CrAzYMoPaRGuY Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 o i forgot about that 360 vs 364 and they say their motor isnt a poor design. 4 cubic inches more and 100 hp more Ouch! I guess you did forget that...? Good thing too, as the argument is a pretty dumb one. Don't think so...? THINK BACK FIFTY YEARS. Think back to 1956 and the new, stunning Chrysler 300, it was available with a 354 cubic inch engine that pumped out 355 horsepower. Stock. Nextttttttt hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrAzYMoPaRGuY Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 o i forgot about that 360 vs 364 and they say their motor isnt a poor design. 4 cubic inches more and 100 hp more Ouch! I guess you did forget that...? Good thing too, as the argument is a pretty dumb one. Don't think so...? THINK BACK FIFTY YEARS. Think back to 1956 and the new, stunning Chrysler 300, it was available with a 354 cubic inch engine that pumped out 355 horsepower. Stock. Nextttttttt hahaha <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How does that compare Quik? For a FIFTY YEAR OLD SEDAN, how do the numbers stack up? 354 cubic inches. 355 horsepower. And it was a ..... *brace for Quik's tears* ..... HEMI!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zippy Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 A stock bottom end Silverado in the 10's has been done. There are a few Silverado's that have went 12.5's with the 5.3L using bolt on's and a camshaft. There is a 4.8L that has went 11's on boost. Even though we're using full size trucks there isn't much concern of the R/T's. Guess you're all running deep, deep 10s or 9s then huh? No, neither are the R/T's. We can also run 10's on the stock pcm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrAzYMoPaRGuY Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 A stock bottom end Silverado in the 10's has been done. There are a few Silverado's that have went 12.5's with the 5.3L using bolt on's and a camshaft. There is a 4.8L that has went 11's on boost. Even though we're using full size trucks there isn't much concern of the R/T's. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Guess you're all running deep, deep 10s or 9s then huh? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, neither are the R/T's. We can also run 10's on the stock pcm... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm guessing he's pointing out the "there isn't much concern of the R/T's." If "there wasn't much concern" then the SSS would have to be considerably faster than the R/t"s, not directly comparable...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrAzYMoPaRGuY Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 A stock bottom end Silverado in the 10's has been done. There are a few Silverado's that have went 12.5's with the 5.3L using bolt on's and a camshaft. There is a 4.8L that has went 11's on boost. Even though we're using full size trucks there isn't much concern of the R/T's. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Guess you're all running deep, deep 10s or 9s then huh? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe Zippy means the Dakotas are SMALLER than the SSS, when he says "there isn't much concern of the R/T's"....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenKey Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 This thread is just getting old. It reached stupid days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad360rt Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Yeah if I get off my ass and actually get it put together hahaha Danno <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Take your time, then maybe I'll have a chance of getting there first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrAzYMoPaRGuY Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 This thread is just getting old. It reached stupid days ago. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It reached stupid as soon as the Xtreme guy posted his insulting nonsense! Did ya ban him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad360rt Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 No, neither are the R/T's. We can also run 10's on the stock pcm... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Stock pcm??? Maybe a reprogrammed stock pcm. Where are the 10sec SS's anyway? I only see 11's on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
04CHASE Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 check out the truck list on performancetrucks.net that should get you # your looking for. its more of an even match up with those trucks anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaPurpleRT Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 PS: Your full size trucks are only a few hundred lbs at most more than a Dakota, not enough to really be considered in a different class. RC 2WD Rams and new F150s weigh over 5klb for example.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A SS is 5250lbs. If we are talking SSs on the SS site. According to you R/T guys in this thread a RC weighs 4000 and a CC weighs 4400. If every 100lbs is a tenth, that's pretty significant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I referenced the trucks in general since the conversation had shifted to the Silverados in geenral. IE RC 2wd to RC 2wd, 4wd CC (or QC) to 2wd CC, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaPurpleRT Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 The Silverado SS weighs more than a dakota R/T, but stock vs stock the SSS also have a WEE horsepower advantage, don't they??! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are we mainly talking 4.7s or 5.9? I would hope 5.9s. Can't help you on the 4.7. But if you really lack any serious hp from our SIX whole cubic inches more compared to the 5.9L, then I would guess it is either due to a design problem or it is trying to meet CAFE standards, or something. Once you remove all the factory restrictive BS, you basically have nearly the same block and lower end. Then add all the go-fast stuff (same stuff we would) and the weight difference plays a major factor in how fast you end up without changing the lower end. Bottom line, if I put my engine in your truck I could easily go in the low 11sec area, but couldn't come close being in my truck. It is not the stock lower end, but the same general principle applies. That is why IMO, if you wanted to compare, then your weight class would be a S-10/Colorado/Canyon. You guys definitely reign supreme there, unless you find one with a V8 (not currently a factory option). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> S10s and Rangers weigh WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than Dakotass. Dakotas are much clsoe to Silverados weight-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaPurpleRT Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 A stock bottom end Silverado in the 10's has been done. There are a few Silverado's that have went 12.5's with the 5.3L using bolt on's and a camshaft. There is a 4.8L that has went 11's on boost. Even though we're using full size trucks there isn't much concern of the R/T's. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Guess you're all running deep, deep 10s or 9s then huh? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, neither are the R/T's. We can also run 10's on the stock pcm... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You stated that "we" (Silverado SS owners) don't worry about R/Ts, yet there are R/Ts that quick, I'd assume since you guys don't worry about any R/Ts ya must all run those times. Simple deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drako Posted May 27, 2006 Report Share Posted May 27, 2006 WTF HAPPENED? this is a damn monster!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrAzYMoPaRGuY Posted May 27, 2006 Report Share Posted May 27, 2006 WTF HAPPENED? this is a damn monster!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Didn't you fight Rocky Balboa? YOU ARE A MONSTAH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts