V6 = Says FIREBIRD
V8 = Says FORMULA, TRANS AM, FIREHAWK

The V6 and Formula also share the same body where as the Trans AM has the Fog lights in the center part of the bumper. A V6 and Non-Firehawk Formulas also share the same spoiler otherwise the Firehawks and Trans Ams have a up level spoiler.

The V6's could also have the sport apperance package that included ground effects and dual out let exhaust with tips that look like the T/A's but are a little smaller.

 

The Formula firehawks had the small spoiler also.

 

My '02 T/A ran a 12.8 on street tires with intake and full exhaust, and as far as the LS1 falling apart ... please ... it's one of the most reliable v8 engines ever made. Pick up any hot rod or performance v8 magazine and everyone has one in some form or another under their hood.

 

ls1 is a good engine, better and way more reliable than the LT1

 

nope the LT1 will last forever. My friens has an LT1 ws6 it has full bolton's and a cam 400+hp with stock bottom end and heads. not even close to burinig oil

 

Just chiming in too Stock LS1 M6 is capable 12.8ish, most are right around 13flat once they figure out how to launch. I ran a few 12.9s@108 but most were 13.1ish stock when I had my 98 SS. My buddies auto firechicken was running absolutely consistant 13.4s stock. My poor SS got ripped off before I got to really have some fun and my buddy's now has a turbo on a stick with 10psi and makes close to 600whp running mid 10s.

LS1 is no joke. Stock the LT1 isn't fantastic, I wouldn't even really call it good(in terms of the typical smallblock V8), but get it breathing better LT1s aren't bad.

 

lol...yep

 

lol...NOPE

 

so they must all be like that ...I love when people quantify why something is better with only one example of a "friend" of there's , that’s pretty convincing testimony

 

I'v herd multiple claim 12s out of stock fbodies, but almost everything I have seen in real life says mid low 13s, those who claim stock are usually running intake/catback and claiming its stock, or with drag radials...its simply not the case. I'v even had a couple people from well established LS1 forums tell me that when it came down to timeslips and actual proove most couldn't provide any.

There may be a few factory freaks out there, but the vast majority dont run 12s, they run mid low 13s. I had a friend in an auto 02 Vette run a 13.3 consistantly...yet somehow these heavier cars run faster times? Don't tell its the launch either becuase he cut a 1.9 on stock tires. (hey its an auto, stomp and steer).

 

I sincerely hope you were kidding about that statement

 

Haha, well said. Alex47 really doesn't make his case by referring to some one else's car.

As for longevity/reliability of an engine, well that all depends on maintenance upkeep and mods that will affect the reliability of an engine. One situation doesn't speak for entire fleet of LT1 motor. Until you have done complete study of reliability of whatever type of engine, your opinion is baseless.

 

Isn't the LT1 cast iron and the LS1 is aluminum?

 

LT1 had cast Iron block with Aluminum heads.

An Auto 02 Vette will be slower than a F-Body.

LS1 Breakdown:
LS1 Corvette Manual > LS1 F-Body > LS1 Corvette Auto > GTO

 

Does that have to do with wight and suspension setups? Here where I'm at the the best I could see a bone stock 05 GTO run was a 14.2. Elevation of about 2500 ft. Just wondering because out of a group of guys that went to the track the fastest was a LT1 Z28 running 11.4 with a 150 shot. Another LS1 F-body was running high 12's consistantly with bolt-ons and ET-streets.

 

I think slight modification your pecking order is warranted...

LS1 Corvette Manual > LS1 F-Body Manual > LS1 Corvette Auto > LS1 F-Body Auto > 2004 GTO

I almost made a mistake of adding 2005 GTO to the mix, but realized that we are only discussing LS1, not LS2.

 

In response to Self's question:

A) All LS1's had roughly 350FWHP no matter what they are supposed to be rated at.

B) The IRS suspension on the GTO and Vette eat alot of power.

C) Gearing also plays a huge roll, Non-SS/WS6?Firehawk Auto F-Bodies come standard with 2.73 gears. So some are quicker than others.


Some people will tell you Formula's and Z28's are the fastest because they could be ordered without power options or big wheels but that is a big load of BS.

 

It's true for the firebird as the TA just adds weight and drag, the formula is the faster of the two..but only marginally.

 

There arent any LS1 front drive vehicles that I know of Sorry I just had to nab you on that one :p But they dont have 350 wheel horse, they all have roughly 350 crank horse. And there are alot of cars out there that struggle to get into the 13's and struggle to trap anywhere near 105. Then theres some that are close to 12's@110 showroom stock. Not all motors are gonna produce the same output. To think otherwise is asinine.
This part I still fail to believe plays a huge part in the times of those 2 vehicles. I cant see an IRS creating huge losses at the wheels, atleast enough to affect ET's by more than .3 at the most. The thing that kills the GTO the most is its weight, the cars a ****** pig!! The Vette on the other hand, they run the same as F bodies do as far 1/4 times go. Chevy just decided to rate the motor as being weaker in the f-body, with good reasons Im sure everyone here can figure out

No argument there. Some 2.73 equipped f-bodies have even hit the low 11's with a beefed up rear end but stock gears. So while not being the optimum ratio, they are still atleast ok to use, and they keep the gas mileage at a reasonable level to boot.

Its not necessarily 100% BS, and if you think about it makes sense. Lower weight plus same power usually equals a faster car, and base model Z's and Formies are lighter than their leather clad, power seat, t-top, 17" rim counterparts. 2-300 pounds will make quite the difference! But by no means are they going to downright trounce a better optioned car.

 

A fully loaded car doesn't weigh 2-300 pounds more, and a Trans Am has no more drag than a Formula.


FWHP= Flywheel Horse Power

 

I've never seen anyone use FWHP to describe power at the crank lol. I think bhp would probably be the better acronym to use, but thats just in my experience using web forums Just mymy opinion though.

I did some research and it looks like youre correct about the weight. I could have sworn that the more highly optioned cars weighed more, but it looks like its only a matter of 100 pounds or so, which doesnt make THAT much of a different. So I digress on that subject

 

FWHP=front wheel horsepower
RWHP=rear wheel horsepower
AWHP=all-wheel horsepower
BHP=brake horsepower (aka flywheel horsepower)

 

^^^Thanks Im not the only crazy one here lol

 

Most people don't use "FWHP" to mean FLYWHEEL hp, because it is easily confused with FRONT WHEEL hp... BUT it is used every once in a while, and when used to describe cars that aren't available with FWD, it can be assumed that the writer means FLYWHEEL hp.... All this to say "I knew what you meant, Cody"

 

Most of the good times I see for LS1's are in places like NJ. I raced at Englishtown which I believe is pretty close to sea level and I did my 13.2 in great weather. Mid-low 13's is pretty much the average.

At 2500 elevation, getting into the 12's stock is pretty much impossible.