GT 5.0 vs. stock Corvette - Page 2 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > Ford Mustang | Wrenching, Care and General Topics > At the Track



Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 10-23-2012, 09:01 PM   #36
Lorraine's driver

Regular
 
ab_mach1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Indianapolis
Region: Indiana
Posts: 7,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii View Post
Base Corvette for lack of manliness? Everybody hates it so much on our Mustang forums and it is superior than the 5.0 in every way stock for stock and mod for mod in n/a fashion.

More power? Check.

Lighter? Check.

Turns better? Super check.

Why can't we be CAR fans instead of some idiotic fanatical loyalty to a car when there is always a better one out there.
+1
__________________
Instagram: @ab_mach1
ab_mach1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-23-2012, 09:07 PM   #37
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii
Base Corvette for lack of manliness? Everybody hates it so much on our Mustang forums and it is superior than the 5.0 in every way stock for stock and mod for mod in n/a fashion.

More power? Check.

Lighter? Check.

Turns better? Super check.

Why can't we be CAR fans instead of some idiotic fanatical loyalty to a car when there is always a better one out there.
I didn't notice this... I think the 5.0 in question is faster than the vette in question. In paper, and in real life. And then they raced, and the 5.0 won.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 09:10 PM   #38
Registered Member
Regular
 
Venomouz831's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Seaside
Region: California
Posts: 8,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii
Base Corvette for lack of manliness? Everybody hates it so much on our Mustang forums and it is superior than the 5.0 in every way stock for stock and mod for mod in n/a fashion.

More power? Check.

Lighter? Check.

Turns better? Super check.

Why can't we be CAR fans instead of some idiotic fanatical loyalty to a car when there is always a better one out there.
+11111356621
__________________
)02 Gt, Founder of WE2G
Venomouz831 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-23-2012, 09:16 PM   #39
Registered Member
Regular
 
SolidRRaxle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Region: Texas
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii
Base Corvette for lack of manliness? Everybody hates it so much on our Mustang forums and it is superior than the 5.0 in every way stock for stock and mod for mod in n/a fashion.

More power? Check.

Lighter? Check.

Turns better? Super check.

Why can't we be CAR fans instead of some idiotic fanatical loyalty to a car when there is always a better one out there.
+1
SolidRRaxle is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 09:22 PM   #40
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Region: Texas
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post
I didn't notice this... I think the 5.0 in question is faster than the vette in question. In paper, and in real life. And then they raced, and the 5.0 won.
Equal drivers in both cars, that wouldn't happen. Things are never equal though, so it turned out how it did. An intake/tune 5.0 is close enough to a stock LS3 where it is a very close race either way, but in reality an LS3 Corvette is a better race for a stock Boss 302. Even then, it has the edge.
__________________
OLD car- 1994 Integra GS-R; 14.97 @ 93.82mph
Mod: Fartpipe
GSRGuy94 is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 09:33 PM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSRGuy94

Equal drivers in both cars, that wouldn't happen. Things are never equal though, so it turned out how it did. An intake/tune 5.0 is close enough to a stock LS3 where it is a very close race either way, but in reality an LS3 Corvette is a better race for a stock Boss 302. Even then, it has the edge.
Well, for all the numbers people brought up stock to stock, the 5.0 was either .2 seconds slower or faster. The vette is 4 or 5 years old, and completely stock.

So the vette is SLOWER then when it was brand new. Numbers went down. Then the 1 year old 5.0 has a tune, and several bolt ons. So if both were new, and stock, then it would be the vette with equal drivers.

Again, as gone over in the thread, there are four years of aging, mods, and a tune involved. Sounds about right for the 5.0 on a drag strip.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 09:34 PM   #42
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Region: Texas
Posts: 89
You obviously didn't look at the numbers I posted. And not all cars get slower with age, especially not LSx cars.
__________________
OLD car- 1994 Integra GS-R; 14.97 @ 93.82mph
Mod: Fartpipe
GSRGuy94 is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 09:47 PM   #43
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSRGuy94
You obviously didn't look at the numbers I posted. And not all cars get slower with age, especially not LSx cars.
So as lsx engines get older, they become more powerful or stay the same? I was not aware. Does the suspension not wear, either?

