GMT 800 & Older GM General Discussion 2006 & Older Trucks | General Discussion

Killed an SS tonight...

Old Feb 13, 2005 | 12:20 AM
  #11  
Yelo's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Addict
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 1
From: Geneseo, NY
Default

um.....I have an LQ4 6.0, that's only supposedly 45hp less....and I STILL find it hard to believe that a .6 CR bump and minor tuning is good for a 45hp difference between the LQ4 in my truck and the LQ9 in the SS, it's got the same cam as the 5.7 LS1, it has a better head design than the 5.7 LS1 and it is 18 cubes bigger.....I FIRMLY believe that the LQ4 is ALOT closer to 345hp than GM lets on (I've said this before) AND, it's rated at 325 in the Sierra C3 and the Denali. So, that said, with the CAI, exhuast, and tuning I'm probably only supposedly 15-20hp down, and I weigh slightly less too

Those numbers you called off are for an ECSB 5.3....as far as I can tell a Silverado 2500 with a 6.0 has never been tested by Motor Trend (I searched the site) so your point is moot. (BTW...a '99-'00 2500 is a 1/2 ton truck with a 6.0, a 4L80e transmission, and slightly beefier suspension.....kinda sounds like a psuedo-VHO doesn't it)

I'm really sorry if your 5.3 is slower than my 6.0.....39 extra cubic inches can do that sometimes

And....NO, I DIDN'T have to put it in 4wd to hang with the SS off the line, throttle modulation is a wonderful thing.....sometimes a full-throttle blast off the line is pointless

If you want to start a fight here I'll gladly continue this until the thread gets locked....but it really seems pointless to me to do so, I beat an SS...good for me, I DIDN'T beat your friends SS so that conversation is moot as well.

On a more constructive note here....have you considered having that PCMforLess tune checked, I've seen alot better numbers out of that cam and very similar combos
Old Feb 13, 2005 | 12:08 PM
  #12  
TECH Enthusiast
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
From: TX
Default

damn 15.32 stock!!!! and i remember reading this real old truck trend magazine back in 1999 which tested the 4x4 fi50 the ram 4x4 the tundra 4x4 and the silverado 4x4 and it had a 0 to 60 time of 7.4 seconds , that was the reason i bought my trucks ehhehe.
Old Feb 13, 2005 | 12:14 PM
  #13  
1FUNZ71's Avatar
14 Second Truck Club
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,429
Likes: 0
From: Keller, TX
Default

Originally Posted by CAMMIN03'
He was running a 14.89 with a tune and conservative tune..... He should be in the high 13's easy.... its hard to believe that you ran a 15.3 stock...

I saw some statistics from motortrend of your 1999 ecsb running 0-60 in 8.2 sec

and the SS being around a 7.1 0-60 time....

The 1999 motortrend preformance specs shows a stock of 16.8 sec. @ 84.2mph

Thats 1.5secs under motortrend..

Your running faster stock with less HP than I am now with all my mods...

Its just doesnt match up...

And if the stock SS was running a 15.5@89, then how did you run a 15.3 stock with

around 60-75 less HP.... doesnt make much since... not to mention the only way you

could hang with one off the line is to have put your car in 4 wheel drive. but he still

woulda pulled you up top....

Stock SS's arent fast at all. I have raced 3 different SS's up here. Same result every time. I usually led by a half a length to a full length.

Yelo, not trying to take anything away from your kill. I am up around Reno. Let me know if your ever up this way.

Erick
Old Feb 13, 2005 | 02:22 PM
  #14  
TECH Enthusiast
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
From: Memphis, TN
Default

Good Kill He'll be buying speed parts tomorrow. Got his butt kicked by a 2500 HD 4x4
Old Feb 13, 2005 | 02:40 PM
  #15  
greentahoe's Avatar
TECH Addict
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, Fl
Default

I wouldve been surprised if you didnt win. They are only RATED at the flywheel and its heavier vehicle. With just a tune I would think it would be comparable as GM seems to overate the hp difference in the LS1 corvettes and F body's as well as the 6.0 trucks. You also have an intake and catback with as you said a lighter vehicle.
Nice!
Old Feb 13, 2005 | 02:44 PM
  #16  
CAMMIN03''s Avatar
Banned
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,581
Likes: 1
From: Athens, GA
Default

Yeah but I have beat an 99-02 4x4 HD..... Bad....... And I could never pull my buddies

SS when it was stock..... It that was true why wouldnt everyone just go out and spend 25,000 for the 99 HD 4x4, than spend 35-38000 on the SS.... Logic proves that the SS would be faster...

Plus you said you floored it behind him and then pulled 4 LENGTHS ON HIM!!

All you have is a tune and 4.10's and a muffler... oh and a 2-6hp increase CAI.

The 4.10's kill your top end anyway... Your stories not matching up here..

Thats good for like maybe 20hp...... ok so now your at 310 at the crank.. and the SS

is at 345.. With around 22% drivetrain loss... your somewhere in the 230-245's the

SS is around 270 now thats 20-25hp more.... Supposing everything is pretty equal in

terms of loss.... Now that puts him 20-25 more hp than you....

Ok so you raced him and pulled 4 truck lengths...... How with 20 less Hp did you pull 4

truck lengths on him.... Not matching up to me... I might be wrong but come on'

Now you can make fun of my mods all you want to.... Atleast im not on here lying

about Kills..... Trying to look cool to people you dont even know.. Its pretty gay

actually... 30rwhp from my cam is what everyone is talking about... Most people do a

pulley swap when they do a cam swap.. Face the facts theres no way you pulled an

SS by 4 trucklengths with just a tune..... Thats just how it is...
Old Feb 13, 2005 | 02:55 PM
  #17  
greentahoe's Avatar
TECH Addict
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, Fl
Default

Damn. This guy is doing his own heads/ cam swap and probably most of his other mods as well and you, who doesnt know where to start on just a cam swap, are sitting here telling everyone that he is a liar?! Your buddy has the fastest cam only SS in the country, fine, he didnt race your buddy.
Old Feb 13, 2005 | 03:17 PM
  #18  
Mangled03gmc's Avatar
Baltimore Whore
20 Year Member
iTrader: (95)
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,820
Likes: 2
From: In a van DOWN BY THE RIVER
Default

whats the big problem here.He beat an SS.They are not that fast,15's.I have stayed with them before in my 4.8 with the **** mods in my sig.As yelo siad if you can't hang with your buddys truck you might want to get your tune looked at cause something is not right. NICE KILL
Old Feb 13, 2005 | 03:39 PM
  #19  
TECH Junkie
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,019
Likes: 1
From: memphis tn
Default

Damned teenagers!racing hotrod trucks through our National Parks you boys should be ashamed of yourselves.Good kill I hope you get your cam and heads done soon.
Old Feb 13, 2005 | 03:55 PM
  #20  
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Default

..... It that was true why wouldnt everyone just go out and spend 25,000 for the 99 HD 4x4, than spend 35-38000 on the SS.... Logic proves that the SS would be faster...

That makes no sense at all, if thats the case (spending more money logically makes your ride faster) then why in the hell can a RCSB 5.3 2wd run just as fast or faster times than a SS silverado? And while you spend half the money doing so. As far as a Silverado SS goes they are only good for heavy modding (more of a apperance package) I would just rather have the VHO edition or if doing something like Parish did a RCSB 4x4. As far as stock performance goes the SS is overrated.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.