1st gen VR4. Cause i got 20HP more and weight 100lbs less

diff between me and you is i raped my dads c5 vette for at least 1/2 mile. you can't beat one, thats the difference.
maybe i'm giving you s%$t because you seriuosly sound like a noob, plenty of newbies have came on here not sounding like an idiot, your awd take off will get ate by a viper even on jump if he knows how to drive same with a Z06. your just pumping it up too much, its my favorite car but its not that bad. and were are you at, i'll race you with my synchro's going out cause you irritate me that bad.

diff between me and you is i raped my dads c5 vette for at least 1/2 mile. you can't beat one, thats the difference.
maybe i'm giving you s%$t because you seriuosly sound like a noob, plenty of newbies have came on here not sounding like an idiot, your awd take off will get ate by a viper even on jump if he knows how to drive same with a Z06. your just pumping it up too much, its my favorite car but its not that bad. and were are you at, i'll race you with my synchro's going out cause you irritate me that bad.

Yea noob on this site but hey dont be knockin my car when u dont know anything about it. Maybe ur dad dosent know how to drive a vette cause vettes will own VR4s. I'll race you anytime tell me when ur in IOWA lol near Iowa City cause u get ready to get ur ass handed to you. Learn how to drive to cause if ur lauching at 5500 rpm and dropping the cluth LOL see how long ur transmission holds. i'll put my 3000 launch up agisnt ur 5500 anyday.

THe biggest reason is to leave room for improvement in future models, as well as to bolster the rating of other current models. For example, if they rate the car at 600hp, next year's rendition would have to improve upon that number...A possible, but daunting task. If they rate it at 500hp however, when it is already making more than that; they can simply change little things here and there and say the new model now makes 550hp. They haven't made any amazing technological advances. All they've done is told you how much the car is REALLY making now.


the Ford GT makes 550hp, recently updated from the 500hp. http://www.fordvehicles.com/fordgt/specs.asp

thats a little over exaggerated, a c5 can't take a 96 vr4 from a stop with ease, c5's run average 13.4-3 and they don't have a take off like the vr4, of course it will catch up down the 1/4 somewhere but it will not take it with ease. were talking .1 sec diff in there 1320's.

C5s don't run 13.4s. With a worthless noob behind the wheel maybe. But anyone else won't have a problem breaking into the 12s. I've done it myself. In a C5. The one sitting in my driveway actually. 3000Gts run mid 13s. Not C5s.You're wrong...And that's all there is to it.

ok........ i never seen c5 run 13.5 with th same driver who was driving a modded vette running 11's, who has been driving for years, as you have a c5 in your driveway so do i, it can break into the 12's but usually they run 13.4 on average. i've also seen it run 13.2. maybe you have a factory freak. you sound like you got mad, are you ok? maybe its just were i live, maybe i'm at high elavation. also seen a guy with his t/c on and ran 14.0 lol. and just as you have ran 12's vr4's have ran faster times also, same with every other car. don't get mad cause i have a diff opinion. i've seen what i seen and drove the same thing you have but we also live in diff places, so maybe thats the difference.

insurance companies catching on will make manufacturers be truthful on HP ratings?
not bloody likely...

the reason that hp went down in the 70's had 100% to do with unleaded gas, and the gas crisis, where fuel economy was becoming important, not b/c of insurance companies.

if they did catch on, the neon srt4 would be rated a bit higher than it already is.
223whp, but rated at 250
if they did catch on, the s/c'd cobras would be rated higher than they already are.
370's whp, but rated at 390.

either those cars have awesome trannies with no loss, or they're underrated.
it doesn't stop, we all know that...

in any case, there's alot of silliness getting thrown around in here.
i've never seen a stock vr4 in the 12's.
c5's, yes.

have fun trying to chase down the c5.

i don't think anyone on here ever said a vr4 can run 12's. i said at least what i seen they normally run 13.4 on a average, i already stated that i beleive and know they can break in the 12's. like i said maybe its just were i live.

the reason that hp went down in the 70's had 100% to do with unleaded gas, and the gas crisis, where fuel economy was becoming important...