I do not recall all of the numbers posted, rather I remember that the stock performance numbers were close before 4 years, mods, and then the gentleman with the 5.0 beating the gentleman with the vette.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 09:54 PM   #44
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Region: Texas
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post
So as lsx engines get older, they become more powerful or stay the same? I was not aware. Does the suspension not wear, either?

I do not recall all of the numbers posted, rather I remember that the stock performance numbers were close before 4 years, mods, and then the gentleman with the 5.0 beating the gentleman with the vette.
I posted an entire list. And engines don't just start going downhill when you drive them off the lot, I don't know where you heard that. Hell, even my lowly '94 Integra ran one of the best 1/4 mile times ever for a stock Integra (had a different muffler) w/ 152k miles, and put down dyno numbers that were spot on for a brand new GS-R when it had 189k miles on it. Maintenance does wonders. Here's the list I posted one more time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSRGuy94 View Post
If you were able to beat him, he needs a few driving lessons. LS3 Corvettes run high 11s/low 12s in the mid-high teens with the right drivers. Your car on any given Sunday *should* be a couple/few tenths behind by the end of the 1/4 mile. And it only gets worse from there. Should be a really good race with an LS2 Corvette though. But of course anything can happen in a race, so enjoy your victory. Just don't think it will happen every time. Those LS3 Corvettes are nothing to be taken lightly.

C6 1/4 Mile Performance Challenge - Corvette Forum



Edit: And for the record, I think you mean a "Steeda" cold air intake
__________________
OLD car- 1994 Integra GS-R; 14.97 @ 93.82mph
Mod: Fartpipe
GSRGuy94 is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 10:16 PM   #45
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by McQueen
Just found online and the specs for a vette z51 is 12.8 in the 1/4 mile and a 4.5 0-60, the 2013 5.0 does a 12.7 and 4.3 0-60.
It is still a close race so bring your A game for sure!!!!
This is what I am talking about.

That is stock for stock. Unless the engine and suspension magically improved performance over four or five years in the vette, and the exhaust, intake, and tune hurt the 5.0, drivers being equal the 5.0 is a bit faster in accelerating.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 10:22 PM   #46
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Region: Texas
Posts: 89
12.8 is a good time for an LS1 Corvette. It's a below-average time for an LS2 Corvette. And it's a terrible time for an LS3 Corvette. Magazine drivers are typically unfamiliar with the cars, and they have little/no practice times. Which is why I don't use magazine times, I use times that actual owners run in their cars. But if you insist on using magazine times, there are magazines that have run as low as 12.3 in LS3 Corvettes.
__________________
OLD car- 1994 Integra GS-R; 14.97 @ 93.82mph
Mod: Fartpipe
GSRGuy94 is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 10:30 PM   #47
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSRGuy94
12.8 is a good time for an LS1 Corvette. It's a below-average time for an LS2 Corvette. And it's a terrible time for an LS3 Corvette. Magazine drivers are typically unfamiliar with the cars, and they have little/no practice times. Which is why I don't use magazine times, I use times that actual owners run in their cars. But if you insist on using magazine times, there are magazines that have run as low as 12.3 in LS3 Corvettes.
Only one individual, it appears, ran a time that low. Everything lower than 12s was modified.

I don't know much about corvettes, i don't really care to. They surely have pros and cons like all cars. And maybe a super low number is possible, but like people have mentioned here with wrx/stis, low numbers are possible, but difficult to obtain.

For the comparison, it seems expected for the 5.0 to win, it surprises me how it seems so improbable to others.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 10:37 PM   #48
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Region: Texas
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post
Only one individual, it appears, ran a time that low. Everything lower than 12s was modified.

I don't know much about corvettes, i don't really care to. They surely have pros and cons like all cars. And maybe a super low number is possible, but like people have mentioned here with wrx/stis, low numbers are possible, but difficult to obtain.

