Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Kill Drive-Thru
I thought those L's were fast !
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ebbsnflows" data-source="post: 37722" data-attributes="member: 1980"><p>Dang it...I told myself that I was done with this thread.....Ok, after this....I mean it!!......</p><p></p><p>I PERSONALLY (meaning <strong>ME</strong>...not a magazine) have seen 2 seperate LS1's run so close to 12's it wasn't even funny. Both were 2001's and both had less than 2500 miles on them.</p><p></p><p>3 Weeks ago, Capital Raceway....Black Z28: 13.08 w/ a 2.1x 60'. If he could've gotten it off the line just a bit quicker, he had 12.9's EASILY. (Temps: 85* w/ 70% humidity!!)</p><p></p><p>Last weekend: a Blk SS....13.10 w/ a 2.2x 60'!!!! Again...anything under a 1.99 60' and he would've kissed the 12's (temps were a bit cooler 70's w/ 50% humidity). Both cars were bone stock!! Even had stock rims/tires (hence the high 60 ft's). </p><p></p><p>Now you guys are saying...."Big Deal....that STILL NOT 12's"... Granted...neither hit the 12's...but you have to be able to recognize that both were <strong>MORE</strong> than capable of it, given the awful launches and less than optimum weather conditions. Had the temps been 20 deg cooler, they both would've smashed 12's regardless of the poor traction. </p><p></p><p>Now...let me judge some of you, based on the current logic being used on here....The best I've ever seen a stock L run was a 14.2 (w/ LOTS of 14.5 +'s )....I even saw one get smoked at a redlight by an <strong>LT1</strong> w/ only basic mods!!! Am I gonna call BULL$HIT on every one of you that posts sub 14 sec. ET's??? NO....because my exposure to L's is so limited (ie. I've only seen 6-8 run) that would be pretty damned naive' of me. </p><p></p><p>Again...it's a mathematical thing: 100 lbs = Approx .10 in the 1/4...Do we agree on that???</p><p></p><p>FBodies dyno @ 300-305 stock (01's are dyno'ing as high as 310-315 rwhp)....they weigh around 3400 lbs with the spare tire/jack removed.</p><p></p><p>L's dyno 320-325 stock...but weigh 4500 lbs (spare/jack removed). Some of you have claimed 13.5's or better being stock.....</p><p><a href="http://www.f150online.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46238" target="_blank">http://www.f150online.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46238</a> </p><p></p><p>If you believe that, then just do the MATH!!!</p><p></p><p>1100 lbs = 1.1 sec. in the 1/4. Hell....LS1 owner's are only claiming .60 better than you!!! <strong>WHY IS THAT SO DAMNED HARD TO BELIEVE????</strong> It's not a conspiracy....there is no 2nd gunmen!!! (Well maybe in JFK's case.....BUT NOT IN THIS CASE!!)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ebbsnflows, post: 37722, member: 1980"] Dang it...I told myself that I was done with this thread.....Ok, after this....I mean it!!...... I PERSONALLY (meaning [b]ME[/b]...not a magazine) have seen 2 seperate LS1's run so close to 12's it wasn't even funny. Both were 2001's and both had less than 2500 miles on them. 3 Weeks ago, Capital Raceway....Black Z28: 13.08 w/ a 2.1x 60'. If he could've gotten it off the line just a bit quicker, he had 12.9's EASILY. (Temps: 85* w/ 70% humidity!!) Last weekend: a Blk SS....13.10 w/ a 2.2x 60'!!!! Again...anything under a 1.99 60' and he would've kissed the 12's (temps were a bit cooler 70's w/ 50% humidity). Both cars were bone stock!! Even had stock rims/tires (hence the high 60 ft's). Now you guys are saying...."Big Deal....that STILL NOT 12's"... Granted...neither hit the 12's...but you have to be able to recognize that both were [b]MORE[/b] than capable of it, given the awful launches and less than optimum weather conditions. Had the temps been 20 deg cooler, they both would've smashed 12's regardless of the poor traction. Now...let me judge some of you, based on the current logic being used on here....The best I've ever seen a stock L run was a 14.2 (w/ LOTS of 14.5 +'s )....I even saw one get smoked at a redlight by an [b]LT1[/b] w/ only basic mods!!! Am I gonna call BULL$HIT on every one of you that posts sub 14 sec. ET's??? NO....because my exposure to L's is so limited (ie. I've only seen 6-8 run) that would be pretty damned naive' of me. Again...it's a mathematical thing: 100 lbs = Approx .10 in the 1/4...Do we agree on that??? FBodies dyno @ 300-305 stock (01's are dyno'ing as high as 310-315 rwhp)....they weigh around 3400 lbs with the spare tire/jack removed. L's dyno 320-325 stock...but weigh 4500 lbs (spare/jack removed). Some of you have claimed 13.5's or better being stock..... [url]http://www.f150online.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46238[/url] If you believe that, then just do the MATH!!! 1100 lbs = 1.1 sec. in the 1/4. Hell....LS1 owner's are only claiming .60 better than you!!! [b]WHY IS THAT SO DAMNED HARD TO BELIEVE????[/b] It's not a conspiracy....there is no 2nd gunmen!!! (Well maybe in JFK's case.....BUT NOT IN THIS CASE!!) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Kill Drive-Thru
I thought those L's were fast !
Top