After owning a 95 R for 2 years,I really feel given the weight of the car,that that motor was a 280 H/P motor! Given all the atricles with 1400s at 99 mph with motor trend going 13.80 at 102 mph semms ,not that great. More road course than drag car.:??: Any thoughts?
The real H/P of the 95R?
- Thread starter bobby1
- Start date
My 95 R was just dyno'd a few weeks ago on a dyno-jet. Engine has never been opened up, but has 30lb injectors, 85MM maf, 75MM throttle body, air pump delete, Bassani off-road X, with Bassani mufflers/dumps. Timing set at 14 degrees and 93 oct pump gas.
282- 285 rwhp and 350-353 tq in three dyno pulls. (SAE Corrected hp)
I have no idea what it does at the drag strip, but on the road course the 00R's can pull me easily.
Brian
282- 285 rwhp and 350-353 tq in three dyno pulls. (SAE Corrected hp)
I have no idea what it does at the drag strip, but on the road course the 00R's can pull me easily.
Brian
Last edited:
The magazine articles that I have on the 95R running 13.80's are on the factory provided BFG's. SVT provided info. on the 95R also stated 13.80. I would think, if a true drag test time desired, a drag tire would have to be used. I know my 95R is "quick to spin" on the stock street BFG's.
Along that same thought line, I would think the guys racing these cars on a road course would use a tire suited for this type of racing on all four corners of the car.
Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords did extensive testing on the 95R in the magazines of that day. They wanted to see how fast a stock engined 95R would go in the 1/4 mile. They added the drag tires, this dropped the car into the 13.50's minus. They adjusted the timing and did an air filter mod along with the drag radials, this dropped the stock 95R into the low 13's. Then they pulled off the serpentine belt and the car ran in the high 12's. Of course the last trick would be limited to 1/4 mile sprints with a cool down time only. If I remember correctly, they did not alter the exhaust at all, leaving the "emissions friendly" items in place. Also, from what I can remember, without digging out the article, all these tests were done on drag radials, not a drag slick. This also makes a difference.
Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords was the only megazine that took the 93, 95 and 00R's to their limit in stock form. Remember, these cars were "on-loan" so not too much altering was allowed.
A little bit off of the subject, but relevent, most of the Car and Driver, Road & Track, Motor Trend etc. magazine editors did not take the time needed to learn the 95 and 00R's. This was very apparent in one of the articles I have, putting the 2000 Z06, 2000 Viper, and 2000R together for testing (which most of the "non-Ford/Mustang only" magazines did in 2000). I have posted the picture of this article on this site before. It is a side by side and sightly overhead view of a yellow Z06 and a 2000R just leaving the line at Milan Drag Strip for the magazine test. It is a two page, center fold picture. The 2000R is heavily smoking the tires and a full car length ahead of the yellow Z06 right off the line. In the end, the Z06 ran a 12.7 to the 2000R's 12.9 or 13.0. I wondered to meself, with such an impressive launch off of the starting line, the cars being close in wieght and power and the 5.4 DOHC being a real breather, how did the 20 cubic inches of that Z06 out pull the 00R at the end by 3 tenths +??? WELL, come to find out, when I read the article, the editor who drove the 00R down shifted from 4th back to 3rd 3/4 of the way down the track to regain some of the power lost by a "too early" 3-4 shift. Well, the 13.0 time was the "official magazine posted time" and the "lack of knowledge/experience" in a 2000R was lost in the article. Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords had made mention in one of their articles, "the 2000R is hard to drag race, you have to learn this car". That statment said it all. The 95 and 00R's were not like the Mustang GT's and regular production Cobra's. The non-Mustang magazines had tested many Z06's and Vipers in the year(s) before 2000. They had a knowledge of these cars from previous tests, this was not the case for the 2000R. Since I have collected 35-40 articles by most all of the magazines on each of these two cars, a big picture develops on who really learned these cars and who just tested them.
Sorry to get long winded, but at first glance some of the magazines make these R's can look pretty much "run of the mill". Sports Car Compact magazine ran a 2000R they tested 13.6 in the 1/4 mile. They had pitted the 2000R "Stone Cold Steve Austin" against a 1700 lb. 250 h.p. Lotus Elise " Jackie Chan". I guess the "front wheel drive boys" were really not familiar at all with the high torque/power of a 5.4 DOHC rear wheel drive Mustang. The 1700 lb. Elise ran a 12.7 if I remember correctly. They were "somewhat" to say the least, down playing the 00R. I hopped into a discussion on their forum a few months ago. We had an "enlightening/real world facts" discussion. It was fun!! In the end, they did apprecaite the R's. They were of general opinion that the 2000R was a Mustang that was lowered and had a big rear wing. Many of them didn't even know it was a factory produced car.
Robert
Agreed. They had very succesfull pro road race careers. Of course, they were highly modified within the rules of the series. The motors were set up by Roush Eng. for road race.
No doubt the 00R is much faster. At least 100 more HP, better handling, & better ground effects. You have to feel and see one blow past you on the track to fully appreciate the difference.
I think the 95R's 5.8 only slightly makes up for the extra weight vs. the 93R 5.0.
Robert, the Elise? I drove one on the track (Atlanta is Lotus American hdq's). I wasn't impressed when I considered the cost. It's apples vs. oranges to compare. And good luck finding someone who can work on them (much less get the parts).
Re: Re: The real H/P of the 95R?
Doc - I neglected to mention, the Elise had a warmed over Honda V-Tec, I-Tec or what ever "tech" they have. It was a Honda 4 cyl that was putting out that 250 h.p. That's why it was such a big deal in that Sport Car Compact Magazine. I sat in a new Lotus Elise last fall at the Lakeland Lake Mirror car show. A dealer from Tampa had it there on display. It was new like I said and stock with it's Lotus engine. He let me sit in it, what a go-cart, but too small for me. I think he said a 275 or 300 h.p. Lotus engine was in the works for that car.
This was a very apples vs. oranges test. I also feel the "man car," knowing it can regularly run mid to high 12's at 3600lbs with a knowledgable driver, did great against a car that only wieghed 1700lbs. and was making 250hp.
Robert
Doc - I neglected to mention, the Elise had a warmed over Honda V-Tec, I-Tec or what ever "tech" they have. It was a Honda 4 cyl that was putting out that 250 h.p. That's why it was such a big deal in that Sport Car Compact Magazine. I sat in a new Lotus Elise last fall at the Lakeland Lake Mirror car show. A dealer from Tampa had it there on display. It was new like I said and stock with it's Lotus engine. He let me sit in it, what a go-cart, but too small for me. I think he said a 275 or 300 h.p. Lotus engine was in the works for that car.
This was a very apples vs. oranges test. I also feel the "man car," knowing it can regularly run mid to high 12's at 3600lbs with a knowledgable driver, did great against a car that only wieghed 1700lbs. and was making 250hp.
Robert
Re: Re: The real H/P of the 95R?
Close in weight? Thought the Z06 was ~3100 lbs and the R was ~3500 - 3600? Right there is a few tenths difference. Neither car was driven to its maximum in that article apparently; some folks have claimed 11's with stock Z's under perfect conditions. Not sure about that, but a 12.7 definitely isn't the fastest a Z06 can move, and neither is a 12.9 the fastest the R can move.
Re: Re: Re: The real H/P of the 95R?
Chevy ads on the Z06 mention a 12.4 for the 1/4. 171 mph top speed and 3.9 for 0-60 mph. The ads say 3260 lb. curb weight. I think I remember the Z06 has standard rear brake cooling ducts! I've always wondered why you don't see more Z06's at open track events (or maybe you see them at events that I don't attend?). Brian, do you O/T yours?
I haven't been on a drag strip in years but would like to see a test of a stock 00R, Z06, Viper, et al on a road course. I'd give ever car a $10K mod budget and re-test the cars (since it's rare to see a stock car at an open track event).
I remember from my old drag strip days that every 100 lbs of weight equals one tenth [0.10] in the 1/4. HP and weight are important for the drag strip. On a road course handling and braking are equally important.
Robert, I forgot to mention another item about the Elise. UGLY!
Doc
Chevy ads on the Z06 mention a 12.4 for the 1/4. 171 mph top speed and 3.9 for 0-60 mph. The ads say 3260 lb. curb weight. I think I remember the Z06 has standard rear brake cooling ducts! I've always wondered why you don't see more Z06's at open track events (or maybe you see them at events that I don't attend?). Brian, do you O/T yours?
I haven't been on a drag strip in years but would like to see a test of a stock 00R, Z06, Viper, et al on a road course. I'd give ever car a $10K mod budget and re-test the cars (since it's rare to see a stock car at an open track event).
I remember from my old drag strip days that every 100 lbs of weight equals one tenth [0.10] in the 1/4. HP and weight are important for the drag strip. On a road course handling and braking are equally important.
Robert, I forgot to mention another item about the Elise. UGLY!
Doc
Re: Re: Re: The real H/P of the 95R?
If there is that much wieght difference in the Z06 and a 00R, it should, as mentioned, run a few 1/10ths faster. How is that 400-500lbs. saved on the Z06? It sounds like the wieght the 00R should have been.
Yes Doc, Elise=Ugly! It looked like a "Hot Wheels experiment" gone bad.
Robert
If there is that much wieght difference in the Z06 and a 00R, it should, as mentioned, run a few 1/10ths faster. How is that 400-500lbs. saved on the Z06? It sounds like the wieght the 00R should have been.