For the comparison, it seems expected for the 5.0 to win, it surprises me how it seems so improbable to others.
You either didn't read the list, or you didn't understand for some reason. Look at the time list for showroom stock LS3 Corvettes, and then we will continue this conversation.
__________________
OLD car- 1994 Integra GS-R; 14.97 @ 93.82mph
Mod: Fartpipe
GSRGuy94 is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 10:47 PM   #49
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSRGuy94

You either didn't read the list, or you didn't understand for some reason. Look at the time list for showroom stock LS3 Corvettes, and then we will continue this conversation.
Sigh.

Yes, I did. And I check through the 300+ page forum, and found the top posted time. I am not trying to argue about two cars I do not own, rather I wondered how it seems so crazy to certAin people. Even with that low time, when was the post? How old was the car? There are other factors besides one individuAls claim, as the very best of the best.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline  
Old 10-23-2012, 11:53 PM   #50
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Region: Texas
Posts: 89
Apparently you didn't. There were three listed on there below 12.0.

---------- Post added at 11:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 PM ----------

Here, let me post the list again for you;

Quote:
Showroom Stock LS3 (2008 - ????)
11.718 @ 119.94 - AndrewZPSU - 08 M6 - (2586)
11.806 @ 118.82 - Gmrulz - 08 A6 Z51, NPP - (3478)
11.974 @ 116.98 - Proney - 08 M6 Z51, NPP - (4652)
12.058 @ 122.05 - AndrewZPSU - 10 A6 NPP - (5051)
12.100 @ 115.19 - Odin - 09 A6 2.73 npp - (4325)
12.102 @ 117.60 - Dingrao - 08 A6 - (3561)
12.127 @ 116.59 - Pettvette - 08 A6 - (4278)
12.159 @ 115.59 - Old Goat - 09 A6 2.73 - (3708)
12.167 @ 117.15 - DarkOctane - 08 A6 NPP - (6310)
12.167 @ 116.54 - Vinsane112 - 08 A6 2.73 - (2740)
12.186 @ 117.72 - Hardhattg - 08 M6 Z51 - (2686)
12.237 @ 112.86 - 940CACC - 08 A6 - (2871)
12.400 @ 116.36 - RandyDank23 - 08 A6 - (6059)
12.244 @ 117.83 - 74Vette - 08 M6 - (4617)
12.262 @ 115.22 - Oklahoma - 08 A6 - (3765)
12.276 @ 118.66 - EZ28 - 08 M6 Z51 NPP - (3247)
12.355 @ 117.47 - Bain - 08 A6 NPP 2.73 - (2755)
12.357 @ 116.94 - TNorman - 08 A6 NPP - (4227)
12.409 @ 114.70 - Jschindler - 08 M6 Z51 NPP - (2132)
12.419 @ 116.15 - JTorchz06 - 09 A6 Z51 NPP - (3185)
12.412 @ 115.38 - HOXXOH - 08 A6 F55 - (2478)
12.428 @ 116.67 - Pea-Jay - 08 A6 - (4448)
12.494 @ 115.54 - 1.8T - 08 M6 Z51 - (2310)
12.500 @ 115.53 - Shane Fap - 08 A6 - (6298)
12.514 @ 116.73 - SK360 - 08 A6 2.73 - (6283)
12.552 @ 114.70 - Larry R - 08 A6 2.73 - (4054)
12.600 @ 114.12 - Beefcake - 08 A6 - (2875)
12.658 @ 114.99 - PhillyLS1 - 09 M6 - (3151)
12.668 @ 113.61 - CFP40 - 08 A6 NPP 2.73 - (2828)
12.689 @ 112.07 - Bfppt1 - 10 A6 - (5300)
12.747 @ 114.31 - Detoxx03 - 08 M6 NPP- (4057)
13.354 @ 110.78 - M453W - 09 A6 NPP- (5708)
13.428 @ 109.32 - Dan Wendling - 09 A6 NPP - (4032)
__________________
OLD car- 1994 Integra GS-R; 14.97 @ 93.82mph
Mod: Fartpipe
GSRGuy94 is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 06:39 AM   #51
Registered Member
Regular
 
UltArc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,782
Alright man. I am done with this thread. Apparently because you're the drag god, it is crazy someone drove so slow with an old stock car, and was beaten by a faster, newer car with mods, you can't believe it.

