First 2010 Camaro SS 1/4 mile pass by owner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuqGQOu31Hw

13.6 @108 from a 2.360ft.

Not a very exciting pass but probably representative of some very average drivers in this car. No word on how many miles it had.


They are after all in the business of making performance parts for the car.

wow two tenths quicker then an LT1.:rolleyes:

if he learned to drive the car would be quicker.

So basically, when I take MY camaro to the track, and use MY horrible driving skills, I can expect a 14.6 @ 108?

So basically, when I take MY camaro to the track, and use MY horrible driving skills, I can expect a 14.6 @ 108?no you should do better.:)

If you listen to the video the guy states that he will shift at 6K. I think that's a bit low for the LS3 so add short shifting to a bad launch and you get a high ET and slow trap.

wow two tenths quicker then an LT1.:rolleyes:

if he learned to drive the car would be quicker.

:rolleyes: right back at you. The guy has obviously had no practice launching the car, and he's already two tenths quicker than the fastest time anybody has ever gotten out of a stock LT1.

It may or may not be about "learning to drive". It might just be learning that car's quirks. :)

If you listen to the video the guy states that he will shift at 6K. I think that's a bit low for the LS3 so add short shifting to a bad launch and you get a high ET and slow trap.

+1.. thats true.. it looks like he didnt try too hard, maybe because the car hasnt been broken in fully...

sounded like he shift at like 5000 to third and then 4500 into 4th heh

:rolleyes: right back at you. The guy has obviously had no practice launching the car, and he's already two tenths quicker than the fastest time anybody has ever gotten out of a stock LT1.

It may or may not be about "learning to drive". It might just be learning that car's quirks. :)hit a nerve?:p

hit a nerve?:p

Nah, I'm just a stickler for accuracy. :)

Nah, I'm just a stickler for accuracy. :)then why quote me? i didn't say anything inaccurate.;)

FACT: car went two tenths faster then a LT1 car

FACT: the 5th gen is quicker then that.


:)

Hmm I just can't see shifting an LS series motor at 6000RPM for best ET or MPH. But I am not a professional or anything. Hopefully they weren't trying to intentionally sandbag.

Interestingly enough that is about what I did (ET and MPH) at Lonestar a couple summers back in my "LS6" Formula except my 60's were worse and I had a little more drama in my launches. I had no luck hooking on street tires there and so the auto was shifting out of 1st at like 4000RPM :( (which has since been fixed with different shift point tuning). Hopefully they prepped it a little better for this run.

didnt they say it was supposed to do 13 flat? he had a pretty bad start. looked like he bogged it down. kinda slow shifting too.

then why quote me? i didn't say anything inaccurate.;)

I guess maybe it's not an issue of "accuracy", but comparing the best time ever accomplished with a stock LT1 to the first time ever reported for a 5th gen is pretty dumb, especially when you throw a :rolleyes: at the end, implying that the guy obviously didn't know what he was doing.

I wonder what the first drag time was on an LT1 back in '93?

video said the first thing you do when you get a muscle car is to take it to the track and run it down the track but wouldn't the first thing you want to do is to break in the engine?

video said the first thing you do when you get a muscle car is to take it to the track and run it down the track but wouldn't the first thing you want to do is to break in the engine?

Maybe he has a long drive to the track. :shrug:

I guess maybe it's not an issue of "accuracy", but comparing the best time ever accomplished with a stock LT1 to the first time ever reported for a 5th gen is pretty dumb, especially when you throw a :rolleyes: at the end, implying that the guy obviously didn't know what he was doing.

I wonder what the first drag time was on an LT1 back in '93?who said it was the best time? i was using that number based on what i did on the first time going to a track. i am far from the best.

i don't think comparing this car to a 4th gen (both LT1 or LS1) is dumb. it shows how the car has gotten better or not.


i don't think that guy knows what he's doing. i just don't get why you jumped my **** for me stating an opinion.

who said it was the best time? i was using that number based on what i did on the first time going to a track. i am far from the best.
You ran a 13.8 in a bone-stock LT1 on your first try? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think it gets much better than that.

i don't think comparing this car to a 4th gen (both LT1 or LS1) is dumb. it shows how the car has gotten better or not.
There's nothing dumb about comparing 4th gens to 5th gens. There is something dumb about comparing against a time that is clearly not representative of what this car can do in the hands of a skilled driver.

i just don't get why you jumped my **** for me stating an opinion.
I'm just making conversation -- I certainly don't think I "jumped your ****".

Regardless, I reacted the way I did because you used the :rolleyes: smiley.

You ran a 13.8 in a bone-stock LT1 on your first try? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think it gets much better than that.


There's nothing dumb about comparing 4th gens to 5th gens. There is something dumb about comparing against a time that is clearly not representative of what this car can do in the hands of a skilled driver.


I'm just making conversation -- I certainly don't think I "jumped your ****".

Regardless, I reacted the way I did because you used the :rolleyes: smiley.yes i did.

isn't that comparing? seems it is to me.



you rolled your eyes back at me like i was insulting you or something. that to me is "jumping my ****"

you could've disagreed with me without resorting to that.

yes i did.

isn't that comparing? seems it is to me.



you rolled your eyes back at me like i was insulting you or something. that to me is "jumping my ****"

you could've disagreed with me without resorting to that.

I took what you said the same as Jake.

Whether you think it or not, by using the :rolleyes: you implied that the 5th Gen wasn't impressive by comparing it to a 4th Gen LT1. The comparison doesn't make any sense to me either, because like Jake said, it's comparing a horrible time for the 5th gen to possibly the best recorded time ever for a LT1 4th. Stupid comparison. I've seen Z06s run 14s at the track. If I were to say, "Wow that Z06 is on par with a 4th Gen LT1 :rolleyes: " people might take offense to what I said and "jump on my @$$" because everyone knows the driver in the Z06 sucked and the Z06 is a much faster car, and they might think I was being a sarcastic prick.

The bottom line is that we all know the timeslip wasn't impressive, and we all know the 5th gen is faster than a LT1 4th gen. Your comment WAS sarcastic BECAUSE you used the rolleyes. You can argue til you're blue in the face but it doesn't change how people viewed what you said.

If you had worded your post differently, or if you decided against using the :rolleyes: smiley, then there wouldn't have been a problem. The problem here doesn't lie with Jake, the problem begins with your post.

isn't that comparing? seems it is to me.
Yeah, it's a comparison, but not a useful one.

you rolled your eyes back at me like i was insulting you or something. that to me is "jumping my ****"

I felt that you were insulting the guy that ran the 13.6, for not already knowing how to get a good run out of the car before he ever made a pass. He's not here to defend himself, so I'm doing it.

A friend of mine took his '05 GTO to the track for the first time, and his first pass was a 15.xx. We had a good laugh about it, but I certainly didn't roll my eyes at him. I just told him what I could that I thought might help (specifically, that I saw a lot of tire spin and that it sounded like he was shifting really slowly) and sent him back to the staging lanes.

If I had rolled my eyes and said "oh man, GTOs are so slow", I would absolutely have expected him to roll his eyes right back at me.

There is a really good reason why you want to be down right extreme when breaking in an egine. You need the rings to seal completely by scrubing as hard as they can under load to mate correctly with the cylinder walls. This is best accomplished at max rpm for the first 20 miles. By 20 miles the extremely rough edge on the cylinders walls will be gone. Just reving in place will not put as much pressure on the rings as driving does. Seems weird, but that's what they do with airplane engines. They first run them up to 80% on the ground to check everything. Then they fly them flat out for a few hours right by the airport in case something goes wrong and they have to land.

Hal

Seeing as how these #'s are from a known con artist trying to sell me tens of thousands of dollars worth of mods I'm going to take them with a grain of salt.

