Why Is A C5 Fast Than A Trans Am
 

Why Is A Stock C5 Faster Than A Stock T/a]ws6

Well im going out on a limb here , but I think the ws6 is heavier and they have a diffenert heads and cam package .. I know a guy who had a lt1 trans am and i had the vette he said my cam and heads where different ... again not 100% possitive .. jay

Im Talkin Ls1 Vette And Ls1 T/a

I was under the impression that it was more common for a t/a to be faster than the vette in the 1/4 mile because of the independent rear suspension or something (bad for launching?). I could be wrong, but I thought that's what I read. If you put them both on a road course, i would guess that the t/a would stand no chance at all.

They have a smaller cam profile and GM did not want to have the flagship car out done.

500+ lbs Less may have something to do with it too

:iagree:

+ 1

What is it they say..somting like 100lbs = 10hp or somthing like that.
And although the IRS might bleed off a little hp to the wheels, unless you're putting out some serious hp, I just don't see what guys are talking about it being bad for launching. Mine certainly doesn't have a problem launching:lol:

faster and quicker are two different things.

they turn a very similar time in the 1/4 mile with 95% of drivers out there because it is much easier to launch a live axle car (trans am). a hard sticky launch is not the strong point of the vette. turning is. this makes the f-body very similar in completing the 1/4 mile quickly.

the vette is faster because it is 500 lbs lighter and more aerodynamic. while the trans am might go the 1/4 mile in 13.0 at 106 mph (example) the vette will go 13.0 at 110 (example).

:iagree: Also the TA is about 600 lbs heaiver, my vette weighs in at 3110 w/ 1/4 tank of gas, I have seen some TA's on the same scale at ~3675

two things:

*weight
*aerodynamics

and these are two of the three most important factors when comparing stock cars; but are the most overlooked because the thought process needed is WAY BEYOND what teenage wankers can comprehend. They base performance solely on a dyno sheet - then just to be disappointed at the 1/4 track... making excuses as they shake their heads in disbelief.

I see it weekly at my local track.

and read it on LS1tech all the time.

:iagree:

Where do people get this non-sense from?

Curb weight of a TA ~3550lbs (TA's were the heaviest)
Curb weight of a C5 ~3200lbs

No F-bodies's weigh in at over 3700+lbs, unless you put a 300lb driver in them.:rofl:

Now..........if you say GTO, than that's a different story.

how many TA have you weighed?

I have weighed five, not one use under 3650 the other four were 37xx lbs PLus driver. put them close to 3900 lbs

Vette and driver 3400 to 3450 lbs that is 500 in my book.

The weight differences are largely due to options on both cars as well. My C5 coupe with almost a full tank weighed in at 3170. A 4th Gen F-body will be in the 3500-3700 range depending on options. With a few factory strippers in the 3400 range (I think one of the Formula's in my club was a 3400lb car).

At the track with just a Blackwing and catback (which does nada on a C5) vs. the lid and catback F-bodies I was running .3-.5 quicker. I was hitting 13.1-13.2@110-111 to their 13.4-13.6@107-109. You can post times of F-body's and C5's doing xx.xx@xxxmph from other sites, but this is the same track, same prep, same day which is as close as you're going to get for a fair comparison.

The weight difference is 350 pounds 95% of the time between the a vette and the average f-body on the same scale.

They do not have different heads and/or cam.

The vette puts less power to the ground than an f-body due to the IRS eating up more power than a 10-bolt

In the 1/4 mile performance is nearly identical and you can not say the vette is always faster or the f-body is faster, period. Definitely not always .5 faster

A WS6 is heavier than any other f-body

No stock f-bodies, not even the WS6, weigh over 3700 pounds without a load in them.

Most scales are not accurate for realistic weight, they are just used for comparing a truck before they empty a load and after they empty it for the purpose of knowing what the load weighed, not what a vehicle actually weighs.

Yes, my own. And on the same scale my vette was 324lbs lighter. How many one's have you measured that were "stock" and didn't have heavy "upgrades"? I take it if your weighing cars its at the track, which few there are truely stock.

:iagree:
Except I think you'll find that most of the time the vette still traps quicker. Even though I get a better launch in the TA, I've always gotten better numbers in the vette. Even when both cars were "stock".
Past the 1/4, it's the vette all the way.

For clarification. The weight readings I was using were taken at the drag strip with their scale. Both my '99 C5 and another '99 C5 were both running in the 13.1-13.2 range the day I was using for comparison. There were 8-10 LS1 F-bodies present from our club running a lid/filter + catback and both C5's were M6's running just a Blackwing. The F-bodies were .3-.4 slower on the majority of the runs.

I can't believe I am replying to this, but... I had a '99 Camaro with only a lid and catback, It ran 12.0's all day, and it was a 6 speed. I beat many stock Vettes in that car, and when you are talking about a couple of tenths, a driver can make that up in a number of ways. Either car spinning a car length off the line makes the difference. Internet racing is just that, and I am sure that most of us have had experiences with F-bodies, mustangs, and even turbo'd benz's that would surprise you. The reason the Vette is faster stock is because it is a VETTE and Chevrolet wouldn't have it otherwise, but the second you get out of the stock realm, things change dramatically.

zing; bada bing !

I cant believe Im replying to your reply that you can believe your replying too. So, you ran 12.00 with a factory Z-28? I would like to see that timeslip........

To me a t/a is about equal. I've been 13.10@107mph all stock driving a friends car. 2nd pass in the car. With headers only, no tune, on stock tires I have been 12.79@110mph

I don't know if you're replying specifically to my post, but I was trying to show as fair of an apples to apples comparison as I could. You can find timeslips posted in a million different places at different tracks and different elevations. This was the same day, same track, same basic mods with a good sampling of F-cars and a couple C5's. Of course factors like the driver, traction, and whatnot make a difference. But you can look at the averages with the exact same conditions and get a decent assessment of what the cars are going to do at the mostly stock level.

no t/a runs a 12 flat all day long with just a lid, ok. yea and my 01 z came stock with 505hp!

Um, that was supposed to be 13.0, and I swear I read it twice because i put 12.0 the first time.... My bad, and I'd like to see that time slip too

I ran my vette at the track on test and tune day against my buddy. He had a 2002 Z28 with headers and a stall. I had headers also. We ran like 4 times and the outcome was the same on every run, nose to nose at the finish. So really I think they run about the same stock to stock. Now my ws6 is a little differant story..:D

Thats kinda what I thought, your allowed a typo.

No, they do not. An LS1 is an LS1 is an LS1, year for year. The 500 lb weight difference, and the driver have ALOT to do with it. M6 cars or A4 cars?

I'm gonna go with gear ratio. Or do they have the same gears in the trannys and rear ends?

No jokes about trannys and rear ends.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but automatic vette will have the 2.73 and the Z51 has the 3.15. The M6 vette has the 3.42. Auto F bodys are a 3.23 while the M6 is 3.42

Heh. The "average" weight for a LS1 F-body is 3500 lbs when you look at both ends of the spectrum from "stripper" Z28/Formulas to loaded 'vert WS6s.
The early Vettes did indeed have a slightly different cam, but it was negligible at best. A LS1 is a LS1 is a LS1.
The Corvette has a slightly better exhaust, but that is offset by the IRS, so both cars will dyno the same, or with the Vette slightly lower.
M6 gearing is the same between the two, but A4 Vettes offered 2.73s or 3.15s, while A4 F-bodys had 2.73s or 3.23s.
As pointed out earlier, the main advantages the Vettes has is weight and aerodynamics. The weight will usually offset the IRS out of the hole and the aero will shine at the top of the track. This is why Corvettes may not always get a better time, but will usually have a higher trap.
The LS1 F-body may not be as much of a sports-car as a C5, but they are a cheap, reliable platform that can do many things well and are ridiculously easy/relatively inexpensive to make fast.

Not sure what your getting at here Tim?

I have the highest respect for Mr. AU N EGL, but are you implying that it's more reliable to weigh other people's cars...........or your own???

Since I've weighed MY cars, on the same scale at the same day, right after one another, with both about 1/2 tank of gas, and know exactly what has been done to each...............that would be more unreliable than seeing other cars getting weighed (with no clue what's really been done to them)????

A look at GM's factory curb weight numbers (which are illegal to incorrectly file with the NTHSA for weights) agree with me. Does anyone need me to post the exact GVW numbers right off my door panels??? This is just plain stupid, as there's only been around a 350lb difference in true stock form. Options will affect than number slightly, but only by a few lbs. A stock WS6 came with pretty much every option already in it, so that's your top number.

I have no doubt that he's seen 3700lbs F-bodies, what he may not have seen was the roll cage, iron block, and full upgraded suspensions.

I remember Car and Driver ran a 13.4 with a stock 2001 Camaro SS.. I think the best for the 99 6sp C5 was 13.2 or 13.3 cant remember which,, Any how it boils down to a drivers race.. The F body 6 speeds will take a C5 A4 with stock 2.73 gears for sure

Let's keep the comparrison stock for stock. You guys start posting about CAI intakes, cat-backs and headers and that changes everything.

All I'll say is, I've owned both (in six speeds) and the 2 cars are VERY close. The LS1 motor is the same in both cars.

You guys will be debating this until the end of time:lol: This is like trying to convince a Democrat to be a Republican and vs a vs:cheers:

Very fair. The discussion starts out about stock cars, then quickly degenerates into a "that's not what I've seen at the track", which is hardly a good representation of "stock" cars.
I've said from the beginning, the cars are very close, with the edge to the vette. :thumbs:

relax man !!! Just having some fun.

:cheers:

and you could get the 3.15 without the Z51 option.

this tread is going nowhere...

stock for stock the TAs are slower than Mn6 C5 97-2004 pick any year...

any1 dissagrees?

Nobody is disputing that, but the OP wanted to know "why" there is a difference.