It doesn't matter how upset you are the car lost, or that only three people beat 12.000. Most of the people needed mods to break 12.

Worn suspension, worn engine, worn tires, completely stock, against a newer tuned and modded 5.0. No one else thinks it's crazy.
__________________
2012 Mustang EPA: 19/29
2012 AeroStang: 40/46

My sponsor, Tokkyo Nutrition, offers 50% off your entire order with the code "PowerHouse"
UltArc is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 06:50 AM   #52
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Region: Texas
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post
Alright man. I am done with this thread. Apparently because you're the drag god, it is crazy someone drove so slow with an old stock car, and was beaten by a faster, newer car with mods, you can't believe it.

It doesn't matter how upset you are the car lost, or that only three people beat 12.000. Most of the people needed mods to break 12.

Worn suspension, worn engine, worn tires, completely stock, against a newer tuned and modded 5.0. No one else thinks it's crazy.


You're the one claiming that a 4 year old Corvette is old and "worn." LSx engines have great longevity. Like I said, I expected the race to be close. But the OP simply can't expect the same results each time, and the fact that you were quoting a 12.8 1/4 mile run for the Corvette does nothing for your credibility. But I am glad that you finally read the list I posted .
__________________
OLD car- 1994 Integra GS-R; 14.97 @ 93.82mph
Mod: Fartpipe
GSRGuy94 is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 06:54 AM   #53
Registered Member
Regular
 
Jgill1992's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Rolla
Region: Missouri
Posts: 1,405
My brother-in-law has an 01 corvette zo6 with mods that will run High 9's and I've been in the car with him and went to 2010mph and besides the mods most of the car and engine have over 90,xxx miles
__________________

2015 Mustang GT Premium. No mods yet.
Jgill1992 is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 07:27 AM   #54
Registered Member
Regular
 
Eturner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Region: Michigan
Posts: 3,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSRGuy94

You're the one claiming that a 4 year old Corvette is old and "worn." LSx engines have great longevity. Like I said, I expected the race to be close. But the OP simply can't expect the same results each time, and the fact that you were quoting a 12.8 1/4 mile run for the Corvette does nothing for your credibility. But I am glad that you finally read the list I posted .
Longevity of an engine has more to do with the maintenance and upkeep of the engine!.. And less with the engine itself!.. I had a '96 Monte-Carlo Z34 with about 180,000 miles before I got rid of it!.. Bought it in '98 with only 15,000 miles on it and it always ran strong, even after punching a hole in one of the heads!.. But then again I maintained it!..

And by the way, I've known guys with variouse LS motors that still ended up punching holes in the blocks!.. Some of them where next to stock!..
Eturner is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 07:30 AM   #55
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Region: Texas
Posts: 89
I know! Take "LSx" out of my post and substitute "basically every car made in the past 20 years!" The point is that calling a car "old and worn" because it's 4 years old, and taking said car's age into account when talking about a race is ridiculous!
__________________
OLD car- 1994 Integra GS-R; 14.97 @ 93.82mph
Mod: Fartpipe
GSRGuy94 is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 07:35 AM   #56
Registered Member
Regular
 
Eturner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Region: Michigan
Posts: 3,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSRGuy94
I know! Take "LSx" out of my post and substitute "basically every car made in the past 20 years!" The point is that calling a car "old and worn" because it's 4 years old, and taking said car's age into account when talking about a race is ridiculous!
Well my point being is that age does have everything to do with it!.. Mostly in regards to how well maintained it was!.. 4 year old engine never tuned up and oil never changed, vs 4 year old engine that had at least one good tune up, and oil changed at least once per year!... Which engine is going to run stronger?...
Eturner is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 07:45 AM   #57
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Region: Texas
Posts: 89
Of course somebody could grenade a motor in 4 years. But just because a car is a few years old doesn't mean it's any less powerful than it was when it left the factory.
__________________
OLD car- 1994 Integra GS-R; 14.97 @ 93.82mph
Mod: Fartpipe
GSRGuy94 is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 10:39 AM   #58
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lakeland
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,699
Send a message via AIM to Borii
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltArc View Post
Well, for all the numbers people brought up stock to stock, the 5.0 was either .2 seconds slower or faster. The vette is 4 or 5 years old, and completely stock.

So the vette is SLOWER then when it was brand new. Numbers went down. Then the 1 year old 5.0 has a tune, and several bolt ons. So if both were new, and stock, then it would be the vette with equal drivers.

Again, as gone over in the thread, there are four years of aging, mods, and a tune involved. Sounds about right for the 5.0 on a drag strip.
This is crazy. The loss of power over time is NOT that bad if maintenance is done properly. It actually can be kept almost at zero.

I dynoed 340 WHP with intake/tune/full exhaust/cams/4.10 gears/CMDP/Pulley. 100 degree day. With 77,000 miles in my 06 GT. Those numbers are on par for higher than S197 cars did with similar mods when new.

A stock 08 C6 with 100k miles and clockwork maintenance will still be faster than a 5.0 with a tune and pipe. That is not even up for debate.

If both cars are well maintained, the Vette can easily pull within .05-.10 of its stock times when new. Which we base this whole thing on since Most if not all cars actually dyno a little more and run better after a few thousand miles than when new. That wouldn't apply to either car in this case and they are both most likely past a few thousands and then some.

The debate itself is silly though because the Corvette is not in the Mustang's class. They are not designed to compete against each other.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eturner View Post
Longevity of an engine has more to do with the maintenance and upkeep of the engine!.. And less with the engine itself!.. I had a '96 Monte-Carlo Z34 with about 180,000 miles before I got rid of it!.. Bought it in '98 with only 15,000 miles on it and it always ran strong, even after punching a hole in one of the heads!.. But then again I maintained it!..

And by the way, I've known guys with variouse LS motors that still ended up punching holes in the blocks!.. Some of them where next to stock!..
This is contradictory. If you punched a hole in the head then it had to be repaired. If it had to be repaired, then it did not have longevity. The engine itself plays an equal part in my opinion. Look at Dodge Neons. Non SRT4 ones. They could be will maintained and still gave people serious problems.
__________________
SOLD - 06 GT 371WHP/332WTQ


Sold - 1998 Camaro SS
Sold - 2001 Audi S4
Borii is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 10:41 AM   #59
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Region: Texas
Posts: 89
Oh hey, somebody that knows what they are talking about. You're lucky your car isn't down 50hp by now
__________________
OLD car- 1994 Integra GS-R; 14.97 @ 93.82mph
Mod: Fartpipe
GSRGuy94 is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 10:55 AM   #60
Legacy Member
Legacy
 
lowflyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Region: Mississippi
Posts: 19,890
Send a message via AIM to lowflyn
I'm a little late in here but you guys do realize the auto and m6 vettes have different motors in the c6 body right? The ls3 is only in the auto.
__________________
"I'm not driving too fast...just flying too low"
Mine:
-03 SB Cobra vert- 2552 of 5082 Born 02/25/03
Our's:
90 7up vert - new project-07 DSG Focus -DD
335
lowflyn is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 11:00 AM   #61
Registered Member
Regular
 
Eturner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Region: Michigan
Posts: 3,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii

This is crazy. The loss of power over time is NOT that bad if maintenance is done properly. It actually can be kept almost at zero.

I dynoed 340 WHP with intake/tune/full exhaust/cams/4.10 gears/CMDP/Pulley. 100 degree day. With 77,000 miles in my 06 GT. Those numbers are on par for higher than S197 cars did with similar mods when new.

A stock 08 C6 with 100k miles and clockwork maintenance will still be faster than a 5.0 with a tune and pipe. That is not even up for debate.

If both cars are well maintained, the Vette can easily pull within .05-.10 of its stock times when new. Which we base this whole thing on since Most if not all cars actually dyno a little more and run better after a few thousand miles than when new. That wouldn't apply to either car in this case and they are both most likely past a few thousands and then some.

