ls3 ss 430hp!!!

I just had and update last night on autobook and this is what changed in the power tain tab
Prepared By:

administrator









2010 Retail Chevrolet Camaro 2dr Cpe 2SS 1ET37

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

POWERTRAIN - BASIC SPECIFICATIONS - 2010 Retail 1ET37 2dr Cpe 2SS



ENGINE

Engine Order Code LS3

Engine Type HO Gas V8

Displacement 6.2L/378 CID

SAE Net Horsepower @ RPM 430@ 5900

SAE Net Torque (lb ft) @ RPM 424 @ 4600

TRANSMISSION

Transmission order code MN6

Transmission Type Description 6-Speed Manual

Drive Train Rear wheel drive

MILEAGE

City EPA fuel economy estimate (MPG) - TBD -

Hwy EPA fuel economy estimate (MPG) - TBD -

City cruising range (mi) - TBD -

Hwy cruising range (mi) - TBD -

* Indicates equipment which is in addition to or replaces base model's standard equipment.



Report content is based on current data version referenced. Any performance-related calculations are offered solely as

guidelines. Actual unit performance will depend on your operating conditions.

GM AutoBook, Data Version: 144.1, Data updated 11/11/2008 11:29:00 AM

©Copyright 1986-2005 Chrome Systems Corporation. All rights reserved.

Customer File:

November 13, 2008 9:26:31 AM Page 1Prepared By:

administrator









2010 Retail Chevrolet Camaro 2dr Cpe 2SS 1ET37

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

POWERTRAIN - ADVANCED SPECIFICATIONS - 2010 Retail 1ET37 2dr Cpe 2SS



TRANSMISSION

Gear Ratio (:1)

First Gear Ratio (:1) 3.01

Second Gear Ratio (:1) 2.07

Third Gear Ratio (:1) 1.43

Fourth Gear Rato (:1) 1.00

Fifth Gear Ratio (:1) 0.84

Sixth Gear Ratio (:1) 0.57

Reverse Ratio (:1) 3.28

Clutch size (in) - TBD -

Final Drive Axle Ratio (:1) 3.45

ELECTRICAL

Battery 1

Battery cold cranking Amps @ 0 F - TBD -

Alternator

Alternator Amps 150.00

COOLING SYSTEM

Cooling system capacity - TBD -

* Indicates equipment which is in addition to or replaces base model's standard equipment.



Report content is based on current data version referenced. Any performance-related calculations are offered solely as

guidelines. Actual unit performance will depend on your operating conditions.

GM AutoBook, Data Version: 144.1, Data updated 11/11/2008 11:29:00 AM

©Copyright 1986-2005 Chrome Systems Corporation. All rights reserved.

Customer File:

November 13, 2008 9:26:31 AM Page 2Prepared By:

administrator









2010 Retail Chevrolet Camaro 2dr Cpe 2SS 1ET37

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

PAYLOAD/TRAILERING SPECIFICATIONS - 2010 Retail 1ET37 2dr Cpe 2SS



WEIGHT INFORMATION

Base curb weight (lbs) 3,860.00

TRAILERING Max Trailer Wt. Max Tongue Load

Dead Weight Hitch (lbs)

Weight Distributing Hitch (lbs)

Fifth Wheel Hitch (lbs)

* Indicates equipment which is in addition to or replaces base model's standard equipment.



Report content is based on current data version referenced. Any performance-related calculations are offered solely as

guidelines. Actual unit performance will depend on your operating conditions.

GM AutoBook, Data Version: 144.1, Data updated 11/11/2008 11:29:00 AM

©Copyright 1986-2005 Chrome Systems Corporation. All rights reserved.

Customer File:

November 13, 2008 9:26:31 AM Page 3Prepared By:

administrator









2010 Retail Chevrolet Camaro 2dr Cpe 2SS 1ET37

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

CHASSIS SPECIFICATIONS - 2010 Retail 1ET37 2dr Cpe 2SS



SUSPENSION Front Rear

Suspension Type Multi-Link Strut 4.5-Link Independen

Suspension Type (cont.) Double Ball Joint

Shock Absorber Diameter (mm) - TBD - - TBD -

Stabilizer Bar Diameter (in) - TBD - - TBD -

BRAKES

Brake type Pwr

ABS System 4-wheel

Front Rear

Disc Yes Yes

Rotor Diam x Thickness (in) 14 x 1.26 14.4 x 1.1

Drum

Drum Diam x Width (in)

TIRES Front Rear Spare

Tire Order Code QOO QOO

Tire Size P245/45R20 P275/40R20

WHEELS Front Rear Spare

Wheel Size 20 x 8 20 x 9

Wheel Type Aluminum Aluminum

STEERING

Steering type Pwr

Ratio (:1)

Overall 16.10

Lock-to-Lock Turns 2.50

Turning Diameter

Curb-to-Curb 37.70

Wall-to-Wall - TBD -



Report content is based on current data version referenced. Any performance-related calculations are offered solely as

guidelines. Actual unit performance will depend on your operating conditions.

GM AutoBook, Data Version: 144.1, Data updated 11/11/2008 11:29:00 AM

©Copyright 1986-2005 Chrome Systems Corporation. All rights reserved.

Customer File:

November 13, 2008 9:26:31 AM Page 4Prepared By:

administrator









2010 Retail Chevrolet Camaro 2dr Cpe 2SS 1ET37

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

CHASSIS SPECIFICATIONS - 2010 Retail 1ET37 2dr Cpe 2SS



FUEL TANK Main

Capacity 19.00

* Indicates equipment which is in addition to or replaces base model's standard equipment.



Report content is based on current data version referenced. Any performance-related calculations are offered solely as

guidelines. Actual unit performance will depend on your operating conditions.

GM AutoBook, Data Version: 144.1, Data updated 11/11/2008 11:29:00 AM

©Copyright 1986-2005 Chrome Systems Corporation. All rights reserved.

Customer File:

November 13, 2008 9:26:31 AM Page 5Prepared By:

administrator









2010 Retail Chevrolet Camaro 2dr Cpe 2SS 1ET37

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

DIMENSIONS - 2010 Retail 1ET37 2dr Cpe 2SS



EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS

Wheelbase (in) 112.30

Length, Overall (in) 190.40

Width, Max w/o mirrors (in) 75.50

Height, Overall (in) 54.20

Tread Width

Tread Width, Front 63.7

Tread Width, Rear 63.7

Min Ground Clearance (in) - TBD -

CARGO AREA DIMENSIONS

Liftover Height (in) - TBD -

Trunk Volume 11.3

INTERIOR DIMENSIONS

Passenger Capacity 4

Passenger Volume (ft³) - TBD -

EPA Classification Compact

Seating Position Front Second

Head Room (in) 37.40 35.30

Leg Room (in) 42.40 29.90

Shoulder Room (in) 56.90 42.50

Hip Room (in) - TBD - - TBD -

* Indicates equipment which is in addition to or replaces base model's standard equipment.



Report content is based on current data version referenced. Any performance-related calculations are offered solely as

guidelines. Actual unit performance will depend on your operating conditions.

GM AutoBook, Data Version: 144.1, Data updated 11/11/2008 11:29:00 AM

©Copyright 1986-2005 Chrome Systems Corporation. All rights reserved.

Customer File:
"
November 13, 2008 9:26:31 AM Page 6"

Cool, lots of good info in there. I wonder if it really will be 430hp... :)

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/sema/camaro/camaro_sitelet.html

The Dale Jr. version at SEMA has 430hp and 444 ft-lb.... I like

"L-92 type" rectangular port heads heads, int/exh: 0.551/0.522 lift, 204/211 dur, 2.165"/1.59" for a wide flat touque curve...anyone wanna take a stab at the LSA??

I have no doubt that the LS3 is rated 430hp in either Vette or Camaro but what does the difference in intake and exhaust seen on the Camaro do to that power output. In any event 422hp is just fine with me. The LS3 and it's potential is the key.

Very interesting...wonder if that is really true and will the L99 be rated higher than 400 hp when it finally is SAE certified.

I'm gonna guess 412 for the auto. Or 422. :p

I'm gonna guess 412 for the auto. Or 422. :p

That sounds allright to me! Would be glad to see a hp bump when my Camaro with auto comes in Feb/March.

Nice. Even though it really doesn't matter that much, that puts it up over the SRT8.

Nice. Even though it really doesn't matter that much, that puts it up over the SRT8.

:yes:

19 gallon tank?!?! Sheeesh! Getting like 25mpg, thats 475 miles to the tank!!
If could squeek out 30mpg, thats nearly 600 miles to a tank!!
430hp, thats cool too.

I'm willing to bet that the LS3 is 430 horse power. It is the same engine that is in the C6, and I doubt GM would honestly spend the extra money to detune it. They probably just rate it lower so Corvette owners don't get upset. Just my Opinion though.

I'm willing to bet that the LS3 is 430 horse power. It is the same engine that is in the C6, and I doubt GM would honestly spend the extra money to detune it.

It's not about spending extra money. The intake and exhaust are different, and so it won't necessarily have the same amount of power.

Here's hoping it does. :D

Funny that the G8 GXP is 415, while the Camaro gets a supposed 15hp bump?

The C6, G8, and Camaro all have true dual exhaust with an X pipe, and from the pics I've seen all appear to be a similar diameter pipe with similar number and quality of bends.

Power under the 430hp mark is due to either (a) its 430hp and they just mark it less to keep vettes happy (b) due to really bad mufflers and/or cats (c) exhaust manifolds that are terrible or (d) a de-tune.

Awesome looking G8 underside shot for reference :D

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/2761/g8exhaustcz0.jpg

They shouldn't be able to fudge the numbers. All they can do is design components like the intake and exhaust to get the numbers they want.

thanks for information

The C6, G8, and Camaro all have true dual exhaust with an X pipe, and from the pics I've seen all appear to be a similar diameter pipe with similar number and quality of bends.

Power under the 430hp mark is due to either (a) its 430hp and they just mark it less to keep vettes happy (b) due to really bad mufflers and/or cats (c) exhaust manifolds that are terrible or (d) a de-tune.

Awesome looking G8 underside shot for reference :D

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/2761/g8exhaustcz0.jpg

it will not be underrated. the engine is going to SAE certified and, therefor, impossible to be underrated.

Power under the 430hp mark is due to either (a) its 430hp and they just mark it less to keep vettes happy (b) due to really bad mufflers and/or cats (c) exhaust manifolds that are terrible or (d) a de-tune.
Or (e), a more restrictive air intake.

it will not be underrated. the engine is going to SAE certified and, therefor, impossible to be underrated.

SAE certification prevents overrating, not underrating.

it will not be underrated. the engine is going to SAE certified and, therefor, impossible to be underrated.

Seen the 08 Vettes dyno? About ~390 is common, with a 15% loss which is commonly used for the T56/RWD platform that's 461 hp.

Or (e), a more restrictive air intake.



SAE certification prevents overrating, not underrating.

you obviously have not read about the SAE certification process and it's rules. go to their website and check it out. it prevents both underrating and overrating. its +-1%.

Seen the 08 Vettes dyno? About ~390 is common, with a 15% loss which is commonly used for the T56/RWD platform that's 461 hp.

15% is obviously wrong then. its closer to 11-12%, and maybe even less on high powered engines. There's no way around the SAE certification Horsepower number. check out their website.

Seen the 08 Vettes dyno? About ~390 is common, with a 15% loss which is commonly used for the T56/RWD platform that's 461 hp.

15% is a ridiculously high amount of drivetrain loss for a T56. That amount may be "commonly used," but only by those who assume that a T56 is no more efficient than a traditional 4- or 5-speed manual.

Also, the '08 Vette uses the TR6060, which is the successor to the T56.

On a stock LS1 M6 F-body, 12-13% loss is typical. As horsepower increases, expect the percentage loss to decrease.

As horsepower increases, expect the percentage loss to decrease.

Wrong again. It actually increases.

Wrong again. It actually increases.

It increases for automatic transmissions. We're talking about the T56 / TR6060.

I don't have the data handy, but I've seen proof that 400bhp through a T56 and a 9" yields a higher percentage of drivetrain loss than 500bhp through the same drivetrain.

It increases for automatic transmissions. We're talking about the T56 / TR6060.


It takes more work to do something faster. There's also more drag, etc at higher speeds.

It takes more work to do something faster. There's also more drag, etc at higher speeds.

just proportional gains will do that.

and drivetrain losses is different than aero losses.

I have also seen higher hp cars lose less through the drivetrain proportionally than lower hp cars. nothing major, like 2%.

It takes more work to do something faster. There's also more drag, etc at higher speeds.

I'm not arguing physics, I'm arguing results. As I said, I've seen proof. (IIRC, it came from Injuneer.) If you have data to the contrary, I'm all ears.

I got a PM asking if I could stop by this thread and make a comment.

There are three general types of losses:

1) Frictional. This will tend to be proportional to the increase in torque in the gearbox, and the increase in speed.
2) Viscous. These losses increase only with speed, and tend to be much less significant than frictional losses at the sort of loads and speeds that we're talking about with automotive gearboxes (the same might not be true when talking about devices that operate at much higher speeds and much lower loads).
3) Inertial. These losses are proportional to the rate of acceleration, and aren't really "losses" in the sense of talking about steady-state power losses - but since inertia dynos are dynamic in nature (as is real-world driving), they must be considered.

If the viscous losses dominated the measured losses in the powertrain, then it'd be possible that increasing the engine output might result in a decreased in measured losses (just so long as the rotational speed of the drivetrain elements didn't increase). But typically, frictional losses will dominate the measured losses in the powertrain, and so it's highly unlikely that the overall powertrain efficiency will increase with more engine output - in fact, the opposite is likely to occur.

I'd love to see data that shows the opposite effect. I suspect that there are test abnormalities, minor measurement errors, or other changes in the vehicle setup that would make it very difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison that shows a net decrease in the percentage loss incurred in the powertrain.

Put in simple terms - more power is going to almost always mean proportionally greater losses.

Put in simple terms - more power is going to almost always mean proportionally greater losses.

Makes sense... I guess I'll have to ask Fred to confirm/deny my memory of his results. :)

My tests - engine dyno vs chassis dyno - showed:

McLeod Street Twin/Steel flywheel/T56/3" CM DS/Strange 12-bolt/3.73:1/17x9.5 OZ wheels w/ 275/40-17 GS-C's:

NA: 486 flywheelHP / 425 rwHP = 12.55% loss

1-stage N2O: 635 flywheelHP / 557 rwHP = 12.28% loss

2-stage N2O: 765 flywheelHP / 672.5 rwHP = 12.09% loss

TH400/5000rpm flash, non-locking converter/3" CM DS/Strange 12-bolt/4.11:1/17x11 ZR1 wheels w/ 315/35-17 BFG DR's:

NA: 486 flywheelHP / 390 rwHP = 19.8% loss

1-stage N2O: 635 flywheelHP / 507 rwHP = 20.2% loss

2-stage N2O: 765 flywheelHP / 602 rwHP = 21.3% loss

One complication.... on an engine dyno, the RPM/sec acceleration can be controlled at a constant value, standardizing the inertial losses. On a DynoJet, a more powerful engine will accelerate faster, increasing the inertial losses.

Thanks, Fred. I'm glad to hear that my mind isn't playing tricks on me. :)

Eric / anyone, does the complication Fred mentioned explain the anomaly?

Thanks, Fred. I'm glad to hear that my mind isn't playing tricks on me. :)

Eric / anyone, does the complication Fred mentioned explain the anomaly?

You're measuring 2 different things, 2 different dynos

Different run times, not to mention the differences are VERY small in some cases

You're measuring 2 different things, 2 different dynos
Do you have a better way to measure drivetrain loss than with two different dynos?

Different run times, not to mention the differences are VERY small in some cases
True. It's also a very limited data set. There is a consistent trend, however, and I have yet to see anyone post actual results that indicate otherwise.

:shrug:

Other than the fact that I said it takes more work to do something faster, no.

You can measure drivetrain loss with a "negative run" on the dyno... Simply start recording the run AFTER the car has accelerated and starts to drop speed. After you are tired, you will see that the drivetrain accounts for very little. Granted the trans is pretty much disengaged, but you could do a trans in gear/Clutch depressed type of thing to try it out.

I've seen a corvette only loose 9rwhp like this... so go figure.

Im not an engineer, so if Im wrong Im sure someone will correct me.

People post about drivetrain losses as a fixed percentage a lot. I hear about it most on the 5.0 boards it seems.

From the factory a certain chassis, engine, and drivetrain combo results in a rated flywheel HP number; and then when put on a dyno a RWHP number. Its easy math to figure out the difference as a % of loss.

What a LOT of people forget is that with no more mods to the vehicle other than increasing HP, IE same clutch, driveshaft, rearend, and wheels; the drivetrain still takes the SAME amount of work to turn it. In other words, there will be a bit more loss due to the greater work the motor is putting on it; but not a fixed percentage of the total hp. It will be more of a percentage loss of the original amount that the chassis loses. For example, if a 400hp car makes 350 at the tires. The drivetrain loses 50hp. increasing the hp will increase the % of the 50 thats lost, not the original 400.

OR to put it another way, a 400hp car dynoes 350 to the tire looses 12.5% through the drivetrain. Put in a 1200 hp motor, and the same drivetrain and the loses ARENT going to be the same fixed 12.5% (would now 150 hp lost). More like the same 50 hp + a % of that 50. Even if the drivetrain loss grew by 100% because the same amount of work is being done faster, you would only have 100hp lost to the rear wheels.

And Im willing to bet that the increase wont be 100%, probably more like 10-25% more hp robbed. of the 50hp that the drivetrain consumes.

GRANTED, Im talking about stick shift cars where there aren't slippage issue's with a tq converter.

The WS6 website has a coastdown dyno test. The losses are calcualted at 16.3HP with a 1LE aluminum DS, and 14.5HP with an ACPT CF DS. That represents the "inertial" portion of drivetrain loss. That is a "fixed" value, as long as the mass is accelerated at the same rate.

http://www.ws6.com/mod-10.htm

In simplified terms, the balance of the losses in a manual trans drivetrain are primarily frictional losses, which are proportional to the power being transmitted.

The total loss is inertial + frictional, and since one element of the equation if a fixed value, the percent of flywheel power lost will drop as the power transmitted goes up.

as long as the mass is accelerated at the same rate.

But is that the case? More HP => higher rate of acceleration.

The faster you accelerate the the rotating mass, the more energy is absorbs = more HP consumed. As I noted earlier, "brake" style engine dynos, and Mustang dynos are capable of controlling the rate of engine acceleration, and can eliminate the effects inertia energy absorbtion CHANGES due to HP level. The DynoJet is not a brake style dyno, and can not eliminate these changes in loss due to a more powerful engine accelerating the rotating mass of the drivetrain more rapidly.

If I could have eliminated the effects of using the DynoJet for my rear wheel numbers, I could have solved for the "fixed" and variable components of loss, using simultaneous equations.

I'm willing to bet that the LS3 is 430 horse power. It is the same engine that is in the C6, and I doubt GM would honestly spend the extra money to detune it. They probably just rate it lower so Corvette owners don't get upset. Just my Opinion though.

corvette owners won't get upset....as long as the camaro stays at 3900++pounds it's no threat.

corvette owners won't get upset....as long as the camaro stays at 3900++pounds it's no threat.

Then I guess at 3880 they should be worried...

GM doesnt spend money to detune it. Thigns like exhaust work, muffler tuning, and even the PCM calibration for the car can cause the power to drop off compared to other cars.

corvette owners won't get upset....as long as the camaro stays at 3900++pounds it's no threat.

Corvette owners also have the 505Hp and 638HP options as well, so if 430HP/436HP is not enough, then there is always more. :D

I was told on Saturday when I placed my order it should be around 430horse same as the corvette. I will know soon my order was excepted Today by GM. they start production next week

I was told on Saturday when I placed my order it should be around 430horse same as the corvette. I will know soon my order was excepted Today by GM. they start production next week

The LS3 for the SS has been SAE certified at 426HP.

I was told on Saturday when I placed my order it should be around 430horse same as the corvette. I will know soon my order was excepted Today by GM. they start production next week

You placed an order this past week and are going to production already.....?

426hp is awesome for a stock vehicle at this price. I plan on eventually adding an STS Turbo system to it (I'm sure they will produce one) to bump it closer to 600hp and a small gain in gas mileage.:D

Wow great info to know.....

You placed an order this past week and are going to production already.....?

He said "they start production" next week (and he said that on 3/10) -- not that his car was up for production.

OK...I see now, misunderstood.