DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

it was clean too, i felt bad


he pulled up to me at a light sounding all badass, light turned green and he killed me off the line (damn 3.23's). as soon as i got above 3k rpm in 1st i caught up, hit 2nd gear, he was at my rear bumper and stayed there untill i cut off at 90.

nick418

Man that sounds like a sweet kill, congragulatgions, did u kno what kinda of engine he had? anyways :yourock:

TexasLT1

If he was at your bumper, it wasn't much of a "raping"

xpndbl3

iTrader: (5)

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

lol, since i'm sure he had a 454 yes, i would consiter it a rape

xpndbl3

iTrader: (5)

nah.....there's plenty of factory 454 that are slow as can be. with your 882 heads, you must be right there with them. It's good that you pulled about a car on him though, remember he's driving a 3600 pound vehicle with another 150-200 for a average driver.

70LS6Droptop

hey everyone im new here i finnaly got a thirdgen, i have been browsing this forum for about a year and i ahve come accross this post and i am going to have to disaggree, first of all if u read my sig you will see i have a documneted LS6 chevelle a 1970 monster. And if person who started this post thinks he beat any 454 70 chevelle then he better start shaking his head, becasue the lowest horse 454 in 1970 was a345 hp motor, now, unless the guy u raced left in 3rd gear or wasnt even racing there is no way you beat him im sorry i could be wrong but from my standpoint i think its BS. Any 1970 chevelle witha 454 even the LOW horse ones will run high 13's stock nothing done to them...so if u beat one then props too you but i would like to witness it, byt he way im not trying to start somthing but if you wanan run a 1970 chevelle gimmie a call.

[superbird]

actully the best 454 in a 70 ss would go down the Quarter mile in high 13's because they couldn't get it to the ground through thier bad drive train. You got to remmber their over thirty years old.

3rdGenBlackBird

Modern tires would help that.

Either way, he knocked down a big block 'velle, nice kill. Gotta' love those smooth '70 SS's.

Laters,
Scott

84firebird383

as far as i know the ls6 with 3.31 gears ran 13.2 from factory on the factory tires. get one with 4.11 put on some headers and slicks and they ran hi 11's.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

um, my car is lighter, pushing 350 ish HP, i run low 13's on 275.60.15 GoodYear street radials. what makes you think i couldn't beat a tank with roughly the same HP.

and, judging by the fact that we were going 90 in a 45.. yes, he knew we were racing


i tell you what, if i see him around again (which i'm sure i will) i'll race him again, and beat him...... again.

(just messin with ya) yah i know i probably got lucky but hey, a kill's a kill right ?

70LS6Droptop

thats good then i actually beileve you but to who posted they would run mid to high 13's, umm how bout this, put slicks on my 70 chevelle and with full exaust and at 3890 pounds it will put down 12.40's all day, when i uncork it it has run 12.28@111.34, hmm so no to ur commnet super what ever u are please i jsut get a lilttle chocked when people put down the cars from 30 years ago.....when in reality 30 years later there putting out platic **** that does 0-60 when its charged up, u could put a brand new ferrai, BMW, audi or any of that new crap i would still walk away with the keys to my chevelle...tell me one thing what car stock could u drive off the factory production line and be driving... say mabey 45 mph and drop the hammer and get 30 feet of black rubber...pllzzz i would like to know.. and put the ac on and run 12's at 3980 pounds.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

lol, i wish....

if i pull it back into 1st @25mph and dump it i can twist the front end and brake em loose.. not good for the unibody tho

*looks back to post made about a month ago* hmmm maybe that's why i ripped the tranny crossmember out of the subframe


i still can't wait to get my doublehump heads back on..i get alot more low end with the DH's than with the 882's

omcrider

u could put a brand new ferrai, BMW, audi or any of that new crap i would still walk away with the keys to my chevelle


Not if there was a turn in the road

70LS6Droptop

haha thats very true im jsut not a fan of the new stuff ahah but ur very true the old 70 dosnt trun too nice

406TA

What casting # DH heads do you have?

Formula4Speed

I remember trying to race a 454 chevelle, now that was a raping...I was just on the wrong end of it. But you guys are right, I followed him to some twisties and I walked away from him, thank you WS6

ChrisFormula355

Wow that is probably the worst paragraph I've ever read. Ever heard of using comma's, and proper grammar/spelling??

And as far as the topic goes; its been well documented by several of the respected magazine testers that a stock 454 70 SS chevelle equiped with present day tires will NOT pull the numbers that the magazines printed back in "the day." Remember, since 1970 the technology of 1/4 mile timers and computers has advanced exponentially. It is very entertaining to me that some people still stick by the old misleading muscle car facts. I personally knew somebody with a 1970 SS LS6 4 speed 4.11 chevelle, and on drag radials here in Tucson it pulled a 14.0, pretty far from 12's. He eventually got the car into the 12's, but that was with a Lunati roller cam, ported Eagle heads, slicks, and a lot of other stuff. Those are HEAVY cars and they are shaped like a brick. I'll bet you still believe that 410HP in 1970 is the same as a 410HP rating in present day automotive industry. After 1972, companies started to rate their vehicles in "NET" horsepower ratings instead of "GROSS", which is a proper term since vehicles made prior to 1972 are grossly over-rated. Gross HP rating meant at the crank, with no accesories or exhaust, where as Net horsepower ratings were taken with full exhaust accessories, and measured at THE WHEELS. Major difference. A car making 410 HP on a present day dyno will slaughter the same car that made 410HP in 1970 on an engine crank dyno.

ChrisFormula355

Oh man that is a joke right?? ANY modern day LS1 car would blow the doors off any STOCK Ls6 chevelle. The reason an Ls1 doesn't blow the tires off at 45 is because it has traction control, a different powerband, and better suspension. If we judged how fast a car was by how much rubber it left then I'd have a 9 second car by that logic because I can spin the tires on my firebird at any speed below 60mph, not due to jet engine-like power, but due to mediocre tires and a torquey small block.

70LS6Droptop

ok i may not be the best speller but seriously all of you people think that your LS1 STOCK for stock with a 1970 chevelle 454 LS6 with an under estimated 450 horse would beat it. Ok seriously you can flame me all you want but right now i can start up my chevelle take it to the local track Mission raceway and knock off 12.50's on street tires and at 4000 pounds. tell me what LS1 does that seriously i dont beileve you. I will go buy a STOCK LS1 if someone can bring one down, stock to the tires and beat my chevelle, and it dont have a 4 speed and it dont have 4.11 it has 3.73's and a turbo 400.... As for the crap about over estimated power hmmm well, the motor in my car has been out and dynoed at 477.4 horses with jsut headers, ok and at 513.6 foot pounds, arrggg it makes me so mad people are so stuck on the present day bull these cars wiht 30 year old technology will run 12's shaped like a brick and weighing like one too.

DeathStarr89

iTrader: (1)

allright guys, calm down

omcrider

chrisformula355"I'll bet you still believe that 410HP in 1970 is the same as a 410HP rating in present day automotive industry. After 1972, companies started to rate their vehicles in "NET" horsepower ratings instead of "GROSS", which is a proper term since vehicles made prior to 1972 are grossly over-rated. Gross HP rating meant at the crank, with no accesories or exhaust, where as Net horsepower ratings were taken with full exhaust accessories, and measured at THE WHEELS".



Good point, and almost accurate, todays HP rating (which is standardized throughout the industry now) Does take ratings with all accessories AC/Smog/PS and stock manifolds and mufflers, but it is still rated at the crank, not the rear wheels. So you still need to take those rated #s you see in advertising and subtract the driveline loss (tranny, driveshaft, rear end). Typically 15% is a # to use for driveline loss.

In the old days posted #s were never that reliable and often under rated for insurance reasons.

406TA

I'd put my $$ on the 450HP/500+ TQ(underrated of course) LS6 Chevelle in a drag race with the LS1 (assuming both had similar tires).

ChrisFormula355

You are correct sir, but what I MEANT to say was that many of the newer "mucle cars" and especially the LS1's typically dyno at the rear wheels at the same HP that they are suppose to produce NET at the crank.

And I disgree with the old HP numbers. If it was so easy to make 450 HP out of a factory 454, then why is it that Car Craft, Chevy High Performance, ect...ect.... are forced to build up 454's with aftermarket aluminum heads, aftermarket roller cams and decently high compression (please don't bring up the better gas in 1970 agrument) just to break the 450HP mark? As far as I know roller cams and aluminum heads weren't stock options for a 1970 chevelle, though a solid cam was.


I'll put my money on a stock LS1 6 speed (which was rated at "just" 305HP net) 4th gen over a stock "450HP" Ls6 chevelle on good tires ANY day of the week.

70LS6Droptop

Ok Chris liten up, my dad bought this car in vancouver in 1970 brand new he drove it till 1978 and then parked it and put it in the back of the garage, he later died in 1991 and the car sat till 1992 when i began doing minor work on it like, paint and new tires I began to take the car to the local track of mission raceway..now remember chriss the car is untoched no headers no nothing right outta 1970, on 245 inch street tires it was running 13.20's this was throught manifolds which were badly leaking and a tired transmission well we rebilt the tranny and I put 2 inch headers on it and this is how it sits today in my garge, last year I took it to the local street drags, with no track prep and alot of spinning i was knocking donw 12.40's all day witha best of a 12.41@109.88, and as soon as my freind or myself hooks a scanner up to this junk computer i will scan them...Please explain how a stock LS1 car with headers and 2 inch pipes will run 12.40's it would be close but no where near it, o by the way the car would be even quicker with the 4 speed so take an LS1 AUTO and then start talking. Is it hard for you to face the fact, that the forever loved camaro and transam could be out run by a Brick as you call it? haha give your head a shake!

1981z28

well i would not call a velle a tank. its only like 3600 lbs camaros are like 3300 lbs.if 300 lbs makes one car a tank and one car normal then what the hell and my 1981 is a 3800lbs camaro .it weights more then any other camaro ever made. yea its sucks but the frame is super strong.

406TA

LS6 Chevelle = :hail:

The LS1 ain't bad either!

ChrisFormula355

You obviously have never visited an ls1 website, nor have you seen very many LS1's at the track. At the local tucson track there is quite an abundance of Ls1's, and the slowest of the stock ones run mid to high 13's. Its funny you mention bolt ons such as headers and tires.....the LS1 guys that are running Long Tube headers and good tires are trapping in the 110-111mph range at 3,100 feet, which would put them ahead of your chevelle according to your own numbers. I'm not trying to be mean or rude, just trying to open your eyes so that you realize that just because you pulled a mid 12 doesn't make you king of the road, a new Ls1 with minor bolt ons will go 11s easy. I hate to sound like I'm promoting the LS1 because I actually despise most LS1 owners (cocky a-holes) and I much prefer the company of older muscle cars....but FACE THE FACTS!! Those snobby bastards are fast!

ChrisFormula355

A 300-400 pound weight difference is SIGNIFICANT. Every 100 pounds is supposed to be a tenth in the quarter, so technically speaking, thats almost a half second (.3-4 tenths) E.T. handicap due to weight. Its not just the weight that makes a chevelle handicapped.........think of the aerodynamic profile versus an F body, thirdgen or 4th gen. Then tell me its not a tank.

Blu91Z28

I don't know, I'd probably favor the LS1. The 6-spd cars have run high 12's stock. A friends '00 SS 6-spd ran a 13.1 bone stock and made 347 rwhp with a lid and cat-back. I'd have to believe that with all that big block torque you'd be skating down the track, but with 12.4 @ 109, traction seems pretty good. I raced a '70 Buick GS 455 auto on Sunday. Beautiful car, super clean and almost stock. It had a Edelbrock intake, Holley carb and aftermarket exhaust but manifolds, no headers. His first run, radial T/A's went up in smoke, a low 15. His second, he eased off the line and ran a 14.2 @ 101. I'd still take a '70 Chevelle LS6 over a new LS1 F-body any day.

84firebird383

just a little FYI in 1/4 mile dragracing areo dynamics doesnt start to play a significant roll in ET and MPH until 130 mph

ChrisFormula355

That is baloney man. Wind resistance plays a pretty significant role in 1/4 performance, especially mph, and as most racers know, a higher mph car will almost always win in a street race. If your theory was correct, then I could drop my motor into my buddies light short bed 55 truck and it would run the same E.T.?? hahahah. funny. I'm sorry but you guys crack me up. If your car is shaped like a brick, its going to take more power to put it down the track in the same E.T./MPH versus a car with a much better drag coefficient. Its simple physics. Your E.T. might be close...but your MPH is going to be way off.

84firebird383

all esle being equal exept body shape . in a 1/4 mile drag race areo dynamincs isnt a significant factor until about 130 mph, i dont care if you dotn believe it or not

ChrisFormula355

Then why did you contribute to the arguement?

84firebird383

i was just telling you the way it is , thats all man.

daxfas26

iTrader: (1)

I have to disagree with that about aerodynamics not playing a factor. I ran one time with the wind blowing against me and then another time with the wind with me. It made a difference in my quartermile times so areodynamics plays a factor in quartermile performance.I had 2 tenths of a sec difference between those 2. I guess what would best solve all this would be to get a match up. anybody up for it? anyone in 70ls6droptop zip code willing to race him? or anybody else with another chevelle? I'd like to see this so get it on tape! later

jocww

my elco maybe a brick but it will whip any stock thirdgen by a few buslengths and walk any lt1 ls1s will track me down after the 1/8th mile but i only race the first 60 ft or so on the street so it doesnt matter.
70 drop top have you ever been to team chevelle. its a good website. anyways good kill if u did but u didnt rape him u didnt even walk him you just beat him.

vampiroc

lol, how? you didn't even put a car length on him, you just nosed him out. I bet on average you'd be even if you ran a couple of times lol. still a kill is a kill, but thats no raping.

ChrisFormula355

If I were in his area code I'd race him in a heart beat. I mean seeing as how in his PM to me he said he can do 30 minutes worth of mods and go 11's, his 450HP 454 should have no problem putting down a little ol' 355 that probably barely makes 400 at the wheels Nevermind my car is more aerodynamic and according to the conclusion of this argument, the fact that my car weighs about 800 pounds less (2940) won't be that big a factor

70LS6Droptop

So Chris you dont think that in a day, i never said 30 mins, i couldnt make my own chevelle whos motor i completely rebuilt, alot faster. Excuse me ill call up comp cams get a cam cut, get some fancy heads, get a 1000 cfm carb, your cheating gas and strap it all on in a day, i bet you the keys to my RS that i coudl do that and it would be in the low to mid 11's. Its funny becasue you have never driven in a LS6 chevelle i have driven in plenty of "405" horse camaros and trans am....theres a big difference chris when the chevelle has probaley 100 foot pounds more torqe on you. Seriously someone on this forum back me up, casue Chris Im pretty sure even weighing 800 pounds more than you wiht a STOCK motor i could give you a good run.

ChrisFormula355

Unless you have ported aluminum heads, a roller cam and a serious converter, I wouldn't even give you the time of day if you lived in these parts. I don't race stock muscle cars in my firebird, complete waste of gas...for me If you want a "good run" you're better off racing my mustang.

Read my 1/8 mile times buddy thats from an ACTUAL timeslip...something I'm doubting you have. When you get close to 12.0's (and I ran that without the laughing gas) then give me a call, till then its a waste of time even bench racing about it.

As for not knowing what big block torque is....I built a 500 CID cadillac motor with 425 heads, comp cam, and edlebrock intake that made over 600FT/Lb of torque in my 78 G body Grand Prix that weighed just over 3,100 pounds...so I think I understand what big torque is

EDIT: btw everyone, I'm not claiming to have the worlds fastest street driven thirdgen, there are TONS of cars way faster than mine, but I am claiming to have a car faster than any stock 60s 70's over rated production muscle car

84firebird383

i never said aroedynamics doese not play a factor. i said all things being equal except body shape it isnt significant until you are going about 130 in a 1/4 mile race. my 80 z28 ran 11.7 @119 weighed 3100 lbs empty .my 81 buick century with exact same engine exact same trans and converter. same type of headers , exact same converter. same gears, exact same tires and rims. ran pretty much identical times. im pretty sure my 80z28 was more areodynamic than the boxy buick centry

omcrider

Curious with all this argument over LS6 454 Chevelle, how are you sure that what you raced had a 454 in it? Not saying it didn't just wondering how it was varified. I think this post took a life of its own outside of your race anyway.

THEGENERAL

ive been reading all the bs thats getting strung out on here..lol...and it would make a difference on the torque that an engine is putting out because torque is what gets you ahead in a race and horse power wins it for you but anyway id have to put my money behind the 70 chevelle anyday
sorry

Dennis91RS

not all 70 SS Chevelles were 454s

350,396,427,454

i think they had the 327 not sure though

two versions of the 454 though

454/385hp
454/est500hp LS6

jocww

thats what im saying it coulda been a ls5 i mean hell my elco still says i have a 283 but that doesnt mean it is. hell some ricers think that it means i have that many liters but ill tell u what any stock ls5 or ls6 or z16 chevelle hell anything 60s early 70s big block car and many small block cars will beat any thirdgen camaro firebird and mustang. stock for stock except for tires. if both were racing on the same type of tires the true musclecar will win hands down and were talking stock. if u want to do nickeys yenkos copos etc then they will beat any stock 4th gen camaro firebird mustang and maybe z06.

that is my opinon and ill tell u what if u want a race from me in ur stock thirdgen vs my semi stock elco itll cost u 200 a run

70LS6Droptop

Finnaly someone who agree's with me! thats the only point I was trying to get across. I still dont understand why Chris got his panties in a twist, mabey compensating for somthing?

Synapsis

"Semi" stock non-smog era, possibly big block car versus a full smog, stock thirdgen that will probably makes around 190-220 horsepower. Most unimpressive.

ChrisFormula355

Wow, it appears that there is actually somebody just as ignorant as 70droptopls6; and they almost have the same grammar ability (err, disability).

Well you heard the challenge people, he says that ANY big block 60's and early 70's car will smoke any stock thirdgen OR mustang. That means L69 H.O.s, L98's, Firehawks, Turbo Trans Ams, LX notchback 5.0 mustangs, 5.0 5 speed LB9 thirdgens, ect.

What a bold statement, and entirely false. A strong running stock L98 thirdgen can rip mid 14's, possibly low 14's at the right altitude/condition. A turbo trans am is well documented to run low 13's in stock condition at sea level. Notchback 5.0 5 speed mustangs have been known to dip into the high 13's completely stock, and firehawks...well the list goes on.

Many, if not MOST of the old heavy big block muscle cars (say for example a 70 El Camino) were lucky to even touch 14's in stock condition. Modern tires or not. Go do some research on the net and you'll discover that this has been argued before again and again, and the conclucsion is always that fans of the older muscle cars shroud the true performance of the cars with their old-man myths and fairy tales. A stock high option thirdgen is not only quicker than most muscle cars, but it accomplishes the same or better 1/4 mile performance while maintaining twice the gas mileage in street trim with cold a/c and power everything. I love muscle cars, but to argue that they are better than everything that is produced after them is just retarded.

ChrisFormula355

Wow, thats just something special right there