The debate itself is silly though because the Corvette is not in the Mustang's class. They are not designed to compete against each other.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ----------



This is contradictory. If you punched a hole in the head then it had to be repaired. If it had to be repaired, then it did not have longevity. The engine itself plays an equal part in my opinion. Look at Dodge Neons. Non SRT4 ones. They could be will maintained and still gave people serious problems.
It punched a hole in the head from pushing a nut through it!.. Nothing inside the head itself was damaged, broken, or missing any parts!..

A month prior to that I took my Monte in to have the timing belt replaced!.. They had to take the cam covers off to reset the timing of the cams (I snaped the belt)!.. The guy who worked on my (was at a dealership) had to have droped the nut in there!..
Eturner is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 11:05 AM   #62
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Region: Texas
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowflyn View Post
I'm a little late in here but you guys do realize the auto and m6 vettes have different motors in the c6 body right? The ls3 is only in the auto.
None of that is accurate. The Camaro uses the L99 in the automatic cars and the LS3 in the manuals. In the Corvette there is no difference.
__________________
OLD car- 1994 Integra GS-R; 14.97 @ 93.82mph
Mod: Fartpipe
GSRGuy94 is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 03:56 PM   #63
Road Trip!
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Region: Indiana
Posts: 8,044
* dont let this get out of hand or actions will be taken *

site staff
dreamstang is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 04:06 PM   #64
Registered User
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Region: New York
Posts: 1
C6 Vettes use the LS2 or LS3 in base models, regardless of being auto or manual.

Borii and GSRGuy94 seem to be the only two who know what they're talking about. You'd be hard pressed to think you can simply walk a stock vette in a stock 5.0. I'd put the stock 5.0 almost on par with a C6 LS2, but I know the LS3 C6 would pull the 5.0. I do, however, believe the 5.0 may be slightly underrated... just not to the point it'll walk over a LS3 C6 vette, even in base trim.

If I recall, the stock 2009 Mustang GTs had about 10 years on the 1999 LS1 F bodies and the Mustangs were cutting mid 13s @ ~104, which was about on par or even slower then what the LS1 F bodies were cutting. (ie 1999 Camaro SS, Trans AM WS6, etc) The year thing has nothing to do with it.

...And yes, the engine itself does play a role in longevity. The Cadillac Northstar is infamous for head gasket issues. Subaru Outbacks, the same issues with head gaskets. That didn't happen because people ran on their oil a few hundred miles extra or didn't change their spark plugs on time. That happened over bad design. The LS engine is a solid engine.


Headers, cat delete, cutouts, and intake tubing on stock airbox and paper filter

372rwhp, 361rwtq.... 130,200 miles. I didn't lose much of anything for my high mileage. Don't discount cars because of their year or age. Just because a car is 4 years old, doesn't mean its too old to beat you. Thats just childish thought.

Guess you 2010 GT guys can discount me because I'm 4 years older in my 2006 CTS-V? You shouldn't discount anyone due to year. You'd be surprised how stout some cars were and still are.

I'm not trying to start some flame war, etc... what I am stating is the following:

1) C6 vettes are faster then some of you guys are giving them credit for in stock trim.
2) The year of the car doesn't necessarily mean its slower. You can't assume that because a car is 4-5 or even 10 years older, that its slower.
3) I do feel the new 5.0 is a very respectable car. I just feel some of the owners are here aren't being true in regards to what it can and can't beat.
odthetruth is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 04:09 PM   #65
Registered Member
Regular
 
Venomouz831's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Seaside
Region: California
Posts: 8,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by odthetruth
C6 Vettes use the LS2 or LS3 in base models, regardless of being auto or manual.

Borii and GSRGuy94 seem to be the only two who know what they're talking about. You'd be hard pressed to think you can simply walk a stock vette in a stock 5.0. I'd put the stock 5.0 almost on par with a C6 LS2, but I know the LS3 C6 would pull the 5.0. I do, however, believe the 5.0 may be slightly underrated... just not to the point it'll walk over a LS3 C6 vette, even in base trim.

