View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll
2000 Camaro SS vs. 2000 Audi S4
Senior Administrator
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,574
From: Lotsa places, currently Metro D.C., USA
RE: 2000 Camaro SS vs. 2000 Audi S4
in general manual trannys ARE faster, because you get to shift when you think it right/wind it out, as opposed to sheifting at predefined revs...
slushboxes are MORE consistent, which is why they are most often used in bracket-racing, where consistency and the ability to repeatedly run within your bracket without breaking out, is paramount.
hope this clears up some misconceptions
slushboxes are MORE consistent, which is why they are most often used in bracket-racing, where consistency and the ability to repeatedly run within your bracket without breaking out, is paramount.
hope this clears up some misconceptions
1st Gear
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 151
From: Manheim, PA
RE: 2000 Camaro SS vs. 2000 Audi S4
A properly built manual valve body auto will shift faster than you ever could. But they do suck a little more power. Autos are def more consistent but manuals arent far behind with launch rev limiters. Some of the DSM guys are very consistent with their sticks.
Guess I better reword that, with an engine with low power the 5-10% drivetrain loss difference could make up for shifting slower (stick vs hard shifting auto)
Another reason the faster (the real fast ones) guys use autos is because there arent any sticks that will handle 1500hp.
Guess I better reword that, with an engine with low power the 5-10% drivetrain loss difference could make up for shifting slower (stick vs hard shifting auto)
Another reason the faster (the real fast ones) guys use autos is because there arent any sticks that will handle 1500hp.
3rd Gear
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,896
From:
RE: 2000 Camaro SS vs. 2000 Audi S4
ORIGINAL: TheBat
Sorry guys thats just my nature. I get called an ******* a lot. Something the military did to me.....nothing personal. Just because I said the 93+camaros were ugly didnt mean that I said they had the same engine. They are basically the same crappy body style. Lt1s were a claimed 300hp, not sure what they actually put down, but probably wasnt much more than that if any. LS1s are a claimed 325 I think, and they regularly put down 380-400 stock. The driveline loss in those cars is also not as bad as people think. Its like 17% from what Ive calculated, not sure if those are standards or autos though. I dont know if anyone has hit 12s with a stick.
Sorry guys thats just my nature. I get called an ******* a lot. Something the military did to me.....nothing personal. Just because I said the 93+camaros were ugly didnt mean that I said they had the same engine. They are basically the same crappy body style. Lt1s were a claimed 300hp, not sure what they actually put down, but probably wasnt much more than that if any. LS1s are a claimed 325 I think, and they regularly put down 380-400 stock. The driveline loss in those cars is also not as bad as people think. Its like 17% from what Ive calculated, not sure if those are standards or autos though. I dont know if anyone has hit 12s with a stick.
1998-2000 LS1 F-bodys(non-WS6/SS) came with 305hp/335tq stock. 2001-2002 F-bodys (non WS6/SS) came with 310hp/335tq stock. 1996-1997 SS/WS6 came with 305hp stock. 1998-2002 LS1 SS/WS6 came with 325hp stock. No, stock LS1's do not put down 380-400hp stock. That is absurd. The LS1 is underrated from the factory, and commonly puts down anyware from 290RWHP-305RWHP stock depending on tranny........ Hopefully this clears up any questions of years/power numbers and whatnot.........
That is all.......
1st Gear
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 151
From: Manheim, PA
RE: 2000 Camaro SS vs. 2000 Audi S4
Everything I have seen for the Lt1 states 300hp 340 tq. The older tpi were 250hp 350tq, there are minute differences between years.
LS1s do put out 380-400 stock. Flywheel. Good heavens. Did you actually think I thought they had 500 engine hp?
I apologize for not listing every year. Hey there might a 5 hp difference if put smaller tires on the back. No point in being that critical, every dyno is different so it is still just an estimate.
The true test is the track. And when an LS1 camaro hits 12.99. I forget mph. What kind of power does that mean? Roughly 3900lbs with a driver. Now that was an estimate, please dont post a list of everyone's weight that has ever driven a camaro.
Haha just giving you ****.
LS1s do put out 380-400 stock. Flywheel. Good heavens. Did you actually think I thought they had 500 engine hp?
I apologize for not listing every year. Hey there might a 5 hp difference if put smaller tires on the back. No point in being that critical, every dyno is different so it is still just an estimate.
The true test is the track. And when an LS1 camaro hits 12.99. I forget mph. What kind of power does that mean? Roughly 3900lbs with a driver. Now that was an estimate, please dont post a list of everyone's weight that has ever driven a camaro.
Haha just giving you ****.
Senior Administrator
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,574
From: Lotsa places, currently Metro D.C., USA
RE: 2000 Camaro SS vs. 2000 Audi S4
ORIGINAL: TheBat
A properly built manual valve body auto will shift faster than you ever could. But they do suck a little more power. Autos are def more consistent but manuals arent far behind with launch rev limiters. Some of the DSM guys are very consistent with their sticks.
