This is all a stock Lightning will run ???
Feb 18, 2004 | 04:13 PM
#52
Originally Posted by gator's 99TA
i guess you guys are right. stock lightnings do run mid to high 14s. and stock tahoes are unbeatable. why not just run with the Fbodies on thier top lists? the wisdom on this site!
i think most of the guys here respect the lightnings, it is a killer truck. it reacts well to mods and looks prety good(better than the butt ugly 03 front end i have). they are hard to beat.
i may be a little nieve but i do think the ls1 based motors are the **** and have alot more potential than anything ford has out there, with all the radix/6.0's out there and now the turbo set up's coming to the market i expect this to be an absolute killer year for the NBS GM trucks
i expect to see our entire fastest truck list drop about 1 sec this year, a few guys in the 10's and a ton in the 11's 
Feb 18, 2004 | 05:37 PM
#53
12 Second Truck Club
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
From: Salt Lake City, Utah
Originally Posted by drkblusierra
ok, this is from a nationally sold magazine. A BONE STOCK 2003 Lighting:
This article was a shoot-out of the SS, HEMI, and Lighting.
The SS ran 15.79 @ 87.47
The HEMI ran 15.98 @ 86.84
The magazine is SPORT TRUCK, (a sister magazine I believe to TRUCKIN')
Article is on page 51 and the magazine was displayed 10/14/03
Here is a link of a scan of the full page that the above crop was taken from
http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/...lighting-2.jpg
SO with all this brought to the table, I will believe a magazine over someone who says there lighting ran 13.5's stock but will still keep in mind weather/elevation/driver etc.
Also, may I remind you how often people lie about the mods done to their vehicle.
And if you want to buy a new Chevy that comes from the dealership with a SC, under warranty, and can spank a STOCK Lighting.... well you can:
http://www.chapmansupertrucks.com/
This article was a shoot-out of the SS, HEMI, and Lighting.
The SS ran 15.79 @ 87.47
The HEMI ran 15.98 @ 86.84
The magazine is SPORT TRUCK, (a sister magazine I believe to TRUCKIN')
Article is on page 51 and the magazine was displayed 10/14/03
Here is a link of a scan of the full page that the above crop was taken from
http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/...lighting-2.jpg
SO with all this brought to the table, I will believe a magazine over someone who says there lighting ran 13.5's stock but will still keep in mind weather/elevation/driver etc.
Also, may I remind you how often people lie about the mods done to their vehicle.
And if you want to buy a new Chevy that comes from the dealership with a SC, under warranty, and can spank a STOCK Lighting.... well you can:
http://www.chapmansupertrucks.com/
At my track, (4400ft elevation, usually 6000 ft DA) stock lightnings run 14.6 at 96 + or - 1/10 and 1mph. For comparison, stock LS1 F-body's run about 14.4 at 100mph.
Bottom line.. at sea level, a stock lightning WILL run mid 13's period!
Feb 18, 2004 | 06:08 PM
#54
Respect for you and your post but....
The asterick actually means it won in that category, like the dodge won the 500-ft salom, at my track in PHX at 1,100 ft above sea level a stock SS ran 15.8 so does that make it a 14.9 sec truck at sea level?? or does that make my 15.3 at 1100 ft a mid 14. sec truck at sea level?? i would really like to know cause, I wouldn't mind saying my truck runs in the 14's. Im originally from Lake Tahoe NV... I know im not runing 15's up there. So where would you rate my truck: your track, my track, sea level, or lake tahoe.
MY POINT IS THIS HAS BECOME A OPINION CONTEST... not facts. lets end this thread.
The asterick actually means it won in that category, like the dodge won the 500-ft salom, at my track in PHX at 1,100 ft above sea level a stock SS ran 15.8 so does that make it a 14.9 sec truck at sea level?? or does that make my 15.3 at 1100 ft a mid 14. sec truck at sea level?? i would really like to know cause, I wouldn't mind saying my truck runs in the 14's. Im originally from Lake Tahoe NV... I know im not runing 15's up there. So where would you rate my truck: your track, my track, sea level, or lake tahoe.
MY POINT IS THIS HAS BECOME A OPINION CONTEST... not facts. lets end this thread.
Feb 18, 2004 | 06:18 PM
#55
Originally Posted by whitt1
Heck,a stock Lightning can't even beat my Chevy SUV.The score so far is Tahoe 4 Lightnings 0.Now I'm looking for SRT-10s.
For my money I want Whitt1' s truck. Thats a truck!!!!
I'd be happy with a complete mod list top to bottom including tranny work
Well and maybe a plan to convince my fiance that its a good idea to spend just 7 grand more on the truck. We can wait a few more months to get the new house right.
Feb 18, 2004 | 06:20 PM
#56
12 Second Truck Club
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
From: Salt Lake City, Utah
Originally Posted by drkblusierra
Respect for you and your post but....
The asterick actually means it won in that category, like the dodge won the 500-ft salom, at my track in PHX at 1,100 ft above sea level a stock SS ran 15.8 so does that make it a 14.9 sec truck at sea level?? or does that make my 15.3 at 1100 ft a mid 14. sec truck at sea level?? i would really like to know cause, I wouldn't mind saying my truck runs in the 14's. Im originally from Lake Tahoe NV... I know im not runing 15's up there. So where would you rate my truck: your track, my track, sea level, or lake tahoe.
MY POINT IS THIS HAS BECOME A OPINION CONTEST... not facts. lets end this thread.
The asterick actually means it won in that category, like the dodge won the 500-ft salom, at my track in PHX at 1,100 ft above sea level a stock SS ran 15.8 so does that make it a 14.9 sec truck at sea level?? or does that make my 15.3 at 1100 ft a mid 14. sec truck at sea level?? i would really like to know cause, I wouldn't mind saying my truck runs in the 14's. Im originally from Lake Tahoe NV... I know im not runing 15's up there. So where would you rate my truck: your track, my track, sea level, or lake tahoe.
MY POINT IS THIS HAS BECOME A OPINION CONTEST... not facts. lets end this thread.
Go to smokemup.com and look up the NHRA correction factors. That'll answer all of your questions.
Feb 18, 2004 | 07:10 PM
#57
no offense, but that wasn't the point of my post at all... this has become an opinion battle. If you want my opininon i can give it to you... I like lightnings, i also own a ford truck and would buy a lighting if i had the money to do so. And no way am i saying lightings are slow. But i also wont believe someones "opinon" over a nationally sold magazine, do i think a lighting can do better than 14.6's stock.... yes i do. (it was proven by the original post by Yelo) Lower the tire pressure and loose some weight they probably run a even faster. At sea level it may run even faster but to say they run 13.5's stock isn't entirely accurate either, cause not everyone is at sea level especially if there isn't any actual proof like a magazine article or authentic ford report showing that they run 13.5's at sea level.... that is my opinion.
I would just like to see proof, not just hear/see some person type that there truck ran 13.5's at sea level stock?? i just won't believe it but will consider the possibility.
the question what lightings run Stock is pointless to ask here, cause of all the different aspects that can be factored in the results.
im just stuck on that they won't run in the 13's in all cases. and someone saying that what they run "bottom line".
didn't you own a lighting?
I would just like to see proof, not just hear/see some person type that there truck ran 13.5's at sea level stock?? i just won't believe it but will consider the possibility.
the question what lightings run Stock is pointless to ask here, cause of all the different aspects that can be factored in the results.
im just stuck on that they won't run in the 13's in all cases. and someone saying that what they run "bottom line".
didn't you own a lighting?
Feb 18, 2004 | 07:44 PM
#58
12 Second Truck Club
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
From: Salt Lake City, Utah
Originally Posted by drkblusierra
no offense, but that wasn't the point of my post at all... this has become an opinion battle. If you want my opininon i can give it to you... I like lightnings, i also own a ford truck and would buy a lighting if i had the money to do so. And no way am i saying lightings are slow. But i also wont believe someones "opinon" over a nationally sold magazine, do i think a lighting can do better than 14.6's stock.... yes i do. (it was proven by the original post by Yelo) Lower the tire pressure and loose some weight they probably run a even faster. At sea level it may run even faster but to say they run 13.5's stock isn't entirely accurate either, cause not everyone is at sea level especially if there isn't any actual proof like a magazine article or authentic ford report showing that they run 13.5's at sea level.... that is my opinion.
I would just like to see proof, not just hear/see some person type that there truck ran 13.5's at sea level stock?? i just won't believe it but will consider the possibility.
the question what lightings run Stock is pointless to ask here, cause of all the different aspects that can be factored in the results.
im just stuck on that they won't run in the 13's in all cases. and someone saying that what they run "bottom line".
didn't you own a lighting?
I would just like to see proof, not just hear/see some person type that there truck ran 13.5's at sea level stock?? i just won't believe it but will consider the possibility.
the question what lightings run Stock is pointless to ask here, cause of all the different aspects that can be factored in the results.
im just stuck on that they won't run in the 13's in all cases. and someone saying that what they run "bottom line".
didn't you own a lighting?
Feb 18, 2004 | 07:55 PM
#59
sorry dude just don't believe them, need to see some authentic publication. thats my opinion. Don't mean to be a bastard, but i don't think were getting any where??
still im trying to press the point that there can be many, many, many factors to the results of track times.
The SPORT TRUCK article provides contact info:
HOTCHKIS Provided testing and data acquisition services for the comparison for more information, contact: Hotchkis Performance, Dept. ST, 12035 Burke ST., STE 13, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670. (877) 4NO-ROLL (466-7655). www.hotchkis.net
Im sure they will tell you the elevation of these tests and any other info you may want. if you want to.
http://www.santafesprings.org/economic.htm
elevation of Santa Fe Springs: Average 130' High 161' Low 65'
*this is only to give you an idea of the elevation assuming on how close the tests were done to Santa Fe Springs*
still im trying to press the point that there can be many, many, many factors to the results of track times.
The SPORT TRUCK article provides contact info:
HOTCHKIS Provided testing and data acquisition services for the comparison for more information, contact: Hotchkis Performance, Dept. ST, 12035 Burke ST., STE 13, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670. (877) 4NO-ROLL (466-7655). www.hotchkis.net
Im sure they will tell you the elevation of these tests and any other info you may want. if you want to.
http://www.santafesprings.org/economic.htm
elevation of Santa Fe Springs: Average 130' High 161' Low 65'
*this is only to give you an idea of the elevation assuming on how close the tests were done to Santa Fe Springs*
Feb 18, 2004 | 11:03 PM
#60
Originally Posted by drkblusierra
sorry dude just don't believe them, need to see some authentic publication. thats my opinion. Don't mean to be a bastard, but i don't think were getting any where??
still im trying to press the point that there can be many, many, many factors to the results of track times.
The SPORT TRUCK article provides contact info:
HOTCHKIS Provided testing and data acquisition services for the comparison for more information, contact: Hotchkis Performance, Dept. ST, 12035 Burke ST., STE 13, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670. (877) 4NO-ROLL (466-7655). www.hotchkis.net
Im sure they will tell you the elevation of these tests and any other info you may want. if you want to.
http://www.santafesprings.org/economic.htm
elevation of Santa Fe Springs: Average 130' High 161' Low 65'
*this is only to give you an idea of the elevation assuming on how close the tests were done to Santa Fe Springs*
still im trying to press the point that there can be many, many, many factors to the results of track times.
The SPORT TRUCK article provides contact info:
HOTCHKIS Provided testing and data acquisition services for the comparison for more information, contact: Hotchkis Performance, Dept. ST, 12035 Burke ST., STE 13, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670. (877) 4NO-ROLL (466-7655). www.hotchkis.net
Im sure they will tell you the elevation of these tests and any other info you may want. if you want to.
http://www.santafesprings.org/economic.htm
elevation of Santa Fe Springs: Average 130' High 161' Low 65'
*this is only to give you an idea of the elevation assuming on how close the tests were done to Santa Fe Springs*