: Your $20,000 dream garage . . . .



Aron9000
05-23-09, 02:38 AM
Assuming you are on a limited budget of $20,000 for toys, what would you pick? I'd keep my 1991 Brougham for a daily driver, I absolutely love that car. For me:

Assuming I had the space:
1971-72 Buick Riveria One of my favorite pimp-mobiles, plus they had the 455 Big block Buick. 71-72 were good years before they really cut horsepower in the name of emissions. I love that front end, hood over bumper styling. The whole car is just wretched excess and IMO its the pinnicle of the personal luxury era.

1999 Camaro SS- Hugger Orange, 6 speed manual. I've always loved the 4th gen Camaro, and the LS1 delivers amazing performance. Hugger Orange is my favorite color, and the Camaro just looks a lot cleaner vs the Trans Am

EDIT: After pricing out a 1971 Riviera, this thread should read $25,000 Dream Garage.

arnauts
05-23-09, 03:40 AM
...would have a roof and a heater. What more could anybody who spends most of their time working in the rain/dark ask for?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-23-09, 09:30 AM
Let's see here, I live in MN, so that means that I'd have to have a car that's good in the snow for winter, but still something fun to drive, modifiable and good on gas for use as a daily driver. I'd also like a '70s land yacht, because you can pick those up for dirt cheap today and I've always liked them. Lastly, if I could afford it, I'd like an older F-body as a fun to drive summer car.

Daily driver:
Buick Regal GS or Riviera.

Classic:
1973-75 Imperial LeBaron, 72-76 Mark IV, 80-85 Fleetwood Brougham Coupe, 80-84 Coupe deVille. The Mark IV is the best looker, but I think it'd be too floaty and uninvolving to drive. I've heard that the Imperials were the best handling of the land yachts, and they look very cool also. The D Body coupes are great too, because they're the biggest coupe Cadillac has made since 1976, and they drive smaller than they look, too bad they're underpowered and in dire need of an engine/trans swap. Luckily, they can be had for almost nothing, and are in reasonable supply (lol) now too.

Summer/Fun to drive car.
Should be something simple and single minded. Something stupidly fast with very sharp handling. If I already had two luxury cars, would I really want an ETC or Mark VIII? Nah, I think I'd rather have the F body. After checking NADA, I found I can get a late model GTA (1992) or early LT1 (1994) for less than $5,000 in clean condition. There's just something...so quintessentially American about going on a nice summer evening cruise in your Trans Am with the t-tops off, radio up and gas pedal down. My friend's brother has that '92 Camaro RS Coupe (5.0 TBI) and that's a blast to ride in, even with the least powerful V8.

A CLEAN 1991-93 (after they changed the grille design) Mustang GT or LX 5.0 would be nice too, or even a Camaro Z28, but I like the Trans Am most.

Ranger
05-23-09, 10:57 AM
Assuming you are on a limited budget of $20,000 for toys, what would you pick? I'd keep my 1991 Brougham for a daily driver, I absolutely love that car. For me:

Assuming I had the space:
1971-72 Buick Riveria One of my favorite pimp-mobiles, plus they had the 455 Big block Buick. 71-72 were good years before they really cut horsepower in the name of emissions. I love that front end, hood over bumper styling. The whole car is just wretched excess and IMO its the pinnicle of the personal luxury era.

1999 Camaro SS- Hugger Orange, 6 speed manual. I've always loved the 4th gen Camaro, and the LS1 delivers amazing performance. Hugger Orange is my favorite color, and the Camaro just looks a lot cleaner vs the Trans Am

EDIT: After pricing out a 1971 Riviera, this thread should read $25,000 Dream Garage.
My buddy just bought one with 40K on it. All original in very good condition. Just put a set of points in it for him the other day. Boy did that bring back memories. Even got to drive it out to lunch. I think he paid around $9500.

93DevilleUSMC
05-23-09, 04:45 PM
My garage would need a good work bench with all the tools I need for cleaning my weapons, and other tools for all purposes. I'd have my CAP 72-hour gear stored in the corner, ready at a moment's notice. I'd also have a Pepsi machine.

Classic car: 1963 1/2 Buick Riviera, red, 1973 Cadillac Eldorado in black with the 472CID V8, or 1963 Pontiac Tempest LeMans with the 326CID V8.

Daily driver: My 1993 Deville.

Fun to drive/weekend car: 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T, white, with a 426 Hemi V8, or 1969 Charger R/T, black on black, with 440 Six Pack V8.

Jesda
05-23-09, 04:58 PM
A Miata and an old Silverado. That's all I need, ever. I guess thats more like a $5k garage.

Rodya234
05-23-09, 05:09 PM
My Deville, and a Caterham Classic.

The rest of the cash can go into gas money.

gdwriter
05-23-09, 05:22 PM
A '63-'65 Buick Riviera, my second-favorite classic after the '64 Impala. If I couldn't find a decent one under $25,000, a '66-67 Riviera, '66-'67 Toronado or '67-'68 Eldorado would work, too. Hell, I might be able to squeeze in a first-generation Miata in there, too. Or a first-generation Celica, like my first car.

http://www.carspace.com/xcargrl/Albums/xcargrl%27s%20Album/72celica.jpg/photo/v./photo.jpg

tdyguy2k
05-23-09, 05:55 PM
I had a 73 Celica ST back when I first entered the military. As far as a toy goes, maybe an early 70's Vette with the 425 horse 427. That is if you can find a descent one under $25K.

gdwriter
05-23-09, 06:10 PM
I had a 73 Celica ST back when I first entered the military.It was a fun little car. Fairly spunky for a 4-cylinder, at least by early 80s standards. Excellent shifter, made driving a stick fun. A full set of gauges in a handsome dash. And one of those rare Japanese cars from that era (the other being the 240Z) that was actually good looking.

CTSV_510
05-23-09, 10:22 PM
geez, I got the car already. Gimme $20k so I can build a garage to put it in!

Destroyer
05-24-09, 12:05 AM
There's just something...so quintessentially American about going on a nice summer evening cruise in your Trans Am with the t-tops off, radio up and gas pedal down. My friend's brother has that '92 Camaro RS Coupe (5.0 TBI) and that's a blast to ride in, even with the least powerful V8.

A 5.0 '92 RS Coupe is hardly a "blast to ride in", even by 1985 standards!

[/QUOTE]A CLEAN 1991-93 (after they changed the grille design) Mustang GT or LX 5.0 would be nice too, or even a Camaro Z28, but I like the Trans Am most.[/QUOTE]5.0 is the way to go but I was unaware they changed the grille design on the '91-93 models. Grille changed in '87 and stayed that way till '93 unless you know something I don't (doubtful).

thebigjimsho
05-24-09, 12:12 AM
I'll take an E24 BMW M6. Blue w/ Ivory interior.

And if there's anything left over, a Gen II SHO...

Aron9000
05-24-09, 01:13 AM
My buddy just bought one with 40K on it. All original in very good condition. Just put a set of points in it for him the other day. Boy did that bring back memories. Even got to drive it out to lunch. I think he paid around $9500.

Post some pics of the beast!!!

Jesda, I would like to have a nice mid-late 90's Chevy truck, the 454SS was sweet.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-24-09, 01:36 AM
A 5.0 '92 RS Coupe is hardly a "blast to ride in", even by 1985 standards!

How so? I rode in it tonight and it was just cool hearing that V8 rumble, and feeling the torque of the 305 drag it along, even at low RPM. Sure, it's not fast (and it won't get rubber from a stop), but it's still got that feeling.



5.0 is the way to go but I was unaware they changed the grille design on the '91-93 models. Grille changed in '87 and stayed that way till '93 unless you know something I don't (doubtful).

Check it out (I was wrong about the years though)

1991:
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/1991/Ford/5861/1991.ford.mustang.3611-E.jpg

1993:
http://i20.ebayimg.com/06/i/001/49/a8/1801_1.JPG

c5 rv
05-24-09, 07:56 AM
Assuming you are on a limited budget of $20,000 for toys, what would you pick? I'd keep my 1991 Brougham for a daily driver, I absolutely love that car.

$20K for toys plus a daily driver? I'm 2/3 of the way there with the Allante and Dakota. Now if I can just get my wife over the "Motorcycle death machine" rant. Plus, I only have $5K left in that budget and used Spyders haven't depreciated enough.

Destroyer
05-24-09, 08:15 AM
How so? I rode in it tonight and it was just cool hearing that V8 rumble, and feeling the torque of the 305 drag it along, even at low RPM. Sure, it's not fast (and it won't get rubber from a stop), but it's still got that feeling.



Check it out (I was wrong about the years though)

1991:
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/1991/Ford/5861/1991.ford.mustang.3611-E.jpg

1993:
http://i20.ebayimg.com/06/i/001/49/a8/1801_1.JPG

That pic of the '93 is not a GT.The GT front end was the same as the pic of the '91.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-24-09, 10:01 AM
That pic of the '93 is not a GT.The GT front end was the same as the pic of the '91.


OHHHHHH ok! Thank you for explaining that, I always wondered! The GT's have no grille opening, whereas the LX's do.

In that case, I like the LX 5.0 the most.

Ranger
05-24-09, 10:25 AM
Post some pics of the beast!!!

Jesda, I would like to have a nice mid-late 90's Chevy truck, the 454SS was sweet.
I'm going to a "hot rod rally" with him in Madison Wi. on the 6th of June and then on to Racine Wi. on the 7th. Maybe I can get some then. I'll try to remember and post them.

Florian
05-25-09, 01:14 AM
1999 Camaro SS- Hugger Orange, 6 speed manual. I've always loved the 4th gen Camaro, and the LS1 delivers amazing performance. .

I owned 2 Gen 4 Camaro SS's....they both sucked. If that's 'amazing performance' you must have driven Yugos all your life.


F

Aron9000
05-25-09, 01:35 AM
I owned 2 Gen 4 Camaro SS's....they both sucked. If that's 'amazing performance' you must have driven Yugos all your life.
F

Um, what does your STS-V run in the quarter mile? Probably about the same as a stock LS1, low 13's @105-107mph:nono: Unlike the STS-v, there is a huge aftermarket out there to make it faster and handle better.

Its not a luxury car, but the refinement level/interior is about on par with a 10 year old Mustang/Focus/Civic/etc. For affordable speed and good looks, you can't beat it IMO.

Florian
05-25-09, 11:33 AM
thanks, Capt. Obvious....The STSv is lightyears ahead of the shitty plastic of the SS. Sure the aftermarket is there, but that wasnt what you said. You said the SS had 'amazing performance'...I called you out on it. My SS's dynoed at 268/276 RWHP (1998 LT1 and 2000 LS1, respectively)....thats more than 100 RWHP less than my STSv. Hardly 'amazing' territory, and about the same weight.
You can make just about any car fast with the right add ons.



F

Aron9000
05-25-09, 02:32 PM
thanks, Capt. Obvious....The STSv is lightyears ahead of the shitty plastic of the SS. Sure the aftermarket is there, but that wasnt what you said. You said the SS had 'amazing performance'...I called you out on it. My SS's dynoed at 268/276 RWHP (1998 LT1 and 2000 LS1, respectively)....thats more than 100 RWHP less than my STSv. Hardly 'amazing' territory, and about the same weight.
You can make just about any car fast with the right add ons.
F

Dude, just quit while you are ahead. Low 13's is pretty damn fast, even in this day and age. That's faster than a new Charger R/T and Mustang GT, and that's from an 11 year old platform.

2nd off, 1998 would've been the LS1, not an LT1. My auto Z28 made 305rwph and 320rwtq with a magnaflow catback exhaust, otherwise stock as a rock.

As far as weight goes, t-top or hardtop fbodys are usually 3400-3500lbs, depending on the model and options. STS-v is 4300lbs of pork. That's why its not any faster even though it makes 100 more hp. Car and Driver ran an STS-v, 13.8@101 mph

Comparing these two cars isn't really relevant though, so if you want to talk shit, here's a nice comparo of a 2005 E55 Benz and a 2005 M5.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/luxury/112_0412_2005_bmw_m5_mercedes_benz_e55/specification_comparison.html

500hp/384rwtq from the V10 in the M5. Sucker has an 8200rpm redline and ran the quarter in 12.6@115mph. The supercharged V8 Benz has 469hp/516lb ft torque:bonkers: and ran a 12.4@116mph. Handling is more subjective, so I'm not really going to dive into that arguement

Those cars stickered for about $85,000 brand new, a STS-v was a little cheaper at $77k. I'm not hating on Cadillac, but the STS-v really is outclassed by the Germans. If I were buying one of these brand new, I really couldn't justify the STS-v in any way over the Germans. Used though, depreciation is such a bitch on the STS-v it makes more sense to pick up a two year old one for $30k

Rodya234
05-25-09, 04:22 PM
The STS-V is kind of redundant considering how good the CTS-V is now, and considering the fact that the CTS-V is over 10k cheaper. I'm actually surprised they killed the XLR-V before the STS-V.

orconn
05-25-09, 07:25 PM
I'd have a 1995 Seville STS, an Alfa Romeo Spyder for fun and a Honda minivan to haul grand kids, dogs and other uncouth cargo.

AMGoff
05-25-09, 10:13 PM
Dude, just quit while you are ahead. Low 13's is pretty damn fast, even in this day and age. That's faster than a new Charger R/T and Mustang GT, and that's from an 11 year old platform.

2nd off, 1998 would've been the LS1, not an LT1. My auto Z28 made 305rwph and 320rwtq with a magnaflow catback exhaust, otherwise stock as a rock.

As far as weight goes, t-top or hardtop fbodys are usually 3400-3500lbs, depending on the model and options. STS-v is 4300lbs of pork. That's why its not any faster even though it makes 100 more hp. Car and Driver ran an STS-v, 13.8@101 mph

Comparing these two cars isn't really relevant though, so if you want to talk shit, here's a nice comparo of a 2005 E55 Benz and a 2005 M5.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/luxury/112_0412_2005_bmw_m5_mercedes_benz_e55/specification_comparison.html

500hp/384rwtq from the V10 in the M5. Sucker has an 8200rpm redline and ran the quarter in 12.6@115mph. The supercharged V8 Benz has 469hp/516lb ft torque:bonkers: and ran a 12.4@116mph. Handling is more subjective, so I'm not really going to dive into that arguement

Those cars stickered for about $85,000 brand new, a STS-v was a little cheaper at $77k. I'm not hating on Cadillac, but the STS-v really is outclassed by the Germans. If I were buying one of these brand new, I really couldn't justify the STS-v in any way over the Germans. Used though, depreciation is such a bitch on the STS-v it makes more sense to pick up a two year old one for $30k

You're either skewing numbers or tossing around some terms without using them correctly or both...

Florian had his measured on a dynamometer, hence him using "RWHP" figures, ie - the actual amount of power that is making it to the rear wheels on to the pavement... Not the engine power generated at the flywheel - which is what manufacturer's use to rate their car. A dyno reading is a far more accurate rating of a car's power.

You've subsequently been rebutting by throwing around "rwhp/rwtq" yourself... At first I thought you were simply BSing with your claimed output with your Camaro... Since a 0% loss of power from the engine to the rear wheels is damn near impossible. Those are the manufacturer's rating for the Camaro at the flywheel - not the rear wheels.

But then I saw you continue using it when you deemed it necessary to bring up the M5 and AMG for whatever reason... Again, those power ratings for the M5 and AMG are at the flywheel - not the rear wheels.

Manufacturers do not rate the power output of their vehicles at the rear wheels - simply the flywheel... and it's been done like that for ages.

Secondly, I'm not sure where you're pulling these "bone stock" figures from... Seeing as how any published test out there puts even the SS version into the low 13s. The average being around 14... I believe Motor Trend pulled the best time with 14@103.9mph and a 0-60 of 5.6 seconds. You were, however... Slightly more on the mark with the STS-V's number - although it really doesn't help whatever argument you were trying to make... With a 0-60 of 4.7 seconds and the 1/4 mile coming in 13.2@106.97.

I don't really care either way, but I can see the point Florian was trying to make.... Performance, while good - isn't anything "stellar," nor "awesome." Especially when considered with what it's packaged it... Aesthetically speaking - on the outside, sure it's a sleek design, but nothing remarkable and interior wise... Sweet Jesus, you'd have to be Helen Keller to not realize that interior came out of what was quite possibly GM's worst design periods ever - the so-so styling itself could be forgiven if it weren't for materials which came recycled straight from the cubicle of a proletariat underling.

Of course, that's without even mentioning the fact that its suspension came straight out of the stone-age - well, that's not exactly fair... maybe the bronze-age. Yes, everything would stay relatively flat through the twisties and all... but unless one somehow had the privilege of driving exclusively on a glass surface, then they'd have several compressed discs - if not a completely snapped spinal column by the time they'd reach any destination greater than a trip down the driveway and back.

There was a definite reason why Mustangs of the era outsold the F-body by nearly 2 to 1... Sure, you might not have had *all* that "awesome" power... but at least you'd be one piece after you got where you were going.

I realize that everyone has their "holy grail" of cars and they're completely entitled to it.... But placing personal preference, bias, and emotion aside when talking about straight up performance - especially for that kind of money... I can totally see Florian's point.

Just because he gleefully poked some of your buttons while doing so, it makes his point no less valid.

ryannel2003
05-25-09, 10:28 PM
I'd take a '03 STS in Blue Onyx and with the rest of the money I'd pick an older, classic Cadillac with my budget.

Or I just wait another year and pick up an used XLR for dirt cheap.

Aron9000
05-26-09, 01:01 AM
You're either skewing numbers or tossing around some terms without using them correctly or both...

Florian had his measured on a dynamometer, hence him using "RWHP" figures, ie - the actual amount of power that is making it to the rear wheels on to the pavement... Not the engine power generated at the flywheel - which is what manufacturer's use to rate their car. A dyno reading is a far more accurate rating of a car's power.

You've subsequently been rebutting by throwing around "rwhp/rwtq" yourself... At first I thought you were simply BSing with your claimed output with your Camaro... Since a 0% loss of power from the engine to the rear wheels is damn near impossible. Those are the manufacturer's rating for the Camaro at the flywheel - not the rear wheels.


Anybody who knows fbodys knows that the LS1 is the same in the Corvette and the fbody, and that it makes the same hp. GM really underrated the fbody at 305fwhp, it was really making the about the same 345fwhp as the Vette. Mine made 305rwhp 320rwtq on a chassis dyno, which is about average for ones that were stock(or had a different muffler like mine).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/Kevo777no3/Ls1Tech%20Sticky/proofofpower.jpg

The reason I like fbodys is you don't see very many nice ones where I live. While the C5 Corvette is an all around better car(it should be since it costs twice as much), you'll see four Corvettes for every nice fbody.

As for Florian, you owned two Camaros, so they couldn't have sucked that bad:bigroll:

Florian
05-26-09, 03:07 PM
2nd off, 1998 would've been the LS1, not an LT1. My auto Z28 made 305rwph and 320rwtq with a magnaflow catback exhaust, otherwise stock as a rock.


zzzzzzzzzzt. Incorrect. The 98 was an LT1.....go do the homework before you spout off. How do I know? My 1998 Camaro SS had an LT1 in it. Guess thats good enough for me.


F

Florian
05-26-09, 03:11 PM
As for Florian, you owned two Camaros, so they couldn't have sucked that bad:bigroll:

They cost me 0 dollars (as did my LT1 based 1996 Impala SS)....who was I to turn down 3 free cars.....thats the only reason I drove them.


F

Rodya234
05-26-09, 07:09 PM
The reason I like fbodys is you don't see very many nice ones where I live. While the C5 Corvette is an all around better car(it should be since it costs twice as much), you'll see four Corvettes for every nice fbody.
:
where in the world are there more 'vettes then F-bodies?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-26-09, 11:01 PM
zzzzzzzzzzt. Incorrect. The 98 was an LT1.....go do the homework before you spout off. How do I know? My 1998 Camaro SS had an LT1 in it. Guess thats good enough for me.


F

Thats odd, because every source I have lists the 98 F Bodies as being LS1 powered...

Florian
05-26-09, 11:58 PM
odd indeed.....


F

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-27-09, 12:02 AM
Special order? Did u have the flush headlamps or the inset ones?

Florian
05-27-09, 12:15 AM
the ugly bulbuous ones....certainly not flush.


F

ryannel2003
05-27-09, 11:11 AM
Never been a fan of 4th Gen Camaro's... especially the throw away interiors. But let's be honest, if you're buying a Camaro it's not because you want a really nice interior.

Florian, didn't you have a car exactly like mine at one point? I think I remember reading that somewhere.

Florian
05-27-09, 11:58 AM
Never been a fan of 4th Gen Camaro's... especially the throw away interiors. But let's be honest, if you're buying a Camaro it's not because you want a really nice interior.

Florian, didn't you have a car exactly like mine at one point? I think I remember reading that somewhere.

I did have a silver 2000 STS at one point (after my Audi S4). Probably my fave car so far....



F

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-27-09, 06:24 PM
Dave, was that your first Cadillac? You've had so many cool cars..

Florian
05-27-09, 10:30 PM
Dave, was that your first Cadillac? You've had so many cool cars..

It was my 1st caddy......fell in love right away.