A properly built manual valve body auto will shift faster than you ever could. But they do suck a little more power. Autos are def more consistent but manuals arent far behind with launch rev limiters. Some of the DSM guys are very consistent with their sticks.
ORIGINAL: TheBat
Guess I better reword that, with an engine with low power the 5-10% drivetrain loss difference could make up for shifting slower (stick vs hard shifting auto)
Guess I better reword that, with an engine with low power the 5-10% drivetrain loss difference could make up for shifting slower (stick vs hard shifting auto)
ORIGINAL: TheBat
Another reason the faster (the real fast ones) guys use autos is because there arent any sticks that will handle 1500hp.
Another reason the faster (the real fast ones) guys use autos is because there arent any sticks that will handle 1500hp.
1st Gear
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 151
From: Manheim, PA
RE: 2000 Camaro SS vs. 2000 Audi S4
Stick is a lot more fun. The guy that built my shortblock for my drag car recommended an auto even though I wanted a stick. Said it would be faster because the engine and blower stays wound up. Im going to try to make it street legal, and a stick would be fun on the street. AWD cars are going to give it a run for its money on the road with road tires that im stuck using. It hardly gets traction 1st and 2nd gear with 29x12.5 mickey thompsons. Only 3 gears.
Site Moderator/Ninja
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,681
From: SoCaL~
RE: 2000 Camaro SS vs. 2000 Audi S4
The Bat needs his own Thread so we can welcome him to our forums & sing his praises.
he defenitely seems to know his stuff.
bejezzus - this thread has been hijacked like mad.. [:-]
he defenitely seems to know his stuff.
bejezzus - this thread has been hijacked like mad..
[:-]
6th Gear
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,989
From: the Ohio State
RE: 2000 Camaro SS vs. 2000 Audi S4
yeah well lets HJ it some more, any of you Socal boys going out for that F&F4 try out? haha
Yeah I agree the bat seems to know what he's talking about and seems to be a pretty good guy, know that we know him I like him and wanna see this drag beast (while going fast in a straight line isn't my fav thing to do , anything that gets loose through 2 gears in a 3 gear car must be cool to drool over.)
Yeah I agree the bat seems to know what he's talking about and seems to be a pretty good guy, know that we know him I like him and wanna see this drag beast (while going fast in a straight line isn't my fav thing to do , anything that gets loose through 2 gears in a 3 gear car must be cool to drool over.)
Site Moderator/Ninja
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,681
From: SoCaL~
RE: 2000 Camaro SS vs. 2000 Audi S4
so wierd how my tastes have changed since that first F&F came out..
itll always be a part of me though - Imports have some badass cars..
I wish the Tuner community - would come out w/ another movie franchise -
not F&F oriented.. more story driven.
itll always be a part of me though - Imports have some badass cars..
I wish the Tuner community - would come out w/ another movie franchise -
not F&F oriented.. more story driven.
3rd Gear
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,896
From:
RE: 2000 Camaro SS vs. 2000 Audi S4
ORIGINAL: TheBat
Everything I have seen for the Lt1 states 300hp 340 tq. The older tpi were 250hp 350tq, there are minute differences between years.
LS1s do put out 380-400 stock. Flywheel. Good heavens. Did you actually think I thought they had 500 engine hp?
I apologize for not listing every year. Hey there might a 5 hp difference if put smaller tires on the back. No point in being that critical, every dyno is different so it is still just an estimate.
The true test is the track. And when an LS1 camaro hits 12.99. I forget mph. What kind of power does that mean? Roughly 3900lbs with a driver. Now that was an estimate, please dont post a list of everyone's weight that has ever driven a camaro.
Haha just giving you ****.
Everything I have seen for the Lt1 states 300hp 340 tq. The older tpi were 250hp 350tq, there are minute differences between years.
LS1s do put out 380-400 stock. Flywheel. Good heavens. Did you actually think I thought they had 500 engine hp?
I apologize for not listing every year. Hey there might a 5 hp difference if put smaller tires on the back. No point in being that critical, every dyno is different so it is still just an estimate.
The true test is the track. And when an LS1 camaro hits 12.99. I forget mph. What kind of power does that mean? Roughly 3900lbs with a driver. Now that was an estimate, please dont post a list of everyone's weight that has ever driven a camaro.
Haha just giving you ****.
I don't know how to put it any other way.Wikipedia/google is not always accurate.
The power ratings I stated in my previous post for the LT1 are accurate. And no, the LS1 does not put out 380-400hp at the fly!!!!! maybe 340hp at the fly max. Feel free to go to a forum like Camaroz28.com and tell them LS1's put out 380-400 at the fly, they will laugh you off the boards. Im not trying to be an ***, but I think you should go on a forum like that and post a thread like "stock LS1 power at the fly" or "stock LT1 power" They will be happy to tellyou exactly what i have just told you......... http://www.camaroforums.com/m_25085/tm.htm(LT1)
Really good link here http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showth...52#post2682252 (LT1)
read this thread about the (LS1) http://www.ls1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27514