iroc stangs

i was wondering what is quicker and faster a properly built light weight IROC or GTA 3rd gen f-body with ls1 with say 3.27 gearing and manual tranny all stock exept the engine swap and of course exhuast and also a good driver. and a 4th gen ls1 z28 or trans am ls1,light weight, 3.27,manual,stock exept exhuast also with a good driver.

what would you say would win i see adverage for a really good driver is lower 13's in a 4th gen ls1's. also lets say both are 02 engines. thanks

Stephen

iTrader: (12)

With equal cars,equal engines & equal drivers....3rd gens are lighter, so my $ would be on the 3rd gen.

But things are never that perfectly equal, so even trying to decide would be a fruitless effort.

iroc stangs

thanks i was also thinking thirdgen's plus dont they have slightly better aerodynamics? still very close i would think

Klortho

Well, the first thing, the 4th gen with a 6-speed won't have 3.27 gearing, it will have 3.42s in it.

My '98 weighs about 100 lbs more than my GTA does and the 4th gens are more aerodynamic than the 3rds are. I've seen a few youtube vids with 4ths going up against 3rds with LS1s in them and the 3rds got ate up. It pretty much all comes down to the driver.

iroc stangs

sorry i dont know much about the optinons on 4th gens.

thanks for your opinion.

one92rs

iTrader: (5)

it will be down to a few things. the 4th gens will have a better suspension set up. gearing will be a little different. but all in all there are way to many variables in it. the drivers will matter the most. i have seen both eat each other. and i have seen really fast cars with dumb drivers get bashed--simply cause they cant drive what money can buy.

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

this is TGO, the third gen would win, duh.

LOL, thats what i think anyway.

Pocket

iTrader: (24)

3rd gens are marginally lighter, have a better F/R weight ratio and the suspension is slightly better designed

Stock for stock assuming a correct 3rd gen swap, the 3rd gen should have a slight advantage

In the real world, there are good drivers, bad drivers and noone swaps a 100% stock engine in. Whether its retuned better, emissions, AC etc are removed, headers, stall, exhaust upgrades etc. Its really personal preference

When mods are in play the who will win becomes who has mods that work together the best and who is the better driver

Aerodynamics have little effect under 150mph. 91-92 birds are the most aerodynamic, followed by the LS1 camaro, etc

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

The 85-90 TA have better aero than he LS camaro, they are also doing 300 MPH in bone stock form on the salt flats with the drive train correct for it.

AmorgetRS

iTrader: (6)

Why do you say that they are more aerodynamic? Most of them I see for 4th gens are around .34Cd. Thirdgens, depending on model, can be as low as .29, but generally around .32 for a Trans Am. The Camaros are around .34 from most sources, which is on par with the 4th gens. Don't let all those swoopy 4th gen lines fool you...

Firebat

iTrader: (7)

I read someone 4th gens were supposed to be .45 or .5. Have to find out where.

Z28FAST1

My LS1/T56 powered 3rd gen puts down about 400 rwhp and 400rwtq and I've pulled on 420+ rwhp 4th gens and one claiming 450 ish rwhp. It's great when they think they just got beat by a TPI lol.

TPI Terror (2002 Ls1 w/cold air intake and exhaust) easily pulls on full bolt on 4th gens. I forget what his race weight is, but it's probably 200-300 lbs lighter than a 4th gen. I'll see if he can posts some vids.

4th gens have better cosmetics, it's probably due to the fact that they are newer but they don't rattle, whistle, and squeak as much as my 83.

V8Rumble

iTrader: (2)

Well, that's not even close to realistic - a drag coefficient of .45 is right around K5 Blazer territory! (Keep in mind that the difference between .32 and .36 is fairly significant.) I found this page which has values that seem to be fairly realistic. Interestingly enough, it looks like 3rdgens are indeed a bit more aerodynamic...

(I'm planning on running my GTA on the salt, & maybe the texas mile, so this stuff is right up my alley...)

I hate to disagree with you Jon, but that simply isn't the case. If you think about air having mass (and actually having significant mass, especially when you're trying to move an object with a 22 or 24 sq.ft. frontal area through it), then it becomes a little bit more obvious. This link has a decent description of it (the fact that it's by one of my favorite automotive authors is just a bonus).

I've been told that aerodynamics come into play right around 30-35 mph, which seems a lot more reasonable. Remember sticking your hand out the window of a moving car when you were a kid? When you raised the front edge of your hand, the air pushed your hand up - and dropping the front edge of your hand had the opposite effect. If that occurred to something as small as a kid's hand, how could it not similarly effect something much larger?

Firebat

iTrader: (7)

Ok, maybe it was .35 instead

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

Yea, 85-92 TA have recorded around 30o MPH in stock form.

Pocket

iTrader: (24)

Very true, I apologize if my context was misleading. My point was aerodynamics between the cars. A real world example would be ET's of cars with or without hoods on a dragstrip. No hood usually adds around .2 and will usually cost around a tenth. The fractions of a coefficient point between the 3rd and 4th gen cars is nearly negligible in terms of this power discussion

Ive had quite a bit of experience with the effects of aerodynamics in the FSAE. Cars rarely broke 40mph, but several teams had excellent results from wings and spoilers even on the low speed (10-15mph) turns