Not true. The so called energy crisis was not entirely responsible for the decline in HP in the 1970's. Don't get me wrong, fuel efficiency coupled with environmental concerns did restrict horsepower producing ability as time went on. But the first and most significant factor in the HP decline of the 70's was the Big 3 manufacturer's adoption of the SAE Net HP rating system.

The previous Gross HP rating system measured absolute maximum horsepower at the flywheel, with no load or drag from auxiliary systems such as the alternator, water pump, etc. Moreover, the system was impractical because HP figures were created in ideal environments with precisely controlled intake and exhaust flow characteristics.

It's well known that a good majority of the HP figures from the musclecar glory days were completely fabricated by the manufacturer's. Its been proven. Horsepower figures fell over 20% literally overnight with the adoption of the SAE Net HP system back in the early 70's.

hmm...
they did?
considering that there are documented cases of cars that were listed at 300hp from the factory, and were putting at least that to the wheels on the dyno, stock...

my point is that the hp ratings from the factory were lowballed, at least in the muscle car situation.

the change in rating isn't nearly as important... (hp)

unleaded gas, and the energy crisis are almost directly to blame. the change in rating my have been an issue, but prior to that, the hp was VERY underrated, not overrated...

(under meaning that they were listing 300, but making 350 at the wheels)

I'm not saying there were no underated cars back in the good olde musclecar days. But I am saying many were overated compared to todays SAE Net standards.

This is no new conspiracy I'm talking about. I personally read about this over 10 years ago in one of my first Car Craft magazines that pitted a mighty 360 horsepower 1970 1/2 350cid 4bbl Z28, against a new 275 HP(300 HP - you're welcome! :grinno:) 350cid LT1 Z28. Besides being older but with fairly low miles, heavier, running unleaded (yet highly treated) gas, and stock tires, the editors had to write a disclaimer as to why the 360 HP '70 1/2 Z28 did so bloody poorly on the track and pulled a pathetic sub-200 HP on the chasis dyno. Half the article was about the inflated HP rating's prior to 1972.

Understanding the HP crunch is as easy as going into your den and picking up the MUSCLE CAR CHRONICLE book I know everyone has sitting on their coffee table. Just take a look at the engine and HP charts from about 1965 and up. You'll see that where 1972 begins on pg. 280, it explains how the SAE rating killed HP ratings overnight (along with, as you said, low-lead regular gas).

You see it everywhere. Although most compression ratio's dropped from anywhere above 10:1 down to around 8:1 in '72, you can still find some similarly equipped engines to compare. Take AMC high performance engines for example. In 1971 there were two 360cid V8's that made 245 & 285 HP, and a 401 cid that made 330 HP. Those same motors in the 1972 models (exact same bore x stroke, bbl, & compression ratio) made 195, 220, & 255 HP respectively.

Ain't nothing pretty about a '72 Chevy 454 making all of 270 HP & 390 ft/lbs, especially when that bitch was pumping out 365 HP & 475 ft/lbs the year before with the exact same 4bbl and 8.5:1 compression. In '71 Dodge offered three 440 V8's ranging from the 335 HP 8.8:1 4bbl - to the famous 385 HP 10.3:1 sixpack. In '72, the best 440 4bbl was making 280 HP - and the worst 4bbl was making a lousy 225 HP with 8.2:1 compression. And remember the 429 Ford CobraJet??? 375 HP & 450 ft/lbs in '71 with an 11.3:1 4bbl was right up there with the rest of the pack. Its 1972 pathetic imitation with an 11.3:1 compression 4bbl made 327 ft/lbs and an insulting 212 HP! (NO TYPE-O! The 8.5:1 compression 4bbl 429 made a laughable 205 horsepower in '72!).

But the pre-1972 HP figures were all bullshit anyways. And you see this in the few post-'72 cars whose engines kept the same compression and fuel systems as before, because their quarter miles times remained similar.

EDIT: Great book by the way (MUSCLE CAR CHRONICLE). Everyone should have it. :2cents: