[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

The gt350s motor is stout up to around 800rwhp and there are plenty of anecdotal examples that support that. Gt350 reliability is a crap shoot stock or modified though, but what I'd really worry about when making anything much past stock power is that trans going any second.

Post an example please.

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Wording may not matter to you but it does matter. GS shares the powerplant with the z51, it shares literally everything else with the z06. More than just dress up.

I phrased it how I wanted to and that is how I see it. The End. Moving on...

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

While some might like the idea, I don't think GM would ever stick a 650 or 755hp engine in a chassis that isn't really set up to handle the power. They usually build complete sports cars but I get what you are saying. Same as the guys that want an LT1 trim style Camaro with an lt5 in it.

That along with the fact that I highly doubt they will be successful with such an engine. That is based off what we've seen before. But it doesn't matter. We'll see soon enough.

[Evansa22]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Serious question: If the C8 Z06 has 600+ NA hp and does the 1/4 mile in 10.7 @ 130+ mph, why does boost matter? It would be quicker than the ZL1 and many other non-supercars (most supercars these days trap 134+mph). Think of the Lambo Huracan: 602-630 hp NA high revving V10. Traps 135-136 mph (e.t. 10.2-10.4 w/ AWD) in the 1/4 mile, and weighs 3420 lbs (vs C8 Z51 at 3620 lbs). I could see the C8 Z06 trapping low 130s due to the slightly lower lbs/hp ratio. That's GT500 and 911 Turbo S territory - with an NA engine.

A few weeks ago I watched the Lamborghini Aventador review by Throttle House on Youtube. The Aventador was 759 NA hp which runs 10.5 @ 136 mph (C&D). A comment stuck with me from that video. They said they had just recently reviewed the GT500, which at 760 FI hp has broken well into the 10s on many occasions on stock tires, and hit 132+mph trap speed. They have about the same amount of power, but the reviewer said that the Aventador felt like it had 1000 more hp than the GT500. While the Lambo is obviously quicker (and $400k+), it is NA and felt much quicker to the driver than the GT500 did, even though they are only a few mph different in trap speed and have very similar lbs/hp ratio (5.2 vs. 5.3). The GT500 is ~200 lbs heavier than the Lambo, which helps partially explain the lower trap speed (and likely aerodynamics is the other part), but you'd think the difference would be slight, not drastic. Anyway, it was an interesting comment because I've always thought that most people thought forced induction engines feel quicker than similarly powered NA engines because of the torque. I realize this is comparing a Lambo to a Shelby, but I brought this up because they have nearly the exact same rated hp, and similar lbs/hp ratios, yet the amazing NA engine in the Lambo feels much quicker than the Predator.

Personally, I like high hp NA engines. Getting a car to go fast with boost is one thing, but getting similar trap speeds NA is on a different level. i.e., Huracan Performante (traps 136 mph), Ferrari 812 Superfast (138 mph), Aventador (136 mph), GT3 RS (129 mph), I'd even throw the C6 Z06 in there given C&D was able to trap 127.1 mph with a 2006. High hp NA engines are a dying breed; I'd love to see a 625+ hp NA C8 Z06.

Interested to know exactly what they mean by quicker? As it's mid engine vs front engine, traction issues for the Lamborghini are minimized. Or were they talking strictly rate of change in rpm, if that's any different idk. Possibly showing better airflow in and out of the engine with the na vs fi. However I'm skeptical of perception judgments as the data shows they're close to equal in terms of acceleration. How something feels vs actual performance can be tricky. But I guess how it makes you feel can matter more to some

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by Evansa22

Interested to know exactly what they mean by quicker? As it's mid engine vs front engine, traction issues for the Lamborghini are minimized. Or were they talking strictly rate of change in rpm, if that's any different idk. Possibly showing better airflow in and out of the engine with the na vs fi. However I'm skeptical of perception judgments as the data shows they're close to equal in terms of acceleration. How something feels vs actual performance can be tricky. But I guess how it makes you feel can matter more to some

The Lambo is a bit quicker in a straight line than the GT500, but you're right, they aren't that far off. In the video, the driver appears to get on it, I can't tell if it is originally from a dig or a roll (I get the impression it is from a roll), but the video switches to him already rolling and accelerating. He then lets off and says "we just spent a week with the new GT500....this feels like it has a thousand more hp than a GT500". He is a racing instructor up in Canada, and they've reviewed some awesome cars on their YouTube channel, so he knows fast cars.

Here's the video, queued up:
https://youtu.be/O6pzSeQlSbY?t=251

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

Roll out is comes into play on a timed 1/4 mile track. Its the time it takes for the front tire to roll out of the beam to start the clock. Roll out is worth .1 to .2 reduction in ET. A car that runs a true 11.0 for instance will ET at least 10.9 . Thats why you stage as shallow as you can to increase roll out. ET is the only important factor, not MPH. Some Magazines show at .2 lower ET and note that is figured with the 1 foot roll out factor just to show and sell hype of low ETs

Yes, I'm aware of all that. Which is why I mentioned it, and the advantage a hard launching AWD car has (i.e., 911 Turbo S) over soft launching front engine RWD cars in that first 1 foot when looking at "0-60" times that include a 1 ft roll-out like magazines do. I personally place a lot of emphasis on 1/4 mile trap speed because that is more indicative of how hard a car pulls when traction isn't a factor. I also look at 60-100 mph times for the same reason.

For example: Which car will win a roll race: Car A that goes 12.0 @ 121 mph in the 1/4 mile, or Car B that goes 11.8 @ 114 mph?

If at the drag strip, sure, you pick Car B; if anywhere else, Car A (wins the roll race).

[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by Idaho2018GTPremium

Yes, I'm aware of all that. Which is why I mentioned it, and the advantage a hard launching AWD car has (i.e., 911 Turbo S) over soft launching front engine RWD cars in that first 1 foot when looking at "0-60" times that include a 1 ft roll-out like magazines do. I personally place a lot of emphasis on 1/4 mile trap speed because that is more indicative of how hard a car pulls when traction isn't a factor. I also look at 60-100 mph times for the same reason.

For example: Which car will win a roll race: Car A that goes 12.0 @ 121 mph in the 1/4 mile, or Car B that goes 11.8 @ 114 mph?

If at the drag strip, sure, you pick Car B; if anywhere else, Car A (wins the roll race).

That depends on the start speed of the roll race and how long the roll race is. I will take the slower - quicker car every-time, because 1/4 mile, 1/8 mile, everyday street fun I will beat the higher horse, higher MPH car that cannot perform at lower speeds.

[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by Evansa22

Interested to know exactly what they mean by quicker? As it's mid engine vs front engine, traction issues for the Lamborghini are minimized. Or were they talking strictly rate of change in rpm, if that's any different idk. Possibly showing better airflow in and out of the engine with the na vs fi. However I'm skeptical of perception judgments as the data shows they're close to equal in terms of acceleration. How something feels vs actual performance can be tricky. But I guess how it makes you feel can matter more to some

In a 1/4 mile drag contest, the quicker car wins . ET wins races, not MPH.

[TRZ06]

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

That depends on the start speed of the roll race and how long the roll race is. I will take the slower - quicker car every-time, because 1/4 mile, 1/8 mile, everyday street fun I will beat the higher horse, higher MPH car that cannot perform at lower speeds.

I don't care about winning a street drag race, I care more about how much G force of acceleration that puts you back in the seat. That is the feeling I am after.

It's more of an attitude of not caring about the other guy and more about getting the most enjoyment from the feelings and seat of the pants that a car gives you.

Obviously 5-60 and 60 - 100 times (that don't factor off the line traction) are better matrix for that.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by TRZ06

I don't care about winning a street drag race, I care more about how much G force of acceleration that puts you back in the seat. That is the feeling I am after.

It's more of an attitude of not caring about the other guy and more about getting the most enjoyment from the feelings and seat of the pants that a car gives you.

Obviously 5-60 and 60 - 100 times (that don't factor off the line traction) are better matrix for that.

I understand how you feel. For example, an 800 RWHP car on street tires might not do well in the quarter mile. But I bet you anything that a 50 MPH roll on at WOT will feel out of this world. Whereas something like a C8 Z51 might be good for low 11s. But it will not have anywhere close to the feel of an 800 RWHP car at WOT. I like a combination of both. High HP with really good traction and control. Which is why I was fiending for the Z06 to be the forced induction monster that we all initially thought it would be. But since it is just NA, I'm over it. NA will never have the same feeling of being pushed back into the seat like FI has. Not after you're used to high HP FI engines. Going NA to me is like taking a step backwards.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I understand how you feel. For example, an 800 RWHP car on street tires might not do well in the quarter mile. But I bet you anything that a 50 MPH roll on at WOT will feel out of this world. Whereas something like a C8 Z51 might be good for low 11s. But it will not have anywhere close to the feel of an 800 RWHP car at WOT. I like a combination of both. High HP with really good traction and control. Which is why I was fiending for the Z06 to be the forced induction monster that we all initially thought it would be. But since it is just NA, I'm over it. NA will never have the same feeling of being pushed back into the seat like FI has. Not after you're used to high HP FI engines. Going NA to me is like taking a step backwards.

Maybe Procharger is the real answer after all, a PD supercharger will always have too much torque down low if you also want power up top. Of course the tune can artifically suppress the low end, but it's kinda hard to ask a tuner to deliberately take performance away

[Idaho2018GTPremium]

Originally Posted by TRZ06

I don't care about winning a street drag race, I care more about how much G force of acceleration that puts you back in the seat. That is the feeling I am after.

It's more of an attitude of not caring about the other guy and more about getting the most enjoyment from the feelings and seat of the pants that a car gives you.

Obviously 5-60 and 60 - 100 times (that don't factor off the line traction) are better matrix for that.

Yes, this. Seat of the pants feel at WOT - which is why I tend to care more about 60-100 mph times and trap speeds than e.t. The 12.0 @ 121 mph car in my example will feel more powerful and push you back harder in your seat everywhere except off the line (or below, say, 20-25 mph where the 121 mph car will be traction limited) compared to that 11.8 @ 114 mph car.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Maybe Procharger is the real answer after all, a PD supercharger will always have too much torque down low if you also want power up top. Of course the tune can artifically suppress the low end, but it's kinda hard to ask a tuner to deliberately take performance away

I have a lot of experience with centri blowers from my Mustang days. I used to favor them. But then I got a taste of the simplicity and power of PDs. Hard to say which one I like better now. The centris have much better cooling for sure. But the instant power of the PDs is addictive. And I feel that more technology has gone into the PDs in recent years.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Post an example please.

I phrased it how I wanted to and that is how I see it. The End. Moving on...

That along with the fact that I highly doubt they will be successful with such an engine. That is based off what we've seen before. But it doesn't matter. We'll see soon enough.

Google stock motor gt350s, you'll find the first Mustangfords.com article has two by Fat House Performance (These guy's are definitely a premier turbo shop for mustangs) making over 1000rwhp. Just oil pump and crank sprocket were changed. Less ambitious ones have been done on totally stock engines. Obviously bigger injectors is a given and pump voltage boosters for the dual pumps are needed if using e85. There also 700-800ish rwhp whipple gt350s at relatively low boost that are easy to find. Alex Flores, while a bit of a nuthugger, has a good video on super charging gt350s title "Supercharging gt350s, Should you do it and why." Talks about possible failures and the whole shebang.

.. also you phrased it and see wrong.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Maybe Procharger is the real answer after all, a PD supercharger will always have too much torque down low if you also want power up top. Of course the tune can artifically suppress the low end, but it's kinda hard to ask a tuner to deliberately take performance away

I went with a Procharger on my GT for this very reason. Reasonably behaved on the streets even when pushing it a little down low but pulls super hard when you want it to. A manual centri car isn't ideal for drag racing imo, but fantastic for roll racing and this is really what this car will see 99% of the time.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Google stock motor gt350s, you'll find the first Mustangfords.com article has two by Fat House Performance (These guy's are definitely a premier turbo shop for mustangs) making over 1000rwhp. Just oil pump and crank sprocket were changed. Less ambitious ones have been done on totally stock engines. Obviously bigger injectors is a given and pump voltage boosters for the dual pumps are needed if using e85. There also 700-800ish rwhp whipple gt350s at relatively low boost that are easy to find. Alex Flores, while a bit of a nuthugger, has a good video on super charging gt350s title "Supercharging gt350s, Should you do it and why." Talks about possible failures and the whole shebang.

.. also you phrased it and see wrong.

And here I thought you were going to back up what you said instead of talking about some shop in a magazine. You know what dude, I honestly don't care to go on and on with you and your fairy-tale magical 1000 RWHP GT350s on stock bottom ends that are just prevalent in the streets. Its not worth my time.