Yes Doc, Elise=Ugly! It looked like a "Hot Wheels experiment" gone bad.
Robert
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real H/P of the 95R?
12.4 is very impressive. Of the 2-3 magazines that did the tests side-by-side of these 3 three cars, none of them were apparently run to their potential, or at least not the Z06 or 00R. But something that I had pointed out months ago in a discussion about this was, just think, a Mustang playing, and playing well with cars like the "top of the GM line performer - Z06" and a "V10 Dodge Viper - top of the line performer." This is what is impressive. I thought Mustangs were supposed to play with Camaro's and Firebirds, Cobra's with Z/28's, SS and T/A's. How did the aftermarket SLP cars compare to the 00R or for that matter the Z06?
Robert
12.4 is very impressive. Of the 2-3 magazines that did the tests side-by-side of these 3 three cars, none of them were apparently run to their potential, or at least not the Z06 or 00R. But something that I had pointed out months ago in a discussion about this was, just think, a Mustang playing, and playing well with cars like the "top of the GM line performer - Z06" and a "V10 Dodge Viper - top of the line performer." This is what is impressive. I thought Mustangs were supposed to play with Camaro's and Firebirds, Cobra's with Z/28's, SS and T/A's. How did the aftermarket SLP cars compare to the 00R or for that matter the Z06?
Robert
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real H/P of the 95R?
Well Doc got it correct, I did not. I underestimated the weight of the Z06, not sure why. Nonetheless, it is substantially lighter than the R and that should account for some of the difference. The weight on the Z is saved through: lightweight wheels, all aluminum engine, titanium exhaust, shaved glass, and I believe a lighter overall framework.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real H/P of the 95R?
Doc - I was looking thorugh an older Motor Trend today. It came out earlier this year. It had the new Z06 running the quarter in 12.4. Isn't the new Z06 or maybe even the last couple of years a 405h.p. car? Wasn't the 2000 Z06 rated at 385h.p.? What difference would that 20h.p. make? Maybe not much, but probably some difference. It listed this 12.4 car at 3118lbs.
Robert
Doc - I was looking thorugh an older Motor Trend today. It came out earlier this year. It had the new Z06 running the quarter in 12.4. Isn't the new Z06 or maybe even the last couple of years a 405h.p. car? Wasn't the 2000 Z06 rated at 385h.p.? What difference would that 20h.p. make? Maybe not much, but probably some difference. It listed this 12.4 car at 3118lbs.
Robert
more worthless info
I did some quick research. [Z06vette.com and corvetteforums.com] I'll admit I was impressed. It seems the '01 had a few problems (including piston ring failure). The quality of the '02-'04 is improved.
It seems the first Z06 was a 2001? In 2002 they increased the HP to 405 (with some performance improvements, which IMO with the HP difference would make for a faster feeling car).
I think the weight I quoted was wrong (sorry, Black99GT). I think the weight I quoted was for a '04 automatic. The Z06 is in the 3100+ range.
I noticed an ad in the Atlanta paper this am, and a local dealer (they claim to be the largest vette dealer) was quoting $8000 off list. My research showed a $52,985 list [$46,461 invoice, minus current $3000 rebate].
Add'l worthless info: private party values [kbb.com]
'03 Z06 $40.8K ('03 Cobra $27K)
'02 Z06 $36.7K
:read:
I did some quick research. [Z06vette.com and corvetteforums.com] I'll admit I was impressed. It seems the '01 had a few problems (including piston ring failure). The quality of the '02-'04 is improved.
It seems the first Z06 was a 2001? In 2002 they increased the HP to 405 (with some performance improvements, which IMO with the HP difference would make for a faster feeling car).
I think the weight I quoted was wrong (sorry, Black99GT). I think the weight I quoted was for a '04 automatic. The Z06 is in the 3100+ range.
I noticed an ad in the Atlanta paper this am, and a local dealer (they claim to be the largest vette dealer) was quoting $8000 off list. My research showed a $52,985 list [$46,461 invoice, minus current $3000 rebate].
Add'l worthless info: private party values [kbb.com]
'03 Z06 $40.8K ('03 Cobra $27K)
'02 Z06 $36.7K
:read:
Re: more worthless info
Steve
Ah, that sounds a little better but I wasn't sure, so I just went with ya on it. In my opinion, the weight difference is the biggest difference between the two as far as the drag strip goes. Gearing is close, power is close, weight is not even close.
Steve
Re: more worthless info
I don't have my 2000 magazines out for original 2001 Z06 pricing, but if they were priced anywhere near the current Z06 or even down around $48K - $50K, and the newer ones ('02 and 03's) are running in the mid - high $30K's to very low $40K's, then the 2000R is doing very well for a car that is 2-3 years older and still running in the mid $30K's to mid $40K's. The miles are the real factor at this time with the above mentioned price gap on the 2000R. Then again, if you were to put a 15,000 - 20,000 mile 00R up for sale, it would be less money. I have not seen many, if any, regularly used daily driver 2000R's for sale, most have 4 digit miles or less and many of the 4 digit mile cars are below 5000 miles. It also seems to be a "how many pop up for sale" at any given time that also drives the price. Right now it seems that a few of the 300 are changing hands. Once the hype was gone on the '03 Cobra, they really did a nose-dive in price. I still feel they, and the '04 Cobra are the "best bang for the buck" of any muscle car out there.
Robert
I don't have my 2000 magazines out for original 2001 Z06 pricing, but if they were priced anywhere near the current Z06 or even down around $48K - $50K, and the newer ones ('02 and 03's) are running in the mid - high $30K's to very low $40K's, then the 2000R is doing very well for a car that is 2-3 years older and still running in the mid $30K's to mid $40K's. The miles are the real factor at this time with the above mentioned price gap on the 2000R. Then again, if you were to put a 15,000 - 20,000 mile 00R up for sale, it would be less money. I have not seen many, if any, regularly used daily driver 2000R's for sale, most have 4 digit miles or less and many of the 4 digit mile cars are below 5000 miles. It also seems to be a "how many pop up for sale" at any given time that also drives the price. Right now it seems that a few of the 300 are changing hands. Once the hype was gone on the '03 Cobra, they really did a nose-dive in price. I still feel they, and the '04 Cobra are the "best bang for the buck" of any muscle car out there.
Robert
I did get out my 2000R magazines to find the features on the shoot-outs between the Z06 and 00R.
Automobile Magazine - Aug. 2000 - 385h.p. Duel
The feature is called Crazy Horses.
This is a two way between the new Z06 and the 2000R only.
Manufactures data is all that is listed for 1/4 mile times at the end of this article. The Z06 times listed by Chev. is: 12.6@114mph.
Motor Trend - Aug.2000 - Detroit Muscle Shootout
This is a 3-way inc. the Viper.
Times achieved by the editor(s) in the Z06 is: [email protected]
Motor Trend - Nov. 2000 - High Speed Shootout
This feature includes the Z06, 00R, Viper and some other performance cars.
Times achieved by the editor(s) in the Z06 is: [email protected]
Car and Driver - Nov.2001 - Yankee Boomers
This is a 3-way inc. the Z06, 00R and Viper.
The time achieved by the editor(s) is: 13.0@112
I did not look in my Road & Track magazines with 2000R info. I don't remember them doing a 2 or 3-way shootout.
By the listing in the first magazine (Automobile Magazine), the spec. listed by Chev. for the '01 385h.p. Z06 to the 405h.p. Z06 have gotton faster by 3 tens in the 1/4 mile times for what ever reason. Maybe the 405h.p., maybe other updates and technology upgrades, tires? What ever the reason, the newer 405h.p. Z06 has definitly gotten faster by Chevrolets own specs.
Robert
Automobile Magazine - Aug. 2000 - 385h.p. Duel
The feature is called Crazy Horses.
This is a two way between the new Z06 and the 2000R only.
Manufactures data is all that is listed for 1/4 mile times at the end of this article. The Z06 times listed by Chev. is: 12.6@114mph.
Motor Trend - Aug.2000 - Detroit Muscle Shootout
This is a 3-way inc. the Viper.
Times achieved by the editor(s) in the Z06 is: [email protected]
Motor Trend - Nov. 2000 - High Speed Shootout
This feature includes the Z06, 00R, Viper and some other performance cars.
Times achieved by the editor(s) in the Z06 is: [email protected]
Car and Driver - Nov.2001 - Yankee Boomers
This is a 3-way inc. the Z06, 00R and Viper.
The time achieved by the editor(s) is: 13.0@112
I did not look in my Road & Track magazines with 2000R info. I don't remember them doing a 2 or 3-way shootout.
By the listing in the first magazine (Automobile Magazine), the spec. listed by Chev. for the '01 385h.p. Z06 to the 405h.p. Z06 have gotton faster by 3 tens in the 1/4 mile times for what ever reason. Maybe the 405h.p., maybe other updates and technology upgrades, tires? What ever the reason, the newer 405h.p. Z06 has definitly gotten faster by Chevrolets own specs.
Robert
My '95R went 13.7/102 stock. Right in line with the LTI Vette's 300hp rating. After I replaced the cats and mufflers with an off-road x-pipe and Flowmasters, along with BFG DR's, it went 13.18 at 106+, and with practice I'm SURE it can go 12's. FWIW.
Mike - Thanks for that info. That is right in line with the SVT info.
Robert
Users who are viewing this thread
