Trans Am Vs. Corvettes

Hey does anyone know of the back if trans ams can takes corvettes? i dont have the patience to find the specs for both cars ;) so does anyone know from experience? im talking stock vs. stock. thanx.







---------------
1979 Trans Am
Engine: 400ci From 68 Bonneville
Thats how i roll :)

what year transam, what year vette? the vette should be faster for every single year stock, except maybe the turbo-trans-am of 89~ish... where the trans am might have had a chance.
they were in two diff classes...with the vette getting all the awesome toys.

my trans am is a 79 with a 400 out of a 68 bonneville not positive on horsepower but its somewhere in the 370's i dont know the tourque at all though...

Assuming everything else is equal and both drivers are exactly the same, it comes down to aerodynamics, and the corvette has a sleeker body design. But, with a few mods you can easily keep up, just ask luos what he has done to keep up.. :evillol:

The Vettes should be faster in most cases. However, the last year of production for the Trans Am was basically a even draw. The C5 LS1 Vette and the LS1 Trans Am had identical motors. GM actually under rated the Camaro/TA so Vette enthusiasts wouldn't get bent out of shape. The Corvette still had a substantial weight advantage however. But what the Vette gained by being lighter (300 lbs or so) it gave up with the power robbing IRS. The TA's solid rear axil also made it easier to launch then the Corvettes IRS.

Basically both C5 and TA were good for low 13's with decent drivers and high 12's with expert drivers. The Z06 Vette was a different story. That car would humble even the best drivers in a LS1 Trans Am.

what year transam, what year vette? the vette should be faster for every single year stock, except maybe the turbo-trans-am of 89~ish... where the trans am might have had a chance.
they were in two diff classes...with the vette getting all the awesome toys.
The 89 TTA was a option that could be ordered not the production car but even so. The 89 GM ordered callaway twin turbo which was also a option for the Vette would have taken that car.

Also, I have owned 3 vettes and can say without doubt the Corvette is much easier to control out of the whole and can launch higher than a F-body can due to its IRS. Anyone here that gets wheel hop can appreciate a IRS.

The 89 TTA was a option that could be ordered not the production car but even so. The 89 GM ordered callaway twin turbo which was also a option for the Vette would have taken that car.

Also, I have owned 3 vettes and can say without doubt the Corvette is much easier to control out of the whole and can launch higher than a F-body can due to its IRS. Anyone here that gets wheel hop can appreciate a IRS.

No offense intended but in terms of drag racing, the IRS is normally considered a hinderance and not an advantage. Solid rear axil is by far the preferred platform. Stock cars can pull off slightly better 60' times with SRA. FWD cars have bigger issues with wheel hop then we do. I've never wheel hopped once and I've been drag racing my F-body for 3 years now. But my buddy with an SRT-4 has huge wheel hop issues. Sucks to be him :grinyes:

To each there own. This topic has been argued for years. I wheel hop on my Formula all the friggin time. They say a good set of LCA's do alot for this but we shall see. I also use to wheel hop all the time on my Mustangs with a SRA. I don't know how you avoid it but more power to you. I just prefer the all around sports car feel of a corvette suspension to a F-body. The car's power just felt much easier to handle with there set up but the f-body is more of a drag car with more of a straight line in mind than the skidpad's the vette was made to handle. So, enjoy the solid rear, I would gladly trade in mine for a IRS.

just ask luos what he has done to keep up.. :evillol:
Should be enough to stay right with a C6 Z06 in a straight line. :smokin:

02 ws6s engines are better than 00 ws6s??

also, how many horsepower does 02 ws6 has stock?

Same engine.
Couple different things.
I think the difference is 5 HP.

98-00 had a slightly bigger cam than the 01-02.
01-02 had the LS6 intake.
Those are the big two. There are other little changes as well.
I wouldn't say any one motor is better than the other. Slap the LS6 intake on the 98-00 and you are good.

l checked on the internet, it just shows trans ams. and 02 trans ams has 310 hp. but it doesnt say ws6. so ws6 is performance package right? so it supposed to have more power riight? regular 02 stoc trans am is faster than regular stock 00 trans am?

if the regular 2002 trans am has 310 hp. how about 02 ws6?

(the reasion l am asking these questions is, l am thinking to get a 02 ws6. actually l care abut more relailability more then power anymore)

thank you.

regular 02 stoc trans am is faster than regular stock 00 trans am?
I don't think you would be able to feel a difference if you drove both. At least if they both had low-mid miles.


WS.6 is a 325 horsepower package.