F

ryannel2003
05-27-09, 10:39 PM
I don't know what it is about Seville's, but they seem to have a certain charm that the newest STS's just can't match. I really can't put my finger on it, but it is there.

gary88
05-27-09, 10:44 PM
I don't know what it is about Seville's, but they seem to have a certain charm that the newest STS's just can't match. I really can't put my finger on it, but it is there.

The designer of the Sevilles used something other than a ruler.

93eldodave
05-29-09, 10:17 PM
Post some pics of the beast!!!

Jesda, I would like to have a nice mid-late 90's Chevy truck, the 454SS was sweet.

I worked a GM when the SS454 truck came out and you couldn't afford the gas.. at best they got 8mpg driving normal and the BB was really just a boat ancor, small port smog heads and low compression slugs made it JUNK..No offence?

thebigjimsho
05-29-09, 11:49 PM
The designer of the Sevilles used something other than a ruler.
Yeah, edgy cars suck...


http://www.cardata.com/spoilers/images/DN_Spoilers/VW_Beetle.jpg

Aron9000
05-30-09, 12:11 AM
I worked a GM when the SS454 truck came out and you couldn't afford the gas.. at best they got 8mpg driving normal and the BB was really just a boat ancor, small port smog heads and low compression slugs made it JUNK..No offence?

I'll agree that the TBI 454 doesn't have crap on the old 454 they put into Chevelles, but it was decent for its day. Although I like the whole package, the styling is just bitching.

gdwriter
05-30-09, 12:53 AM
I don't know what it is about Seville's, but they seem to have a certain charm that the newest STS's just can't match. I really can't put my finger on it, but it is there.That's true. When I bought Sabrina, there was a used '08 STS on the lot at a ridiculously low price, under $30K IIRC. It was nice, but I like the looks of my Seville better both inside and out. It has a timeless elegance that will not go out of style.

LS1Mike
06-01-09, 03:49 AM
Florian,
98 and up F-bodies with a V-8 were LS1 cars end of story.
93 to 97 were LT1 cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine
Don't like Wikipedia?
Just go to LS1tech.com
LSXnation.net
LS1.com
I have owned 5 of them.
A 94, 96, 98, 00 and 01.
I think you may want to check it out.

Aron9000
06-01-09, 03:54 AM
^thank you!!!

LS1Mike
06-01-09, 06:18 AM
Secondly, I'm not sure where you're pulling these "bone stock" figures from... Seeing as how any published test out there puts even the SS version into the low 13s. The average being around 14... I believe Motor Trend pulled the best time with 14@103.9mph and a 0-60 of 5.6 seconds. You were, however... Slightly more on the mark with the STS-V's number - although it really doesn't help whatever argument you were trying to make... With a 0-60 of 4.7 seconds and the 1/4 mile coming in 13.2@106.97.



Think you need to get out to the track a bit and take a better look at your Motor Trend. They recorded a best of 13.40 at 107.xx MPH for an 00 Z28.
In additon to that, the 98s were slowest, Autos averaged about 13.70 at 105, M6s Averaged 13.40 at 107. The 99 and 00 did a bit better, but in 01 when they went to the LS6 intake and a bit better head casting the average 1/4 time for the Manuals were right around 13.20 at 108 mph, the Auto would tick off 13.50. My Bone stock 00 WS6 ran 13.17 at 108.02 mph.
My 98 Z28 M6 bone stock ran 13,38 at 107.02 mph in the heat of summer.
My 01 Z28? It was the best by far. 12.92 at 110.02 mph bone stock.
The 01 was deffiently a good one, but I am not the only person who has run 12's bone stock in an LS1 F-body.
You might want to read this.
http://camaroforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28299
Everyone knows Road and Track, Motor Trend, and Car and Driver are usually a good half second off in the 1/4 mile times and take an average. Bad day, bad times.
They never got an 03 or 04 Cobra to break the 13.30 mark. That sucks.
Magazine racing sucks.:D
Cheers.

Florian
06-01-09, 02:16 PM
My car was a 98 built in mid 07....could it have been a fluke? Why did we use LT1 parts on it instead of LS1 parts? were they interchangeable?

Food for thought.


F

LS1Mike
06-01-09, 03:15 PM
Notthing is interchangeable between the two, except for Suspension parts, interior parts etc etc. The last LT1 cars rolled off the line in 96 as 97 model years.
So it had an Opti-spark or indvidual coil packs?

the cadillac kid
06-01-09, 05:27 PM
You're either skewing numbers or tossing around some terms without using them correctly or both...

Florian had his measured on a dynamometer, hence him using "RWHP" figures, ie - the actual amount of power that is making it to the rear wheels on to the pavement... Not the engine power generated at the flywheel - which is what manufacturer's use to rate their car. A dyno reading is a far more accurate rating of a car's power.

You've subsequently been rebutting by throwing around "rwhp/rwtq" yourself... At first I thought you were simply BSing with your claimed output with your Camaro... Since a 0% loss of power from the engine to the rear wheels is damn near impossible. Those are the manufacturer's rating for the Camaro at the flywheel - not the rear wheels.

But then I saw you continue using it when you deemed it necessary to bring up the M5 and AMG for whatever reason... Again, those power ratings for the M5 and AMG are at the flywheel - not the rear wheels.

Manufacturers do not rate the power output of their vehicles at the rear wheels - simply the flywheel... and it's been done like that for ages.

Secondly, I'm not sure where you're pulling these "bone stock" figures from... Seeing as how any published test out there puts even the SS version into the low 13s. The average being around 14... I believe Motor Trend pulled the best time with 14@103.9mph and a 0-60 of 5.6 seconds. You were, however... Slightly more on the mark with the STS-V's number - although it really doesn't help whatever argument you were trying to make... With a 0-60 of 4.7 seconds and the 1/4 mile coming in 13.2@106.97.

I don't really care either way, but I can see the point Florian was trying to make.... Performance, while good - isn't anything "stellar," nor "awesome." Especially when considered with what it's packaged it... Aesthetically speaking - on the outside, sure it's a sleek design, but nothing remarkable and interior wise... Sweet Jesus, you'd have to be Helen Keller to not realize that interior came out of what was quite possibly GM's worst design periods ever - the so-so styling itself could be forgiven if it weren't for materials which came recycled straight from the cubicle of a proletariat underling.

Of course, that's without even mentioning the fact that its suspension came straight out of the stone-age - well, that's not exactly fair... maybe the bronze-age. Yes, everything would stay relatively flat through the twisties and all... but unless one somehow had the privilege of driving exclusively on a glass surface, then they'd have several compressed discs - if not a completely snapped spinal column by the time they'd reach any destination greater than a trip down the driveway and back.

There was a definite reason why Mustangs of the era outsold the F-body by nearly 2 to 1... Sure, you might not have had *all* that "awesome" power... but at least you'd be one piece after you got where you were going.

I realize that everyone has their "holy grail" of cars and they're completely entitled to it.... But placing personal preference, bias, and emotion aside when talking about straight up performance - especially for that kind of money... I can totally see Florian's point.

Just because he gleefully poked some of your buttons while doing so, it makes his point no less valid.

"It's better to let someone think you are an Idiot than to open your mouth and prove it."




Just to clear a few things up for some people:
Beginning in the year 1998, and ending in 2002, the 4th generation Trans Am & Camaros used the LS1 motor. The LS1 replaced the LT1 in '98.

LS1's were underrated from the factory so as to not stunt Corvette sales (corvette cost 2x TA or Camaro. Go talk to your accountant, he'll explain to you why this was a smart move). LS1s put down roughly 305 to the *wheels* through the factory T56 tranny.
Many LS1 F-Bodies run 12s BONE-STOCK.
a Ttop equipped Fbodies weighs roughly 3700 pounds with driver, spare tire & full tank of gas. A STS weighs 4400-ish.


LS1 engine:
http://www1.garaget.org/archive/60/59564/73604/73604-1058820.jpg



LT1 Engine:
http://i384.photobucket.com/albums/oo286/adams95ta/IMG_1054-1.jpg



Hard to mistake the two.

LS1Mike
06-01-09, 06:15 PM
Damn that is a nice looking LT1!

AMGoff
06-01-09, 07:50 PM
"It's better to let someone think you are an Idiot than to open your mouth and prove it."




Just to clear a few things up for some people:
Beginning in the year 1998, and ending in 2002, the 4th generation Trans Am & Camaros used the LS1 motor. The LS1 replaced the LT1 in '98.

