These don't really do 13.53 stock do they ?

[James_Montigny]

The sales brochure from 1993 lists the hawk (300hp/330tq) as running 13.53@103.5 mph and a 4.9sec 0-60 time. (0.8 sec faster than a 93 Vette)

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/ ... times.html quotes it with similar numbers (presumably from a reliable source)
1993 Pontiac Firebird Firehawk (4.9 13.5)


I'm having a hard time believing that.
I have not been to the track with it yet, (not that I have the driving skill to pull that off).

What do you think? (and to the other '93 owners, how did yours do?)

[willi]

i say no..........they don't in stock form. i run my 94..315 hp hawk with nitto drag radials,auto and it turns 14.20....14.40 at 98 mph. i just had the trans done with race parts and different servos. it will shift better but haven't tried it yet. maybe a couple tents at most on a good day. i don't have to race it, i have a super street camaro 10.90 car that i race alot. the numbers you see are as a reference, but i ain't seen anyboby turn what they say....besides these are under ideal conditions,which we very seldome have. see what it runs and go from there. write back and let us guys know. we all like to see what other people do.............at least..me........RON

[02hawk796]

Not all of the engines are exactly the same, obviously. Therefore you might have a slower one that can't accomplish the normal numbers.
Those figures look like the ones from the car&driver and motortrend tests.
Those look like slow numbers compared to the stock LS1s I saw run at Norwalk, maybe the LT1s are that slow, haven't really paid attention.
Haven't raced mine, but I saw a stock vert '02 Bilstein Hawk (rated 345hp, 350tq), loaded just like mine, do 14.40 at something like 104. With our vert extra weight, I thought that's not too bad. I just don't like driving that fast with the top up.
I actually thought the stock LT1s ran faster than that.
The 02 LS1s were supposed to do 0-60 in 5.0, seemed about right.
Yes, we are faster than vettes. The vette hp is overrated, and in order for Hawks to get the GM warranty, SLP had to rate the Hawk hp as being something like lower than a 2 year old vette and 20hp lower than a current vette. That's GM rules, vette has to have highest hp rating of the stable, no matter how slow it is - gotta get the midlife crisis $$ from the geezers who don't know about cars.

[cheezboygr]

I say a 13 is very possible. My Yellow '94, bone stock with only 13k miles, in the Florida humidity, ran a 14.0 flat, on the original slippery tires, with very little hook-up in 1st gear. The trap speeds were a consistent 102+ mph. A good set of tires, 13's could be had easily.

[Scott Chab]

Don't believe everything you read.

[96bandit]

Under perfect weather and track conditions it is possible with a stock LT1 Hawk.

I would say the avg 1/4 mile time for a stock LT1 Hawk 13.8-14.00 times.

[Firehawk 526]

Don't quote me, but weren't the 2002 Firehawks advertised to run 13.5 -13.8? Just seems to me that regardless of the year, the advertised traps were just a weeeeeeeee bit hyped!

Again, variables such as M6 vs A4's were not published, nor the track conditions, so who can dispute the claim. Indeed a valid question!

[cheezboygr]

The E.T's are all over the board! A set of Nittos, and yes, you'll see 13's. Don't forget that in drag racing, a half a second is huge. Many a racer spends huge amounts of money for even a few tenths. I spent all night to get that 14.0. Out of 4 runs all night, and screwing with tire pressures, all the time reminding myself I was trying to melt a set of tires I could not replace, in a car I could not replace, that that elusive 13.99 was so close, yet so far away. The best part though, I never deviated from 14.0-14.2 for 4 runs, and the trap speeds were always 102 and change. Pretty consistent, and not bad for a bone stock street car with A/C, power accessories, and a 6-speed. That may also be a key to it. Automatics had 3.23's, and 6-speeds had 3.42's. Is there a tenth or two possibly in that gear ratio difference?

[James_Montigny]

The E.T's are all over the board! A set of Nittos, and yes, you'll see 13's.

Hmmm ... I had 275 555s and 315 555Rs on my old car.
Not very street-friendly in the winter

I think this time around I will find me some nice light weight rims for the track and toss some wide sticky tires on there.

[Firehawk 526]

Take-offs are the way to go, if you have the funds and equipment.

[James_Montigny]

Take-offs are the way to go, if you have the funds and equipment.

There's the understatement of the century!

I'll need money for sticky tires
then money for new axles when I twist them
then money for a 12-bolt when I blow the stock pumpkin to bits
then money for a beefed up tranny and converter
then money for a CF driveshaft
then I'll break something else that is expensive

Hmmm .... looks like a series of excuses to keep building a nice car.

"No hon, I don't think it's strange that things on my car keep breaking and I keep buying upgrades"

[Firehawk 526]

Take-offs are the way to go, if you have the funds and equipment.

There's the understatement of the century!

I'll need money for sticky tires
then money for new axles when I twist them
then money for a 12-bolt when I blow the stock pumpkin to bits
then money for a beefed up tranny and converter
then money for a CF driveshaft
then I'll break something else that is expensive

Hmmm .... looks like a series of excuses to keep building a nice car.

"No hon, I don't think it's strange that things on my car keep breaking and I keep buying upgrades"

Lmao....U, ME, and a thousand other OEM problem-solvers. That is why I am still stuck w/boltons only.......10 more car payments as a DD.

[LT4Firehawk]

My 95 Formula M6 with catback, K&N FIPK and Goodyear RSA 245 tires ran 14.0 very consistantly (with a rare 13.9). That car dynoed at 258RWHP (303HP using a 15% driveline loss), so that should give you a more realistic estimate for a car making the advertised HP. Of course the 275 tires on the Hawk might improve the time a little (maybe up to .2 sec). Also the 93 f-bodies did have a different tranny ratio available, which gave them about an effective 3.90 rear end, which would be good for maybe another .1-.2. So yes, on a perfect day, with a really good driver, a 93 Hawk with the G92 tranny might run 13.5.

For a referernce, my LT4 Hawk runs 13.2-13.3 in the quater, but that's with the proper ECM tuning and Nitto 555 RIIs (but I think there's still another .1-.2 that may be gotten out of it).

[James_Montigny]

For a referernce, my LT4 Hawk runs 13.2-13.3 in the quater, but that's with the proper ECM tuning and Nitto 555 RIIs (but I think there's still another .1-.2 that may be gotten out of it).

Evan
97 LT4 Firehawk #27, 311RWHP/326TQ

Going to dyno for the first time this weekend.
Hoping to see decent numbers.
Trying to hit the track this weekend or next.
I'll post my timeslips.

[Dave Hamburger]

Whenever we would test a vehicle, we would test at Englishtown, NJ during March in optimal conditions.

We used an average of three drivers (magazine, a professional and an SLP tech) - the average time would be the printed time.

The F-bodies are all over the board with times, I remember in '97 we tested a bone stock SS 6spd car and the average time we pulled was somewhere in the 13.38's. Scott Kallita (top fuel driver) got in the car and then ripped out a 12.27 and he backed it up with a 12.29! (we didn't advertise that time). In 1999, I drove a bone stock Formula Firehawk six speed at Napierville Dragway outside of Montreal. Out of the box I ran 13.30's and then with my slicks I ran a 13.05.


Sea Level, Barometric Pressure, Track Conditions, Driver capabilities and the car all play a part in your ET's. Just because you may be in Denver at Bandimere Speedway and you run a 14.40 doesn't mean your car is slow. Adjust the ET based on your altitude and you may be surprized!


-Dave