Dyno both a stock 02 Trans Am and a stock 02 WS.6 and they will be VERY close.
WS.6 is rated higher...but not really much faster. They are a touch quicker...but nothing you would be able to notice after driving both.

Reliable?? Both are roughly the same. Obviously lower miles helps.

To each there own. This topic has been argued for years. I wheel hop on my Formula all the friggin time. They say a good set of LCA's do alot for this but we shall see. I also use to wheel hop all the time on my Mustangs with a SRA. I don't know how you avoid it but more power to you. I just prefer the all around sports car feel of a corvette suspension to a F-body. The car's power just felt much easier to handle with there set up but the f-body is more of a drag car with more of a straight line in mind than the skidpad's the vette was made to handle. So, enjoy the solid rear, I would gladly trade in mine for a IRS.


I never had any problems in my Mustangs with wheel hop. I had an 89 Coupe and a 92LX hatch. You may have had more power than I had, the most I had on the 92 was around 280hp and stock gear out back with 5spd. But for mostly stock I had no problems with wheel hop. Ah..the quad shock set up. Gotta love it.

My 5.0 had around 300 horse and use to hop like crazy sometimes out of the hole.

so what is the main performance diffrences between the (..say, 98 ls1 vett and 98 Ls1 Trans Am)
and what should those 2 cars run stock in the 1/4?
Thanks

Im not good with specs but I watched a Ws6 take a Z06 in the 1/4 mile, mainly because the Z06 punched it, spinning his tires in the rain and the Ws6 gave it 1/2 throttle gaining tracktion over the Z06 who couldnt make up for his bad decision in time.

my friend has an 01 ws6. With just a catback, headers, and lid he could keep up with the new c5.

Before cam I would pull on a C5.
After cam I would pull on a C5 Z06.

l checked on the internet, it just shows trans ams. and 02 trans ams has 310 hp. but it doesnt say ws6. so ws6 is performance package right? so it supposed to have more power riight? regular 02 stoc trans am is faster than regular stock 00 trans am?

if the regular 2002 trans am has 310 hp. how about 02 ws6?

(the reasion l am asking these questions is, l am thinking to get a 02 ws6. actually l care abut more relailability more then power anymore)

thank you.

Unfortunately the internet lied to you. But it wasn't the internets fault because GM lied to the internet. All 98-02 LS1 F-bodies are 350 HP cars. They all have the same motor, drivetrain, ect. There were minor differences but for the most part all are 350 FWHP. The C5 Vette had the exact same motor and GM was worried that if they told the truth the Vette owners would send out linch mobs for making the lowly Trans Am as powerful as thier beloved Corvette. So GM underrated the cars and said they were 305 HP. Then to sell the ram air hoods they claimed the SS and WS6 were 325 HP. This was also false as the SS's and WS6's were no faster then regular Z28's and TA's.

The reality was the fastest stock F-bodys were 2001-2002 Formulas and Z28's with no options and a manual transmission. The reason was that 01 and 02 model years had the LS6 intake manifold (good for another 10 HP) and the slightly better flowing exhaust manifold. Formulas and Z28's with no options (air, leather, ect) were substantially lighter then fully optioned SS's and WS6's.

To each there own. This topic has been argued for years. I wheel hop on my Formula all the friggin time. They say a good set of LCA's do alot for this but we shall see. I also use to wheel hop all the time on my Mustangs with a SRA. I don't know how you avoid it but more power to you. I just prefer the all around sports car feel of a corvette suspension to a F-body. The car's power just felt much easier to handle with there set up but the f-body is more of a drag car with more of a straight line in mind than the skidpad's the vette was made to handle. So, enjoy the solid rear, I would gladly trade in mine for a IRS.

No question that the Vette is superior on the road courses and skid pads. Overall handling and luxury are really what set that car apart from the F-bodies. But for drag racing they were pretty much equals (C5's anyway).

As far as the debate for IRS vs SRA I thought it was a given that on a road course IRS is best and at the strip the SRA rules. I have heard of guys who took out the IRS from Vettes and Mustangs to replace it with a solid rear axil just for the purpose of making thier cars drag queens. Until this thread, I never heard anyone who actually liked IRS at a drag strip. But I guess there is a first time for everything.

I can't see how you have wheel hop. I either go sideways spinning or I hook and get pushed back in my seat. Maybe it's a M6 thing?

