View Full Version : Car & Driver Specs
westbayou
09-15-2005, 10:34 AM
Saw a post on another forum about a small write up on the SS in this month's Car and Driver.
0-60: 5.4 seconds
1/4 Mile: 13.90
All I have to say is: TASTY.
Running with F-bodies and Mustangs: I CAN'T WAIT.
Windy City
09-15-2005, 11:34 AM
Running with F-bodies and Mustangs: I CAN'T WAIT.
You'll have to be running better than a 13.9 to run with late model Stangs and F-Bodies. My '02 A4 Z28 ran 13.1 stock. Bolt-ons only it ran 12.1. Not that 13.9 isn't impressive for a stock SUV, it just isn't quick enough to run with today's top muscle.
Now twin turbo an SS and it should get interesting...
Blulytes
09-15-2005, 11:44 AM
The Cayenne Turbo specs say 5.6...
The TB SS just bounced out a 100k SUV
Braves299
09-15-2005, 02:01 PM
It would be interesting to see it matched up with a Grand Cherokee SRT-8.
westbayou
09-15-2005, 02:43 PM
Yeah, I've heard it a dozen times, my stock F-body ran a 13 flat yada yada yada. Yeah, there were a few hot ones out there (possibly including yours), but fact is the majority were NOT that quick stock. My buddy had a Z28 with exhaust and he NEVER saw below a 14.1 regardless of who drove it. He averaged 14.50's. My brother's best time on his Trans Am with some bolt ons is a 13.60. My 2000 Mustang GT ran a 13.98 on its best pass ever. Sounds to me like the Trailblazer will hang.
Windy City
09-15-2005, 05:22 PM
You heard it at least a dozen times because it's true. The hot ones ran high 12's stock. You must either be in the mountains or know some really lame drivers. :rolleyes:
Not trying to flame you buddy but I've seen MANY stock f-bods run mid to low 13's all day long. Most of the ones running in the high 13's or low 14's were either right off the show room floor and the motor wasn't broken in yet or the driver had no clue how to drive it (usually the case). I've run my car at GLD, US41, Byron and Rt. 66 and at every track I've seen stock f-bods run at least mid 13's.
westbayou
09-15-2005, 05:58 PM
Nope no mountains, down here in Sunny Florida. I am not saying it hasn't happened, but most stock F-bodies were 13.50 cars AT BEST. The beauty of them is that they can be made quicker fairly easily, but that also means that there aren't too many stock F-bodies running around. The 12.9x STOCK F-bodies were few and far between, anyone who says otherwise is way too in love with GM. I've seen plenty of ALMOST stock A4 cars run very low 13's with nothing but a new stall converter, but that isn't what I was talking about.
Alright guys, stock times will always be debatable so it does no good to criticize each other for it. People always say I saw one go this stock when it turns out it wasn't 100% stock (K&N, cat back exhaust, programming change, racing gas). This topic never should have turned into a debate over F-body times, a car they haven't built for 3 years.
The SS is VERY quick for any vehicle. How many vehicles can do 0-60 in 5.4 seconds? I can think of only a few. You may get an SS that goes faster or slower.
Remember that the SS is still an SUV so its quarter times will be slower thanks to air drag.
Windy City
09-15-2005, 06:23 PM
Lid, exhaust and a converter I ran 12.6. :raspberry
I don't want to sidetrack this thread too much but trust me, there are plenty of stock f-bods out there that run low 13's bone stock. Check out LS1Tech.com if you don't believe me. Being in FL you don't get many cool, dense air days so that could be part of the reason you're not seeing quicker times. And one thing I guess I can agree to, most f-body DRIVERS can't do better than high 13's. :p
Oh by the way, the quickest stock internal f-bod runs 10's (http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273788) !!! :eek:
Before any new SS owner thinks he can take a stock, let alone slightly modded f-body or GTO, be sure you know your competition. :o
Check out this link. Most of the F-bodies on there are around 5.5 0-60, 13.9 quarter.
http://www.car-stats.com/stats/showstats/showstatsgivenid.aspx
So an SS is a worthy competitor for a stock F-body.
A stock 05 GTO is quicker than even the fastest stock F-bodies so I don't think anyone will claim their SS can consistently beat a GTO.
It doesn't matter anyway because this isn't even like comparing apples to oranges. They can't even carry the same amount of people. But it is a great compliment to the SS that people compare it to a sporty car.
Windy City
09-15-2005, 07:30 PM
That stat is from one car, tested by Road & Track. And I don't trust most mag drivers to get true numbers from a car down the quarter. I wouldn't be surprised to see better numbers for the SS once a few capable owners take them to the tracks but if Car and Driver test drove an AWD model, they at least have a better chance of getting real world numbers since traction shouldn't be an issue.