If I recall, the stock 2009 Mustang GTs had about 10 years on the 1999 LS1 F bodies and the Mustangs were cutting mid 13s @ ~104, which was about on par or even slower then what the LS1 F bodies were cutting. (ie 1999 Camaro SS, Trans AM WS6, etc) The year thing has nothing to do with it.

...And yes, the engine itself does play a role in longevity. The Cadillac Northstar is infamous for head gasket issues. Subaru Outbacks, the same issues with head gaskets. That didn't happen because people ran on their oil a few hundred miles extra or didn't change their spark plugs on time. That happened over bad design. The LS engine is a solid engine.


Headers, cat delete, cutouts, and intake tubing on stock airbox and paper filter

372rwhp, 361rwtq.... 130,200 miles. I didn't lose much of anything for my high mileage. Don't discount cars because of their year or age. Just because a car is 4 years old, doesn't mean its too old to beat you. Thats just childish thought.

Guess you 2010 GT guys can discount me because I'm 4 years older in my 2006 CTS-V? You shouldn't discount anyone due to year. You'd be surprised how stout some cars were and still are.

I'm not trying to start some flame war, etc... what I am stating is the following:

1) C6 vettes are faster then some of you guys are giving them credit for in stock trim.
2) The year of the car doesn't necessarily mean its slower. You can't assume that because a car is 4-5 or even 10 years older, that its slower.
3) I do feel the new 5.0 is a very respectable car. I just feel some of the owners are here aren't being true in regards to what it can and can't beat.
+1737392010292
__________________
)02 Gt, Founder of WE2G
Venomouz831 is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 04:26 PM   #66
Registered Member
Regular
 
Eturner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Region: Michigan
Posts: 3,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by odthetruth
C6 Vettes use the LS2 or LS3 in base models, regardless of being auto or manual.

Borii and GSRGuy94 seem to be the only two who know what they're talking about. You'd be hard pressed to think you can simply walk a stock vette in a stock 5.0. I'd put the stock 5.0 almost on par with a C6 LS2, but I know the LS3 C6 would pull the 5.0. I do, however, believe the 5.0 may be slightly underrated... just not to the point it'll walk over a LS3 C6 vette, even in base trim.

If I recall, the stock 2009 Mustang GTs had about 10 years on the 1999 LS1 F bodies and the Mustangs were cutting mid 13s @ ~104, which was about on par or even slower then what the LS1 F bodies were cutting. (ie 1999 Camaro SS, Trans AM WS6, etc) The year thing has nothing to do with it.

...And yes, the engine itself does play a role in longevity. The Cadillac Northstar is infamous for head gasket issues. Subaru Outbacks, the same issues with head gaskets. That didn't happen because people ran on their oil a few hundred miles extra or didn't change their spark plugs on time. That happened over bad design. The LS engine is a solid engine.


Headers, cat delete, cutouts, and intake tubing on stock airbox and paper filter

372rwhp, 361rwtq.... 130,200 miles. I didn't lose much of anything for my high mileage. Don't discount cars because of their year or age. Just because a car is 4 years old, doesn't mean its too old to beat you. Thats just childish thought.

Guess you 2010 GT guys can discount me because I'm 4 years older in my 2006 CTS-V? You shouldn't discount anyone due to year. You'd be surprised how stout some cars were and still are.

I'm not trying to start some flame war, etc... what I am stating is the following:

1) C6 vettes are faster then some of you guys are giving them credit for in stock trim.
2) The year of the car doesn't necessarily mean its slower. You can't assume that because a car is 4-5 or even 10 years older, that its slower.
3) I do feel the new 5.0 is a very respectable car. I just feel some of the owners are here aren't being true in regards to what it can and can't beat.
The new 5.0 is putting out very similar numbers in stock trim!.. Not saying that's bad, both will beat my car, just that it don't go so well for your argument!.. And yes the C5 and newer Vettes are quick!.. And yes you can't just assume how fast a car is!.. Personally I don't simply because you never now what mods they may or may not have!.. And any time I line up against some one at the track I always assume they are faster, unless I know otherwise!.. But that's just me!.. Lol
Eturner is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 04:45 PM   #67
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Lakeland
Region: Florida
Posts: 1,699
Send a message via AIM to Borii
Quote:
Originally Posted by odthetruth View Post
C6 Vettes use the LS2 or LS3 in base models, regardless of being auto or manual.