There is a really good reason why you want to be down right extreme when breaking in an egine. You need the rings to seal completely by scrubing as hard as they can under load to mate correctly with the cylinder walls. This is best accomplished at max rpm for the first 20 miles. By 20 miles the extremely rough edge on the cylinders walls will be gone. Just reving in place will not put as much pressure on the rings as driving does. Seems weird, but that's what they do with airplane engines. They first run them up to 80% on the ground to check everything. Then they fly them flat out for a few hours right by the airport in case something goes wrong and they have to land.

Hal

I agree. When I bought my SS I was hitting the redline in a cloud of smoke leaving the dealership.
I cant imagine what the all the sales people and the insurance guy were thinking as i drove away. Anyhow my SS has close to 90k on the clock with lots of racing on nher and its just as fast as the day I bought it. For a 98 it dynoed 313 rwhp and 331 for the torque bone stock. The best run at the dragstrip was a 13.4 at 107 mph with a 2.0 60 ft.

I agree. When I bought my SS I was hitting the redline in a cloud of smoke leaving the dealership.
I cant imagine what the all the sales people and the insurance guy were thinking as i drove away. Anyhow my SS has close to 90k on the clock with lots of racing on nher and its just as fast as the day I bought it. For a 98 it dynoed 313 rwhp and 331 for the torque bone stock. The best run at the dragstrip was a 13.4 at 107 mph with a 2.0 60 ft.

Those are very good numbers. If you hadn't mentioned it was a '98 I would have thought for sure it was an '01 or '02. :cool:

Hopefully they weren't trying to intentionally sandbag.



Well.....you can then 'honestly' say that the new aftermarket engine cover they developed, ran 4 tenths faster than stock.:think:

as someone posted below the video... He did a burnout on STREET tires. Unless I missed something, not DOT or Slicks... A BURNOUT ON STREET TIRES IN THE WATER CAN HURT YOUR TIME!!!

Street tire burnouts can turn the ruber to gum and give them less grip. Whats worse is he did it in the water which throws the water up in the wheel wells unnecessarily. That water drips on the tires while youre waiting on the tree and can cause a bad launch.

Yeah it looks cool and may be good marketing for how much their products will be perceived as that much improvement but moral is if you have street tires stay out of the water box!

Seeing as how these #'s are from a known con artist trying to sell me tens of thousands of dollars worth of mods I'm going to take them with a grain of salt.

Yea that is a good point.

He seems to be leaving a lot on the table. He can give credit to his go fast parts instead of actually driving the car to the best of its abilities.

“Look my cold air kit and exhaust gained .7 and 4 mph!” -There are some who will buy that.

I took what you said the same as Jake.

Whether you think it or not, by using the :rolleyes: you implied that the 5th Gen wasn't impressive by comparing it to a 4th Gen LT1. The comparison doesn't make any sense to me either, because like Jake said, it's comparing a horrible time for the 5th gen to possibly the best recorded time ever for a LT1 4th. Stupid comparison. I've seen Z06s run 14s at the track. If I were to say, "Wow that Z06 is on par with a 4th Gen LT1 :rolleyes: " people might take offense to what I said and "jump on my @$$" because everyone knows the driver in the Z06 sucked and the Z06 is a much faster car, and they might think I was being a sarcastic prick.

The bottom line is that we all know the timeslip wasn't impressive, and we all know the 5th gen is faster than a LT1 4th gen. Your comment WAS sarcastic BECAUSE you used the rolleyes. You can argue til you're blue in the face but it doesn't change how people viewed what you said.

If you had worded your post differently, or if you decided against using the :rolleyes: smiley, then there wouldn't have been a problem. The problem here doesn't lie with Jake, the problem begins with your post.wow. i never implied anything. i stated that time was crap. i even stated the 5th gen is better so how can i imply that the 5th gen isn't impressive when i said otherwise?

as someone posted below the video... He did a burnout on STREET tires. Unless I missed something, not DOT or Slicks... A BURNOUT ON STREET TIRES IN THE WATER CAN HURT YOUR TIME!!!

Street tire burnouts can turn the ruber to gum and give them less grip. Whats worse is he did it in the water which throws the water up in the wheel wells unnecessarily. That water drips on the tires while youre waiting on the tree and can cause a bad launch.

Yeah it looks cool and may be good marketing for how much their products will be perceived as that much improvement but moral is if you have street tires stay out of the water box!

I want my tires to turn to "gum" at the dragstrip. However, nothing is going to do that to stock street tires. Doing a burnout with them is fairly useless, but it isn't going to hurt traction either.

Different story of course if water was still in the tread or in the wheelwell and then dripped down on the starting line (either from the front or rear tires)....as you stated.

Obviously the ET & MPH from that one car is NOT what a 5th Gen should be expected to run in decent conditions with a decent driver. For example, not long after they came out, I saw two (2) stock 03 Cobra's run 14.3 & 14.4 at ~105 mph side by side down National Trail Raceway near Columbus, Ohio. That's certainly not representative of what the cars were capable of.

Won't be long at all till we see the first 12 at over 110 mph. Good drivers in good air at good tracks will go pretty deep into the 12s at a much better mph.

FACT: car went two tenths faster then a LT1 car

FACT: the 5th gen is quicker then that.


:)

Good info for most of us regulars here at CZ28.Com :p

Good info for most of us regulars here at CZ28.Com :p
:lol:

I want my tires to turn to "gum" at the dragstrip. However, nothing is going to do that to stock street tires. Doing a burnout with them is fairly useless, but it isn't going to hurt traction either.
.

Youre confirming alot of what I was trying to say. The DOT or slicks Im guessing you use essentiall turn to something kinda akin to duct tape grabbing the track which Im sure you know. Even a set of Slicks on a quick car need track thats had a few good slicks ran beforehand so the track can grab the tires back to get a good or even a safe run. Yes Ive this go very bad... Point I think we agree on is burnouts dont help street tires, but I think some starters have mentioned burnouts can hurt street tires but its been a long time so I may not remember that correctly.


Different story of course if water was still in the tread or in the wheelwell and then dripped down on the starting line (either from the front or rear tires)....as you stated..

yes that does hurt things and it is not that rare. Starters sometimes have to go over and mop up from water left on the line.


Obviously the ET & MPH from that one car is NOT what a 5th Gen should be expected to run in decent conditions with a decent driver. For example, not long after they came out, I saw two (2) stock 03 Cobra's run 14.3 & 14.4 at ~105 mph side by side down National Trail Raceway near Columbus, Ohio. That's certainly not representative of what the cars were capable of.

Won't be long at all till we see the first 12 at over 110 mph. Good drivers in good air at good tracks will go pretty deep into the 12s at a much better mph.

Exactly. I certainly wouldnt take this run as Gospel and compare it to runs at different tracks at different conditions. The burnout was all show and may have hurt the run. Barometer and temp are also a factor as well as a dozen other things.:D

Ok, hang on a second here, the guy running the Camaro owns/works at a performance shop??? :confused: Then you'd THINK he's used to running way more powerful cars than a "measely" ~426 HP 2010 Camaro SS?! ;)

If you've done ANY drag racing, and driven the car you're about to drag race AT ALL, any "competent driver" SHOULD be able to do better than a ~13.6 @ 108!?!? :irk: That's pretty f'n lame if you ask me, so I'll throw the :rolleyes: at it too. If this were just some Joe Blow-Bought-a-Camaro, I'd forgive them. But a guy who works at a shop? C'mon. If I were around performance cars all day, every day, I'd damn well know how to drive them better than that! (fact is, I'm not, yet I HAVE driven WAY better than that!)

Also, did the guy only do ONE single run? Not even a second "make-up" run?? :shrug: Hmmm. Who goes to the strip and does ONE crappy run and walks away? :rolleyes:

And for the record, Mr. :rolleyes: 97z28/m6 ran a 13.75 in a bone-stock '97 Z28, not 13.8 ... I was there to witness it ;). So really, the 2010 "only" ran ~.15 seconds faster!

Ok, hang on a second here, the guy running the Camaro owns/works at a performance shop??? :confused: Then you'd THINK he's used to running way more powerful cars than a "measely" ~426 HP 2010 Camaro SS?! ;)

If you've done ANY drag racing, and driven the car you're about to drag race AT ALL, any "competent driver" SHOULD be able to do better than a ~13.6 @ 108!?!? :irk: That's pretty f'n lame if you ask me, so I'll throw the :rolleyes: at it too. If this were just some Joe Blow-Bought-a-Camaro, I'd forgive them. But a guy who works at a shop? C'mon. If I were around performance cars all day, every day, I'd damn well know how to drive them better than that! (fact is, I'm not, yet I HAVE driven WAY better than that!)

Also, did the guy only do ONE single run? Not even a second "make-up" run?? :shrug: Hmmm. Who goes to the strip and does ONE crappy run and walks away? :rolleyes:

And for the record, Mr. :rolleyes: 97z28/m6 ran a 13.75 in a bone-stock '97 Z28, not 13.8 ... I was there to witness it ;). So really, the 2010 "only" ran ~.15 seconds faster!

He probably only posted the slowest run of the day :lol:
Where's the Henneescrewed picture?

I'd hope this isn't a true sign of what the car can do, but I don't think we should be so fast to go by it.

I'd hope this isn't a true sign of what the car can do, but I don't think we should be so fast to go by it.


Why would it? C&D (or M/T I can't remember) got the car to go 13.0. There drivers are never that great. This guy obviously doesn't know what he is doing.

I never trust magazine tests. I think we should all wait for more results to make a decision.

Oh he's such a dork because he's probably a beginner and you could do better, good for you.

That looks like a pretty good time to me. Look at the 60' - 2.36? If he can pull a 2.0 he should knock .7 seconds off his time. And that is completely unmodded. Those cars will be easy high 11's with bolt-ons by the end of the summer.

-Geoff

He probably only posted the slowest run of the day :lol:
I guess so!? I mean seriously, who goes to the track and does ONE run?????? :think: :no: There's no way they'd post the slowest time, so that must be the best he did? :shrug:

In the CAR'S defence, my LS1 didn't impress me on either of my first two visits to the track, with very low mileage on the car. Granted, it was a 2.73 geared automatic, so not exactly the fastest combo, but it was about ~6 tenths slower than a few months later, with a few thousand miles on the clock, and no other changes :cool:. Maybe there's still hope for this car/driver? ;)

I'd still like to run one myself though ... I've managed to be somewhat quick & consistant at the track, so I still think I could do better than that :p.

Heck, my bone-stock LS1, with 3.23 gears behind the T56, managed to do a 13.4 @ 107 on my very first run at the track! (this was after doing the 6-speed swap). 3.90 gears and a set of headers, and I pulled a 12.8 @ 110 :shrug:.

Remember that this run was done by Hennessey. There bussiness is to sell tuner cars. It might not be in there best interest to do the best run they can with the new camaro. That way there tuner camaro would look all that much better. I'd like to see a video comparison of the run on Youtube and one of there finished tuner car and see if they drive there modifide car the same way

Definetly break in the motor first, and learn the ins-and-outs of the car. Then we will see what it can do! ;)

Good mph at least. I saw a GT500 run a 13.5 at Milan a couple years ago and that has 70 more ponies than the Camaro. Ya just gotta get used to the car.

Woah. Hating is strong in this thread. Not bad, with some practice it will run right with LS1s. Which is about what I expected. :/

Woah. Hating is strong in this thread. Not bad, with some practice it will run right with LS1s. Which is about what I expected. :/

Speaking strictly for myself, I never intended to put the driver down. I just thought it was a bit unfair to strictly hold the 5th gen's feet to the fire for comparison on this one run, and saw some problems with the run for doing that.

Having said that its a pretty cool video, and I am jelous.

This guy sucks balls....

i'd be the last one to try to defend the car, i think its a pig regardless. But i guess i'm defending huh...

one run...a worthless 60ft.....with an 'almost' trap speed. He couldn't launch the car and his shifts were average at best.

Ok, hang on a second here, the guy running the Camaro owns/works at a performance shop??? :confused: Then you'd THINK he's used to running way more powerful cars than a "measely" ~426 HP 2010 Camaro SS?! ;)

If you've done ANY drag racing, and driven the car you're about to drag race AT ALL, any "competent driver" SHOULD be able to do better than a ~13.6 @ 108!?!? :irk: That's pretty f'n lame if you ask me, so I'll throw the :rolleyes: at it too. If this were just some Joe Blow-Bought-a-Camaro, I'd forgive them. But a guy who works at a shop? C'mon. If I were around performance cars all day, every day, I'd damn well know how to drive them better than that! (fact is, I'm not, yet I HAVE driven WAY better than that!)

Also, did the guy only do ONE single run? Not even a second "make-up" run?? :shrug: Hmmm. Who goes to the strip and does ONE crappy run and walks away? :rolleyes:

And for the record, Mr. :rolleyes: 97z28/m6 ran a 13.75 in a bone-stock '97 Z28, not 13.8 ... I was there to witness it ;). So really, the 2010 "only" ran ~.15 seconds faster!
thats exactly what i was thinking. what a $hitty run! he was shifting like a little girl and he had a terrable jump. someone needs to go to drag racing 101.

thats exactly what i was thinking. what a $hitty run! he was shifting like a little girl and he had a terrable jump. someone needs to go to drag racing 101.
Glad to see at least a few people can agree on this ;).

BTW - shifting at 6000 RPM? Let's see where they shift once they've "modded" it ;). Betcha they shave over 1 second off the run with a CAI and shifting at ~6500 RPM!! :p

With that horrible 60 ft, there is no doubt in my mind that the mph suffered dramatically too. Probably some mph & ET lost in the relatively low-rpm shifting too.

IMHO, the cars will be comparable in 1/4 mile performance to a stock 03/04 Cobra. In other words, many or most will be low 13 second cars at 109-110 mph. Quite a few will run high 12s @ 110-112 mph. Really good drivers in really good conditions at really good tracks will get down into the mid 12s at ~113-114 mph.

And BTW....my 98 Cobra went 13.6 bone stock, so my 12 year old 305 HP car is just as quick as the new 422 HP 5th Gen.

Neener neener neener.

well, where is the highest power range in the rpm? some cars its not necesarilly redline. i dont know where it is in the camaro, thats why i didnt really say anything about the 6k redline.

I'm not sure what any hubub is over this...

2.3 60 foot? Further bench racing is ludricrous at best.

The guy might be a great driver and short shifting a brand new engines isn't all that bad an idea. Find me a person that hasn't blown a launch in an unfamiliar car... At least he took it to the strip rather than the street.

There may also be a slight possibility that the improvements after "tuning" will look more drastic. I tend to see this as a pitch for "upgrades" from a tuner, based on the source of the video.

I'm not a drag racer, but from what I understand, if the nose drops at launch it's a "bog" and thus not the best of passes. It holds true for roadracing, so I don't know why drag racing would be any different.

The shifts sounded 500rpm short to my ear... Hanging in, particularly for third, a bit longer should result in better thrust at the traps...

That level of burnout on street compound radials is useless. High speed street radials are compounded to shed heat very quickly...

With that horrible 60 ft, there is no doubt in my mind that the mph suffered dramatically too. Probably some mph & ET lost in the relatively low-rpm shifting too.

IMHO, the cars will be comparable in 1/4 mile performance to a stock 03/04 Cobra. In other words, many or most will be low 13 second cars at 109-110 mph. Quite a few will run high 12s @ 110-112 mph. Really good drivers in really good conditions at really good tracks will get down into the mid 12s at ~113-114 mph.