Unfortunately the internet lied to you. But it wasn't the internets fault because GM lied to the internet. All 98-02 LS1 F-bodies are 350 HP cars. They all have the same motor, drivetrain, ect. There were minor differences but for the most part all are 350 FWHP. The C5 Vette had the exact same motor and GM was worried that if they told the truth the Vette owners would send out linch mobs for making the lowly Trans Am as powerful as thier beloved Corvette. So GM underrated the cars and said they were 305 HP. Then to sell the ram air hoods they claimed the SS and WS6 were 325 HP. This was also false as the SS's and WS6's were no faster then regular Z28's and TA's.

The reality was the fastest stock F-bodys were 2001-2002 Formulas and Z28's with no options and a manual transmission. The reason was that 01 and 02 model years had the LS6 intake manifold (good for another 10 HP) and the slightly better flowing exhaust manifold. Formulas and Z28's with no options (air, leather, ect) were substantially lighter then fully optioned SS's and WS6's.


well l am shocked man.. so every car comoany does this? or GM just did this on firebirds? man how about LT1s? l got 97 LT1 it rated 285 hp. (l saw on the internet. is that lie too?

by the way, how do u know that they are 350 horsepowers? about ram air markettin, thats logical man.. the only reasion l would buy the ws6s, cuz they look beatiful. (actually l LOVE 93-97 gen firebirds better. they look much much better to me)

well l am shocked man.. so every car comoany does this? or GM just did this on firebirds? man how about LT1s? l got 97 LT1 it rated 285 hp. (l saw on the internet. is that lie too?

by the way, how do u know that they are 350 horsepowers? about ram air markettin, thats logical man.. the only reasion l would buy the ws6s, cuz they look beatiful. (actually l LOVE 93-97 gen firebirds better. they look much much better to me)

LT1's were pretty much rated correctly. Your 285 is pretty much spot on considering they usually dyno 230-255 rwhp. This really only applies to the LS1's. There are two reasons we know that GM lied about 98+ F-bodies HP rating.

1). They used the same motor in both cars yet claim one is 350 and the other 305. Both used GM's new (at that time) LS1 engine as well as the same Transmissions.

2). People were putting down 300-310 rwhp on dynos with the M6's. 280-300 rwhp were being reported in the autos. So how could GM explain a Transmission (T56) that is supposed to eat 12% (give or take) of the FWHP not losing anything and in some cases adding a few HP?

They couldn't. Because if you figure out what 12% loss from 350 is it comes out to 308 which is right around what M6's would dyno. Autos were dynoing more around 290-300 rwhp. Considering that tranny is supposed to eat 17% (again give or take) how do they explain it only losing 5%? Again, they couldn't. 17% from 350 is about 290 (what a coincidense :eek: )

Again this was just a marketing ploy by GM to not step on Corvette owners toes. They knew most people won't dyno thier car so for the most part the deception worked. I guess they figured it was just a little white lie and wouldn't hurt anything.

GM didn't exactly 'lie', they did the same thing Ford did with the 03/04 Cobra.
Underrated it.
Plus...in stock form the C5 Corvette was faster then an LS1 F-Body. That also played into why the Corvette had the higher HP rating.
But Darrensls1 is right. Couldn't insult the Corvette owners with the same motor.

Marketing purposes. Besides...who cares what it is rated at after mods. :smokin:

GM didn't exactly 'lie', they did the same thing Ford did with the 03/04 Cobra.
Underrated it.

Maybe it was a typo :lol:

Plus...in stock form the C5 Corvette was faster then an LS1 F-Body.

Evan Smith hit 12.8 in a stock F-body. Did any C5's do better then that? Most C5's I saw stock were in the 13's and running right along with the f-bodies (no sleeping on the tree or it'll cost ya). It was the Z06's that made my jaw drop. Damn those things were fast. Havn't seen a new one yet with the LS7 but they sound like they'll be smokin fast off the showroom floor.

But Darrensls1 is right. Couldn't insult the Corvette owners with the same motor.

Marketing purposes. Besides...who cares what it is rated at after mods. :smokin:

You got that right. Get some mods, get a dyno and who cares what it was rated way back when :lol2:

I would have to look. I am sure a stock C5 went faster than 12.8, but I am not 100% on that.
With the weight advantage and the same power, I would think it would be a touch quicker.

I would have to look. I am sure a stock C5 went faster than 12.8, but I am not 100% on that.
With the weight advantage and the same power, I would think it would be a touch quicker.

I would have thought so too. But I always hear about how the IRS robs more power then SRA and that they are harder to launch. Kind of like the C5 traps a little higher but 60' a little worse so it ends up with the same or similair ET.

Then again, these are all F-body sites so they might be biased :biggrin: