trans am vs audi tt
5th Gear
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,486
From:
RE: trans am vs audi tt
Hrmm, I had a 94 Trans am, which I know had the 4l60e trans, because I had that "performance shift" button. Also had a 95 Z28 1le, which is a very, very sought after f-body... and honestly, they were both garbage. Yeah, they were fast... but holy hell, they are absolutely terrible in every other respect. Seems stupid to REQUIRE subframe connectors and god knows what else you can get your hands on to stiffen the things up, because stock, they are like a limp noodle.
I had a lot of fun in both cars, though... but I'd never, ever have defended them in any right other than straight line performance... and even then, I was well aware that the 600 lb lighter mustangs didn't need much to catch up, and spank me.
Seeing how you guys have behaved on here... I think we all want to assume that you've got mullets, and I really hope the TT does manage to spank you. I doubt if he does, but it'd be a nice end to this.
And seriously, all this talk about the "346 not being a 350" ... seriously, is your knowledge of the subtraction of 4 cubic inches really that crutial to your argument that you know everything about your cars!? GM still called them a 5.7L, and to the normal population, the 5.7 = 350CI. Who cares if it's a bit off, it doesn't really matter. You think GM is going to refer to the engine as a 346, when the 350 has so much heritage?
Ugh, I don't even know where else to go on this one... so I'm just going to stop.
I had a lot of fun in both cars, though... but I'd never, ever have defended them in any right other than straight line performance... and even then, I was well aware that the 600 lb lighter mustangs didn't need much to catch up, and spank me.
Seeing how you guys have behaved on here... I think we all want to assume that you've got mullets, and I really hope the TT does manage to spank you. I doubt if he does, but it'd be a nice end to this.
And seriously, all this talk about the "346 not being a 350" ... seriously, is your knowledge of the subtraction of 4 cubic inches really that crutial to your argument that you know everything about your cars!? GM still called them a 5.7L, and to the normal population, the 5.7 = 350CI. Who cares if it's a bit off, it doesn't really matter. You think GM is going to refer to the engine as a 346, when the 350 has so much heritage?
Ugh, I don't even know where else to go on this one... so I'm just going to stop.
3rd Gear
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,725
From:
RE: trans am vs audi tt
I worked at a garage when I had the camaro i would do so many burnouts i never really ever ran new tires, i would just get really good used ones from wroking there, and I had a freind who worked at pep-boys who use to get me sets from there, the last set I bought were the bf-goodrich tires with the color strip in then so i could leave colared burnouts.. the car was really built to just burn out, I put in a dana posi rear with 3:73 in it and a super t-10 4 speed manual along with the ls1 block with alot of goodies..
3rd Gear
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,654
From: Overland Park, Kansas
RE: trans am vs audi tt
ORIGINAL: pturbo
Yeah. Relax people.
You do realize that most TransAm/Camaro owners look like this -
I would be pissed too if I looked like that. This explains the problems we are having on this thread.
Yeah. Relax people.
You do realize that most TransAm/Camaro owners look like this -
I would be pissed too if I looked like that. This explains the problems we are having on this thread.
3rd Gear
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,725
From:
RE: trans am vs audi tt
yea i couldnt drive the car in the rain, it sucked, if I got cought in a rain stom i would have to leave the car at my friends house because i couldnt get it up my hill to my house.. my friend had a t-bucket the thing was sweet, he used a mustang rear end..
4th Gear
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,540
From:
RE: trans am vs audi tt
ORIGINAL: headshok2002
Hrmm, I had a 94 Trans am, which I know had the 4l60e trans, because I had that "performance shift" button. Also had a 95 Z28 1le, which is a very, very sought after f-body... and honestly, they were both garbage. Yeah, they were fast... but holy hell, they are absolutely terrible in every other respect. Seems stupid to REQUIRE subframe connectors and god knows what else you can get your hands on to stiffen the things up, because stock, they are like a limp noodle.
I had a lot of fun in both cars, though... but I'd never, ever have defended them in any right other than straight line performance... and even then, I was well aware that the 600 lb lighter mustangs didn't need much to catch up, and spank me.
Seeing how you guys have behaved on here... I think we all want to assume that you've got mullets, and I really hope the TT does manage to spank you. I doubt if he does, but it'd be a nice end to this.
And seriously, all this talk about the "346 not being a 350" ... seriously, is your knowledge of the subtraction of 4 cubic inches really that crutial to your argument that you know everything about your cars!? GM still called them a 5.7L, and to the normal population, the 5.7 = 350CI. Who cares if it's a bit off, it doesn't really matter. You think GM is going to refer to the engine as a 346, when the 350 has so much heritage?
Ugh, I don't even know where else to go on this one... so I'm just going to stop.
Hrmm, I had a 94 Trans am, which I know had the 4l60e trans, because I had that "performance shift" button. Also had a 95 Z28 1le, which is a very, very sought after f-body... and honestly, they were both garbage. Yeah, they were fast... but holy hell, they are absolutely terrible in every other respect. Seems stupid to REQUIRE subframe connectors and god knows what else you can get your hands on to stiffen the things up, because stock, they are like a limp noodle.
I had a lot of fun in both cars, though... but I'd never, ever have defended them in any right other than straight line performance... and even then, I was well aware that the 600 lb lighter mustangs didn't need much to catch up, and spank me.
Seeing how you guys have behaved on here... I think we all want to assume that you've got mullets, and I really hope the TT does manage to spank you. I doubt if he does, but it'd be a nice end to this.
And seriously, all this talk about the "346 not being a 350" ... seriously, is your knowledge of the subtraction of 4 cubic inches really that crutial to your argument that you know everything about your cars!? GM still called them a 5.7L, and to the normal population, the 5.7 = 350CI. Who cares if it's a bit off, it doesn't really matter. You think GM is going to refer to the engine as a 346, when the 350 has so much heritage?
Ugh, I don't even know where else to go on this one... so I'm just going to stop.
Just because I feel like it, I'm going to keep this going. the LS1 and LT1 are two different motors, theres just about nothing the same about them. If you wan't to really compair them you can start with made by GM, then V8, and N/A, thats about where it ends.