Guys, I've been around in the f-body scene a long time and I've followed the LS1 cars since the begining. I've owned a '99 Z28 M6 and a '02 Z28 A4. I've been a mod on LS1Tech since the very beginning and was asked to do so by one of the guys who created the sight. I'm also a mod on MFBA.org and was with them when we were just a section in CamaroZ28.com. I know what I'm talking about.
But if you think your SS will hang, so be it. Don't be too surprised to find out otherwise. Oh, and the '04 GTO's were fairly slower than the f-bods due to weight. The '05s finally gained some ground though.
I'm done discussing this. If you want to learn more about f-bodies and GTOs and find a ton of info about the LS2, check out LS1Tech.com.
TrailblazerSS
09-16-2005, 12:01 AM
Windy (in Schaumburg???) knows what he is talking about. Year makes a lot of difference for the Camaros too. 98-99 are slower, improvements were made in 2000, and the 02's are quite a bit quicker. My 98 SS (a.k.a. blaSSt) had a best run of 13.6 bone stock. The 02's ran 1/2 second quicker regularly.
I didn't buy the Trailblazer SS to compete with f-body's. I know better than that. It's too heavy, but it will be a fun DD. :D
westbayou
09-16-2005, 10:33 AM
You were blaSSt on other forums? I've seen you post before. Hmm, small world I guess. Anyway I give up, you are 100% correct, an F-body will ALWAYS beat an Trailblazer SS. I just said it would make it fun.... :rolleyes: I mean seriously, who would like to suprise some dude with a mullet in a lowly grocery getter..... :duh:
O5GOAT
09-16-2005, 12:36 PM
Cool, another GTO owner. :)
Guys! Since we are having trouble discussing this properly, we need to limit this discussion to the performance of the SS. You can go back and forth all day and go no where besides irritate other members. There are so many variables to drag racing it is hard to compare times from someone in a different part of the country. I'm not going to comment about prior posts. You can go back and decide if you were talking about the SS or arguing about something totally different. I know I'm even guilty of the second.
Windy City
09-16-2005, 04:26 PM
I mean seriously, who would like to suprise some dude with a mullet in a lowly grocery getter.....
Yeah, that sure shows a lot of class (and a ton of ignorance when it comes to f-body owners!!!)
Did Car and Driver test an AWD model or a 2WD model? I also wonder under what conditions. Any word on handling numbers?
FattyTBEXT
09-16-2005, 05:58 PM
I got my carbon fiber bowties from a guy who does alot of vinyl for F-Bodies. Brent Franker. I'm noticing a pattern here... :undecided
westbayou
09-19-2005, 11:45 AM
Geez Windy, its called a "joke". Take it easy, my brother owns an F-body and no, you're right, he doesn't have a mullet. Does somebody need a hug??? :rotfl:
Windy City
09-19-2005, 01:29 PM
Nah, that's cool. :D
I get sensative when people stereotype f-body owners. I've owned f-bodies since I got out of highschool and the last time I had anything that even resembled a mullet was in '86. :duh: :cool:
One thing I'd like to say, straight-line performance is about the only thing I'd say the late model f-body had going for it. They can handle decently but the LT1/LS1 was the only true gem I found in the 4th gen and also why it wasn't too difficult for me to give up my '02. Build quality sucked. The looks were OK (Camaro looked like a fish and the TA looked like a midget on steroids). They didn't handle bad weather well but I will admit traction control did make them managable at least (drove my '99 in the Chicago blizzard of '99). GM cut corners everywhere they could and stopped development long before the car did. It was a cheap musclecar and you could tell it.
My original intention was to hold out for a SS but I couldn't pass the deal on my Denali. I'm just as anxious as anyone for the SS to come out because it'll also mean aftermarket parts that'll fit my 5.3.
westbayou
09-19-2005, 02:19 PM
Out of couriosity, how do you like your Denali? That is in the running as well for replacing my Tahoe as gas mileage is becoming more of a factor as the price of gas gets more rediculous? I noticed that the 5.3L has displacement on demand. Overall, have you enjoyed the Denali?
Windy City
09-19-2005, 04:50 PM
I absolutely love it but mileage is one thing this vehicle doesn't have going for it. I have a fairly heavy foot and I drive mostly in traffic so take that into consideration but I'm averaging 14.3 MPG according to my DIC. If I didn't have to sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic as much it would help. Unfortunately for the '05 model they didn't enable DOD for the SWB. I'm hoping once, and if, HP Tuners supports the GMT-360/390 5.3l I'll be able to enable the system.
Having a Denali and my wife's TB EXT, I would almost put the TB EXT above the Denali in ride quality although I'm sure the longer wheelbase helps. The fit and finish seems to be very good to excellent. I've had no major trouble with either of our vehicles (wife's TB has about 10K miles and mine only has 2.6K). It's extremely comfortable to drive and has plenty of power on tap, although the torque management is annoying. Overall I have no complaints and I'm very happy with it.