Borii and GSRGuy94 seem to be the only two who know what they're talking about. You'd be hard pressed to think you can simply walk a stock vette in a stock 5.0. I'd put the stock 5.0 almost on par with a C6 LS2, but I know the LS3 C6 would pull the 5.0. I do, however, believe the 5.0 may be slightly underrated... just not to the point it'll walk over a LS3 C6 vette, even in base trim.

If I recall, the stock 2009 Mustang GTs had about 10 years on the 1999 LS1 F bodies and the Mustangs were cutting mid 13s @ ~104, which was about on par or even slower then what the LS1 F bodies were cutting. (ie 1999 Camaro SS, Trans AM WS6, etc) The year thing has nothing to do with it.

...And yes, the engine itself does play a role in longevity. The Cadillac Northstar is infamous for head gasket issues. Subaru Outbacks, the same issues with head gaskets. That didn't happen because people ran on their oil a few hundred miles extra or didn't change their spark plugs on time. That happened over bad design. The LS engine is a solid engine.


Headers, cat delete, cutouts, and intake tubing on stock airbox and paper filter

372rwhp, 361rwtq.... 130,200 miles. I didn't lose much of anything for my high mileage. Don't discount cars because of their year or age. Just because a car is 4 years old, doesn't mean its too old to beat you. Thats just childish thought.

Guess you 2010 GT guys can discount me because I'm 4 years older in my 2006 CTS-V? You shouldn't discount anyone due to year. You'd be surprised how stout some cars were and still are.

I'm not trying to start some flame war, etc... what I am stating is the following:

1) C6 vettes are faster then some of you guys are giving them credit for in stock trim.
2) The year of the car doesn't necessarily mean its slower. You can't assume that because a car is 4-5 or even 10 years older, that its slower.
3) I do feel the new 5.0 is a very respectable car. I just feel some of the owners are here aren't being true in regards to what it can and can't beat.
Civil debate

All true except the S197 was released in 2005, not 2009. The 5.0 in a straight line with bolt ons can keep up with a C6 in a 1/4 mile. Stock C6. Notice I said Bolt ons with an 's'. A tune/Pipe 5.0 will not touch one.

Now, I do not doubt the OP beat his friend's C6 but as long as he knows he beat the driver not the Vette.
__________________
SOLD - 06 GT 371WHP/332WTQ


Sold - 1998 Camaro SS
Sold - 2001 Audi S4
Borii is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 04:55 PM   #68
Registered Member
Regular
 
alrefire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Region: Alabama
Posts: 3,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borii
Base Corvette for lack of manliness? Everybody hates it so much on our Mustang forums and it is superior than the 5.0 in every way stock for stock and mod for mod in n/a fashion.

More power? Check.

Lighter? Check.

Turns better? Super check.

Why can't we be CAR fans instead of some idiotic fanatical loyalty to a car when there is always a better one out there.
Why don't we all just get up and go I the Bugatti forums?
alrefire is offline  
Old 10-24-2012, 05:04 PM   #69
Road Trip!
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Region: Indiana
Posts: 8,044
closed until further review
dreamstang is offline  
Closed Thread

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > Ford Mustang | Wrenching, Care and General Topics > At the Track

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2004 GT Engine swap tp a 2012 5.0 Tominkc 1996-2004 Mustang GT 28 02-02-2012 09:26 PM
Porting stock 5.0 heads SmokedLX 1979-1995 Mustang GT 12 01-01-2012 01:57 AM
2006 GT Stock Bullit 17x8 -> 2002 Mustang v6 FghtinIrshNvrDi Mustang Wheels & Tires 6 06-27-2011 10:29 AM
Boss 302 vs GT 5.0 poloka 2011-2014 Mustang GT 188 06-20-2011 05:08 PM

» Like Us On Facebook



08:58 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.