LS1's were underrated from the factory so as to not stunt Corvette sales (corvette cost 2x TA or Camaro. Go talk to your accountant, he'll explain to you why this was a smart move). LS1s put down roughly 305 to the *wheels* through the factory T56 tranny.
Many LS1 F-Bodies run 12s BONE-STOCK.
a Ttop equipped Fbodies weighs roughly 3700 pounds with driver, spare tire & full tank of gas. A STS weighs 4400-ish.


LS1 engine:


I'd be much more apt to take such an insult in stride - perhaps even applaud such... if it were made by someone who can actually read.

I never said anything with regard to the LT1/LS1 debate... That was Florian's assertion - not mine.

As for everything else... Go ahead and shoot me for merely reading (yes, I'm actually capable of such things - you may want to try it yourself sometime) up on the performance figures of a car that I have zero interest in taking to the track - let alone driving on a regular basis to begin with. After it's original incarnation, the Camaro was... Well, I'll just stop right there so to not hurt the feelings of anyone who bows to the "awesomeness" of the F-bodies.

the cadillac kid
06-02-09, 01:29 AM
I'd be much more apt to take such an insult in stride - perhaps even applaud such... if it were made by someone who can actually read.

I never said anything with regard to the LT1/LS1 debate... That was Florian's assertion - not mine.

As for everything else... Go ahead and shoot me for merely reading (yes, I'm actually capable of such things - you may want to try it yourself sometime) up on the performance figures of a car that I have zero interest in taking to the track - let alone driving on a regular basis to begin with. After it's original incarnation, the Camaro was... Well, I'll just stop right there so to not hurt the feelings of anyone who bows to the "awesomeness" of the F-bodies.

Goff!
Hey man, it's awesome that you love to read :yup: really.
But sometimes, you have to read between the lines... as in, the big big gap between the sentence that followed your quote and the ensuing sentences. See BETWEEN those lines, were a lot of other lines--empty lines :yup: They served as a BREAK. Let's try to follow now ;)

But while on the topic of "reading," you may want to go back and READ (there's that word again :thumbsup: ) Aron9000's post and your reply to it--doesn't seem like you did all that swell of a job reading, otherwise you wouldn't have made some of the silly comments you made about "throwing numbers around."
Sometimes, Goff, while it may be fun to push all them purddy buttons on the keyboard, it'd help to just cut straight to the chase. No need for a novel every other post.

And in regards to the "awesomeness" of f-bodies and this comment:

a car that I have zero interest in taking to the track - let alone driving on a regular basis to begin with. After it's original incarnation, the Camaro was... Well, I'll just stop right there so to not hurt the feelings of anyone who bows to the "awesomeness" of the F-bodies.
I'm not sure how they do it in South Jersey, but in central & northern, this (http://www.proformancedetailing.com/home/ws6/BrittWS68001.jpg)gets a lot more compliments, thumbs up & interest than this (http://www.ifsja.org/readers/wagoneers/pictures/ff02.jpg)

http://www.proformancedetailing.com/home/ws6/BrittWS68001.jpg
http://www.ifsja.org/readers/wagoneers/pictures/ff02.jpg




"Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

Aron9000
06-02-09, 02:00 AM
Goff!
Hey man, it's awesome that you love to read :yup: really.
But sometimes, you have to read between the lines... as in, the big big gap between the sentence that followed your quote and the ensuing sentences. See BETWEEN those lines, were a lot of other lines--empty lines :yup: They served as a BREAK. Let's try to follow now ;)

But while on the topic of "reading," you may want to go back and READ (there's that word again :thumbsup: ) Aron9000's post and your reply to it--doesn't seem like you did all that swell of a job reading, otherwise you wouldn't have made some of the silly comments you made about "throwing numbers around."
Sometimes, Goff, while it may be fun to push all them purddy buttons on the keyboard, it'd help to just cut straight to the chase. No need for a novel every other post.

And in regards to the "awesomeness" of f-bodies and this comment:

I'm not sure how they do it in South Jersey, but in central & northern, this (http://www.proformancedetailing.com/home/ws6/BrittWS68001.jpg)gets a lot more compliments, thumbs up & interest than this (http://www.ifsja.org/readers/wagoneers/pictures/ff02.jpg)

http://www.proformancedetailing.com/home/ws6/BrittWS68001.jpg
http://www.ifsja.org/readers/wagoneers/pictures/ff02.jpg




"Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."


AMEN!!!!!!!!

I love the unique design of the 4th Gen fbody. It really doesn't look like anything else on the road today, and for the $$$ nothing else comes close in terms of performance.