Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Racing Boards > Theoretical and Street Racing
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?

Theoretical and Street Racing Use this board to ask questions about street racing, discuss your street races, and "who would win?" questions. Keep it safe.

Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-01-2008, 01:15 PM   #1
Supreme Member
 
v10viper04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,696
Car: 89' IROC , 84' Corvette,96' Caprice
Engine: Vortec 357, LT1, L99
Transmission: T-56, T-56, 4L60e
Axle/Gears: 3.23 POSI , 3.08 POSI, 2.93 Open

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Camaro vs. eclipse

I was driving home one day following a car going 50mph next thing i know there is a newest style eclipse up my @$$ he was probably about 5 inches from my back bumper. So i'm like "haha this will be fun!" so i smash the throttle to the floor and the 350 cubic inches come to life, i blow past the car i was following and the eclipse follows, all i can see behind me is his headlights fading fast. I let off when i got about 1/4 ahead. lol after that i turned and went home he didn't follow me he went another way home haha. Just a quick end of the season kill before she goes away, its been pretty cold here so i think that she'll be away soon.
__________________

1989 Camaro IROC-Z-Vortec 357/ KB hypereutectic pistons, scat forged connecting rods, XE274 cam, Vortec heads, LT's, T-56 Swap, Holley 600,, 3.23 4th Gen Rear.
1984 Corvette-LT1/T-56 swap,cc503, 30lb bosch III's, LT's, intake.
1996 Caprice-L99(4.3L V8),home plate delete, DD.

http://www.wnygm.com -Join today if your from Western New York!
v10viper04 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2008, 03:32 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
irockid86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: middletown, PA
Posts: 462
Car: 88 iroc camaro
Engine: jasper 350, l98
Transmission: 700R4, corvette servo, shift kit.
Axle/Gears: stock

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

the 4cyl =162HP the 6cyl=265HP motor trend new cars buyers guid doesnt give any weight description or 1/4 times...sorry
irockid86 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2008, 06:13 PM   #3
Supreme Member
 
fly89gta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 4,258
Car: 89 GTA
Engine: Procharged L98
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt 3.27

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Send a message via ICQ to fly89gta Send a message via AIM to fly89gta Send a message via MSN to fly89gta Send a message via Yahoo to fly89gta
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by irockid86 View Post
the 4cyl =162HP the 6cyl=265HP motor trend new cars buyers guid doesnt give any weight description or 1/4 times...sorry
The V6 would beat him in the 1/4 mile.
__________________
***89 GTA*** L98, P1-SC procharger, 24# SVO's, Cobalt boost/fuel pressure gauges, AEM wideband O2, ported plenum, Edelbrock TES headers and catback, SFC's, Wonderbar and some other goodies...

98 Grand Prix GTP Coupe-Daily Driver
fly89gta is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2008, 07:37 PM   #4
Supreme Member
 
89ROC-Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,355
Car: 89 IROC-Z
Engine: 370 LSX, LS3 Top End
Transmission: Built T-56
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt 3.08

Classifieds Rating: (7)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Good thing it was a newer model eclipse (junk). Theres a girl here that has a 97 GSX, its turbo and AWD. Or even the GST would be close in my mind. Took a ride in that GSX and it blew my mind how fast it went. Just my $.02
__________________
'89 IROC - 370" LSX * Diamond Clutch * BUILT T-56 * FULL UMI Spohn Hotpart ES Tubular Suspension * HSW N2O & MicroEDGE * NANO
'98 Trans Am - Stock LS1 * Circle-D 4C Stall * Built 4l60E * SLP Lid * ORY * WELD RACING Prostar XP's * MT ET Streets * Boost to Come!
<-----More in vB Garage
89ROC-Z is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2008, 09:01 PM   #5
Supreme Member
 
fly89gta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 4,258
Car: 89 GTA
Engine: Procharged L98
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt 3.27

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Send a message via ICQ to fly89gta Send a message via AIM to fly89gta Send a message via MSN to fly89gta Send a message via Yahoo to fly89gta
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by 89ROC-Z View Post
Good thing it was a newer model eclipse (junk). Theres a girl here that has a 97 GSX, its turbo and AWD. Or even the GST would be close in my mind. Took a ride in that GSX and it blew my mind how fast it went. Just my $.02
You know the new V6 Eclipse's are low 14 second cars right?
__________________
***89 GTA*** L98, P1-SC procharger, 24# SVO's, Cobalt boost/fuel pressure gauges, AEM wideband O2, ported plenum, Edelbrock TES headers and catback, SFC's, Wonderbar and some other goodies...

98 Grand Prix GTP Coupe-Daily Driver
fly89gta is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2008, 09:33 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Z2EIGHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 512
Car: '92 Camaro Z28
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: Built 700R4
Axle/Gears: Unknown 9 Bolt Posi, 3.73s

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

I rather have a 17sec camaro than a 14sex eclipse.
Z2EIGHT is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2008, 09:58 PM   #7
Supreme Member
 
v10viper04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,696
Car: 89' IROC , 84' Corvette,96' Caprice
Engine: Vortec 357, LT1, L99
Transmission: T-56, T-56, 4L60e
Axle/Gears: 3.23 POSI , 3.08 POSI, 2.93 Open

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by 89ROC-Z View Post
Good thing it was a newer model eclipse (junk). Theres a girl here that has a 97 GSX, its turbo and AWD. Or even the GST would be close in my mind. Took a ride in that GSX and it blew my mind how fast it went. Just my $.02

I've riddin in a 1st gen eclipse turbo pushing about 15lbs of boost that ran a 15.4 in the 1/4. Feels fast but they really aren't....
v10viper04 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2008, 10:22 PM   #8
Supreme Member
 
89ROC-Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,355
Car: 89 IROC-Z
Engine: 370 LSX, LS3 Top End
Transmission: Built T-56
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt 3.08

Classifieds Rating: (7)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by fly89gta View Post
You know the new V6 Eclipse's are low 14 second cars right?
WOW sorry i did not know that, This girls GSX is a 4 banger, 2.0 i think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Z2EIGHT View Post
I rather have a 17sec camaro than a 14sex eclipse.
Tru Dat lol thats why i bought an IROC instead of a "tuner", but for a DD for college im actually looking for a good eclipse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by v10viper04 View Post
I've riddin in a 1st gen eclipse turbo pushing about 15lbs of boost that ran a 15.4 in the 1/4. Feels fast but they really aren't....
She never dragged it but to me it still seems fast, though not as fast as me lol.
89ROC-Z is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 07:24 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Saculia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 675
Car: currently a 91 G92.
Engine: 305TPI
Transmission: Borg Warner WC 5 speed
Axle/Gears: 3.42

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by fly89gta View Post
The V6 would beat him in the 1/4 mile.
According to a test that Motor Week did in 2006, when the new eclipses came out, their test car did 0-60 in 6.7 sec. and the 1/4 mile in 15.0 @ 97 mph.

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2503b.shtml


I know that some people have gotten them in the mid 14s, but that isn't that fast.
If his engine is in good tune with the mods in his signature he could beat a new V6 eclipse. Even if his HP is a bit lower than the eclipse's, which I doubt, the torque advantage of the 350 more than makes up for it.
Saculia is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 07:32 PM   #10
Supreme Member
 
fly89gta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 4,258
Car: 89 GTA
Engine: Procharged L98
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt 3.27

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Send a message via ICQ to fly89gta Send a message via AIM to fly89gta Send a message via MSN to fly89gta Send a message via Yahoo to fly89gta
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saculia View Post
According to a test that Motor Week did in 2006, when the new eclipses came out, their test car did 0-60 in 6.7 sec. and the 1/4 mile in 15.0 @ 97 mph.

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2503b.shtml


I know that some people have gotten them in the mid 14s, but that isn't that fast.
If his engine is in good tune with the mods in his signature he could beat a new V6 eclipse. Even if his HP is a bit lower than the eclipse's, which I doubt, the torque advantage of the 350 more than makes up for it.
He's already posted what he ran in the 1/4...I stand by my statement.
__________________
***89 GTA*** L98, P1-SC procharger, 24# SVO's, Cobalt boost/fuel pressure gauges, AEM wideband O2, ported plenum, Edelbrock TES headers and catback, SFC's, Wonderbar and some other goodies...

98 Grand Prix GTP Coupe-Daily Driver
fly89gta is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 07:40 PM   #11
Supreme Member
 
v10viper04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,696
Car: 89' IROC , 84' Corvette,96' Caprice
Engine: Vortec 357, LT1, L99
Transmission: T-56, T-56, 4L60e
Axle/Gears: 3.23 POSI , 3.08 POSI, 2.93 Open

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by fly89gta View Post
He's already posted what he ran in the 1/4...I stand by my statement.

yea i ran a 16.0 with the car too hot and with the old chip in it. now all the torque it had with the stock l05 is back after i changed the chip again. its not as bad as that night at the track by far....
v10viper04 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 08:01 PM   #12
Supreme Member
 
fly89gta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 4,258
Car: 89 GTA
Engine: Procharged L98
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt 3.27

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Send a message via ICQ to fly89gta Send a message via AIM to fly89gta Send a message via MSN to fly89gta Send a message via Yahoo to fly89gta
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by v10viper04 View Post
yea i ran a 16.0 with the car too hot and with the old chip in it. now all the torque it had with the stock l05 is back after i changed the chip again. its not as bad as that night at the track by far....
Good, that time was way too slow. Glad to hear it's running better.
__________________
***89 GTA*** L98, P1-SC procharger, 24# SVO's, Cobalt boost/fuel pressure gauges, AEM wideband O2, ported plenum, Edelbrock TES headers and catback, SFC's, Wonderbar and some other goodies...

98 Grand Prix GTP Coupe-Daily Driver
fly89gta is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 08:11 PM   #13
Supreme Member
 
v10viper04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,696
Car: 89' IROC , 84' Corvette,96' Caprice
Engine: Vortec 357, LT1, L99
Transmission: T-56, T-56, 4L60e
Axle/Gears: 3.23 POSI , 3.08 POSI, 2.93 Open

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by fly89gta View Post
Good, that time was way too slow. Glad to hear it's running better.

still not anywhere near where i want it but i hope to go stroker this winter. does anyone know how much it costs to bore out heads, also i was told i need to bore out my block before the stroker kit will work too... is that true?
v10viper04 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 09:04 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: camp lejeune NC
Posts: 78
Car: 1994 Z28
Engine: LT1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 3.42 posi

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

a 383 stroker is a 400 crank, 350 rods, and .30 bore. i believe.

strokers are over rated. just bore .30 and be a 355ci or .40 for a 357ci(magnum lol) or .60 for 359ci. i beleive these are correct to. but i might have been told wrong. im still young.
scoutsniper is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 09:21 PM   #15
Supreme Member
 
v10viper04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,696
Car: 89' IROC , 84' Corvette,96' Caprice
Engine: Vortec 357, LT1, L99
Transmission: T-56, T-56, 4L60e
Axle/Gears: 3.23 POSI , 3.08 POSI, 2.93 Open

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoutsniper View Post
a 383 stroker is a 400 crank, 350 rods, and .30 bore. i believe.

strokers are over rated. just bore .30 and be a 355ci or .40 for a 357ci(magnum lol) or .60 for 359ci. i beleive these are correct to. but i might have been told wrong. im still young.
i don't want to bore out my motor, i just want to buy a stroker kit.
v10viper04 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 09:28 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: camp lejeune NC
Posts: 78
Car: 1994 Z28
Engine: LT1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 3.42 posi

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

drop the stroker and make it a 400sbc.

all you need is new crank and rods and some 10-1 pistons (if wanted)

lol.
----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoutsniper View Post
drop the stroker and make it a 400sbc.

all you need is new crank and rods and some 10-1 pistons (if wanted)

lol.
me and my dad just built a badass 355 for 1k. for his 77 vega.

Last edited by scoutsniper; 11-03-2008 at 09:29 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
scoutsniper is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 10:11 PM   #17
Supreme Member
 
v10viper04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,696
Car: 89' IROC , 84' Corvette,96' Caprice
Engine: Vortec 357, LT1, L99
Transmission: T-56, T-56, 4L60e
Axle/Gears: 3.23 POSI , 3.08 POSI, 2.93 Open

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoutsniper View Post
drop the stroker and make it a 400sbc.

all you need is new crank and rods and some 10-1 pistons (if wanted)

lol.
----------


me and my dad just built a badass 355 for 1k. for his 77 vega.
i want it street able too remember.....
v10viper04 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2008, 02:57 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
LMSkyliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western PA
Posts: 846
Car: 1989 Iroc-Z
Engine: 350 TPI (swap)
Transmission: WCT5
Axle/Gears: 3.42

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Send a message via AIM to LMSkyliner
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoutsniper View Post
a 383 stroker is a 400 crank, 350 rods, and .30 bore. i believe.

strokers are over rated. just bore .30 and be a 355ci or .40 for a 357ci(magnum lol) or .60 for 359ci. i beleive these are correct to. but i might have been told wrong. im still young.

I don't like this answer. I'm building a stroker engine this winter and i've been researching all summer. The extra cubes given by the 3.75" stroker crank is definitely worth it. a 383 consistently pulls %age points better than a 355 throughout the entire RPM band, as you would expect. I think the % power gains are just slightly higher than the cube difference %, which means a 383 is probably more "efficient" power-cube wise, but i cant remember the details.

Also, the way to make a 383 is 3.750 (400 ci) crankshaft with a 30 over bore on a stock block. There is no good way around this. About the only flexibility you have is in the rods, where you can go 5.7, 6.0, or i've recently heard of 5.85" rods.

strokers make good power but you will need the engine block machined whether you like it or not. even a 355 needs a trip to a machine shop. a 355 is a stock crank with 30 over pistons. (again, vs the 400ci crank and 30 over of a 383).

If you want the cubes, you need the machine work. A stroker kit will not work without machine work in one form or another.


and there are plenty of streetable 383s out there, including the one i'm building. Just go easy on the compression (under 11:1) and the cam/intake combo. Maybe a nice HSR build. modest 300-350 RWHP is more than enough for the streets, and plenty streetable. Should easily run 12's. Low 12's or high 11's on spray depending on the shot if your into that stuff

Last edited by LMSkyliner; 11-04-2008 at 03:02 AM.
LMSkyliner is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2008, 06:25 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: PHELPS NY near Rochester
Posts: 107
Car: 86 iroc 92 rs parts car
Engine: 350 305
Transmission: t5 t5
Axle/Gears: 3:73, 3:08

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by LMSkyliner View Post
I don't like this answer. I'm building a stroker engine this winter and i've been researching all summer. The extra cubes given by the 3.75" stroker crank is definitely worth it. a 383 consistently pulls %age points better than a 355 throughout the entire RPM band, as you would expect. I think the % power gains are just slightly higher than the cube difference %, which means a 383 is probably more "efficient" power-cube wise, but i cant remember the details.

Also, the way to make a 383 is 3.750 (400 ci) crankshaft with a 30 over bore on a stock block. There is no good way around this. About the only flexibility you have is in the rods, where you can go 5.7, 6.0, or i've recently heard of 5.85" rods.

strokers make good power but you will need the engine block machined whether you like it or not. even a 355 needs a trip to a machine shop. a 355 is a stock crank with 30 over pistons. (again, vs the 400ci crank and 30 over of a 383).

If you want the cubes, you need the machine work. A stroker kit will not work without machine work in one form or another.


and there are plenty of streetable 383s out there, including the one i'm building. Just go easy on the compression (under 11:1) and the cam/intake combo. Maybe a nice HSR build. modest 300-350 RWHP is more than enough for the streets, and plenty streetable. Should easily run 12's. Low 12's or high 11's on spray depending on the shot if your into that stuff


what do you think a 377 is? it's a 400 with a 350 crank , no need to do machine work to it. there's no law saying you have make a stroker a 383 or a 388

Last edited by REDTAIL; 11-04-2008 at 06:44 PM.
REDTAIL is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2008, 06:26 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
LMSkyliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western PA
Posts: 846
Car: 1989 Iroc-Z
Engine: 350 TPI (swap)
Transmission: WCT5
Axle/Gears: 3.42

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Send a message via AIM to LMSkyliner
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Umm.. you do know "stroking" also requires machine work right????
LMSkyliner is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2008, 06:28 PM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: PHELPS NY near Rochester
Posts: 107
Car: 86 iroc 92 rs parts car
Engine: 350 305
Transmission: t5 t5
Axle/Gears: 3:73, 3:08

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

ok school me then, what machine work is need for a 377.
REDTAIL is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2008, 06:51 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
LMSkyliner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western PA
Posts: 846
Car: 1989 Iroc-Z
Engine: 350 TPI (swap)
Transmission: WCT5
Axle/Gears: 3.42

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Send a message via AIM to LMSkyliner
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by REDTAIL View Post
ok school me then, what machine work is need for a 377.
None. The machine work was already done when you made the block a 400 block. However, thats called DEstroking, not STROKING. I clearly stated STROKING requires machine work because the original psoter was talking about stroking a 350, not destroking a 400.
LMSkyliner is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2008, 07:30 PM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: camp lejeune NC
Posts: 78
Car: 1994 Z28
Engine: LT1
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 3.42 posi

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

yea your gonna need machine work no matter what. you gotta get it dibbed. and the shop near my house wanted 160$ to bore my block .30 which isnt to much.
scoutsniper is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2008, 07:45 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
25thmustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CT
Posts: 2,833
Car: Mustang
Engine: Bolt Ons
Transmission: Stock
Axle/Gears: 3.73

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Umm... this threads fun!
__________________
1989 Mustang LX 5.0: Stock Heads (valves), cam, Cobra intake. 3.73s.
Slicks ET: 12.56 MPH: 107.2 60':1.69
17" ET Streets ET: 12.53 MPH: 108.3 60': 1.69
17" DRs ET: 12.87 MPH: 111.5 60': 1.93
18" Radials ET: 12.95 MPH: 109.2 60': 1.91
25thmustang is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 10:03 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
fryer1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Sticks, Ca.
Posts: 630
Car: '79 Camaro; '84 Z28
Engine: 350; none
Transmission: TH-350, 2500 stall; none
Axle/Gears: posi, 3.08; disc, 3.23

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

__________________
Stronger and harder than a bad girl's dream!

fryer1979 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 03:14 PM   #26
Supreme Member
 
v10viper04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,696
Car: 89' IROC , 84' Corvette,96' Caprice
Engine: Vortec 357, LT1, L99
Transmission: T-56, T-56, 4L60e
Axle/Gears: 3.23 POSI , 3.08 POSI, 2.93 Open

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by fryer1979 View Post

don't bother posting then....
v10viper04 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 09:45 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
fryer1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Sticks, Ca.
Posts: 630
Car: '79 Camaro; '84 Z28
Engine: 350; none
Transmission: TH-350, 2500 stall; none
Axle/Gears: posi, 3.08; disc, 3.23

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by v10viper04 View Post
don't bother posting then....

WOW!
__________________
Stronger and harder than a bad girl's dream!

fryer1979 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 11:55 PM   #28
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sacramento CA
Posts: 243
Car: 1982 Z28
Engine: 385ci w/carb
Transmission: TH350 w/3200ish Stall
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt :( 3.23 gears w/ posi

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

There was no machine work required to stroke my engine (ie put in the stroker crank) there was machine work to put in the .040 over pistons. There is a difference between clearancing and machine work. Any ape with half a brain can do the clearancing himself with a die grinder. I thought it would be hard too but I did it myself after posting and asking here, it was easy.

If the bores were perfect, which they wont be in any used block, then you could clearance the block, and make it a 377 with no machine work. Just new stroker crank, rods and oe size pistons. If you bought a kit, the only machine work that would need to be done would be to make the proper size piston fit, ie .030 over.
__________________
So far: TH350 trans w/ 3200 stall, 385ci SBC, 240/246 @.050 .507/.510 lift XE284 Comp Cam, p&p 186 heads, Edlebrock RPM Intake, Holley 750DP, MSD distributor, 1.5 Full Rollers, Headman Shorties, UMI LCARB, UMI LCA's, Sphon Adj Pan Bar, UMI TH350 Crossmember
To come: SFC's, drag radials, Adj torque arm, low 12's (hopefully), and Black Paint

Last edited by sweetaq; 11-09-2008 at 12:51 AM.
sweetaq is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 12:37 AM   #29
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by v10viper04 View Post
I've riddin in a 1st gen eclipse turbo pushing about 15lbs of boost that ran a 15.4 in the 1/4. Feels fast but they really aren't....
something was wrong with that eclipse.

and btw i believe the new eclipses come in pretty close to 3700lbs :0
nope is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 01:58 AM   #30
Supreme Member
 
v10viper04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,696
Car: 89' IROC , 84' Corvette,96' Caprice
Engine: Vortec 357, LT1, L99
Transmission: T-56, T-56, 4L60e
Axle/Gears: 3.23 POSI , 3.08 POSI, 2.93 Open

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by nope View Post
something was wrong with that eclipse.

and btw i believe the new eclipses come in pretty close to 3700lbs :0
it was stock except for a turbo upgrade...
v10viper04 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2009, 11:49 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
rough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Visalia Cali
Posts: 1,002
Car: 88 Camaro
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: 700-R4
Axle/Gears: 2.73

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

1st gens were hideous !!! 2nd gens are where it is, GSX or a GST with the 4g63

GSX are stop light killers while GST are highway killers.

15.4 in 1/4 mi maybe its was messed up or just stock. An old shipmate had a GS with the 420a which ran low 16's high 15's stock, the 420a was the non turbo modle motors. Both the 4g63 and the 420a are 2.0ltr

Stock GSX will run low 15's and a stock GST will run mid 15's @ 6psi
rough is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 11:33 AM   #32
Supreme Member
 
v10viper04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,696
Car: 89' IROC , 84' Corvette,96' Caprice
Engine: Vortec 357, LT1, L99
Transmission: T-56, T-56, 4L60e
Axle/Gears: 3.23 POSI , 3.08 POSI, 2.93 Open

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by rough View Post
1st gens were hideous !!! 2nd gens are where it is, GSX or a GST with the 4g63

GSX are stop light killers while GST are highway killers.

15.4 in 1/4 mi maybe its was messed up or just stock. An old shipmate had a GS with the 420a which ran low 16's high 15's stock, the 420a was the non turbo modle motors. Both the 4g63 and the 420a are 2.0ltr

Stock GSX will run low 15's and a stock GST will run mid 15's @ 6psi
Thats not very impresssive..... but for a stock import its not bad i guess lol
v10viper04 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 04:06 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
rough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Visalia Cali
Posts: 1,002
Car: 88 Camaro
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: 700-R4
Axle/Gears: 2.73

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Yea not to shabby for a stock 4 banger
Mods are cheap and abundant.
rough is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 05:43 PM   #34
Supreme Member
 
v10viper04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 1,696
Car: 89' IROC , 84' Corvette,96' Caprice
Engine: Vortec 357, LT1, L99
Transmission: T-56, T-56, 4L60e
Axle/Gears: 3.23 POSI , 3.08 POSI, 2.93 Open

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: Camaro vs. eclipse

Quote:
Originally Posted by rough View Post
Yea not to shabby for a stock 4 banger
Mods are cheap and abundant.
I would have to completely agree, mods for any import 4 cyl are abundent cause everyone and their mother owns one and tries to mod it.... Same with stangs. Course i would take any stang over an import.... ANY DAY! haha
v10viper04 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2009, 05:43 PM
ThirdGen
1992 Camaro




Paid Advertisement


Reply

Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Racing Boards > Theoretical and Street Racing

Tags
060, 101, 4g63, camaro, craigslistcom, eclipse, engine, gen, generation, gsx, iroc, l98, pistons, procharged, stroker
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


1982 Camaro '82 || 1983 Camaro '83 || 1984 Camaro '84 || 1985 Camaro '85 || 1986 Camaro '86 || 1987 Camaro '87 || 1988 Camaro '88 || 1989 Camaro '89 || 1990 Camaro '90 || 1991 Camaro '91 || 1992 Camaro '92


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright © 1997 - 2012 ThirdGen.org. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without the expressed, documented, and written consent of ThirdGen.org's Administrators.

Emails & Contact Details