And BTW....my 98 Cobra went 13.6 bone stock, so my 12 year old 305 HP car is just as quick as the new 422 HP 5th Gen.

Neener neener neener.

:lol::thumb:

I'm not sure what any hubub is over this...

2.3 60 foot? Further bench racing is ludricrous at best.

The guy might be a great driver and short shifting a brand new engines isn't all that bad an idea. Find me a person that hasn't blown a launch in an unfamiliar car... At least he took it to the strip rather than the street.

There may also be a slight possibility that the improvements after "tuning" will look more drastic. I tend to see this as a pitch for "upgrades" from a tuner, based on the source of the video.

I'm not a drag racer, but from what I understand, if the nose drops at launch it's a "bog" and thus not the best of passes. It holds true for roadracing, so I don't know why drag racing would be any different.

The shifts sounded 500rpm short to my ear... Hanging in, particularly for third, a bit longer should result in better thrust at the traps...

That level of burnout on street compound radials is useless. High speed street radials are compounded to shed heat very quickly...

couldn't have said it better my self. +1

well, where is the highest power range in the rpm? some cars its not necesarilly redline. i dont know where it is in the camaro, thats why i didnt really say anything about the 6k redline.
Peak HP is never AT redline, but you never shift AT your peak HP point (well, unless there is a HUGE power band between TQ peak and HP peak? :shrug: ).

Generally, you run right up to redline, which is always a few hundred RPM above HP peak, because when you shift, it brings the RPMs back down into the power band between TQ peak and HP peak.

The LS3 is "rated" 426 HP @ 6000 RPM, I believe. The redline is set at 6600 RPM. Thus, you would not want to shift AT 6000 RPM, but somewhere between that and 6600.

Even the LS1, which peaked at ~5600 or 5700 RPM, still redlined over 6000 RPM, and I've always taken it right to the max (heck, I have my rev-limiter bumped to ~6500 RPM from the factory 6200 RPM limit, and I take it all the way :thumb: ).

Clearly, the run in question here left LOTS on the table :rolleyes:. Even if he bombed the launch (which he clearly did) he didn't have to blow the rest of the run by short-shifting. Talk about setting themselves up for success in future!

Peak HP is never AT redline, but you never shift AT your peak HP point (well, unless there is a HUGE power band between TQ peak and HP peak? :shrug: ).

Generally, you run right up to redline, which is always a few hundred RPM above HP peak, because when you shift, it brings the RPMs back down into the power band between TQ peak and HP peak.

The LS3 is "rated" 426 HP @ 6000 RPM, I believe. The redline is set at 6600 RPM. Thus, you would not want to shift AT 6000 RPM, but somewhere between that and 6600.

Even the LS1, which peaked at ~5600 or 5700 RPM, still redlined over 6000 RPM, and I've always taken it right to the max (heck, I have my rev-limiter bumped to ~6500 RPM from the factory 6200 RPM limit, and I take it all the way :thumb: ).

Clearly, the run in question here left LOTS on the table :rolleyes:. Even if he bombed the launch (which he clearly did) he didn't have to blow the rest of the run by short-shifting. Talk about setting themselves up for success in future!
Exactly... you need to maximize average power which means staying at the top of the power curve on both sides of peak, not just on the upward slope to peak power.

He would have obviously shaved some time and gained some MPH if he shifted the LS3 at 6600 and if he would have gotten a better 60'. He may have needed to go to HRP to accomplish the second part though :)

I don't think anyone thinks this is a good run. But none the less the first one on youtube. Nobody thought the dyno run was very good either but still the first.

We can agree the guy driving made some mistakes and maybe even sandbagged a bit because of who owns the car and what their intentions probably are.

But make no mistake there will be lots of these types of runs seen on t'n't days because drag racing and especially on tall low profile street tires isn't easy.

With that horrible 60 ft, there is no doubt in my mind that the mph suffered dramatically too. Probably some mph & ET lost in the relatively low-rpm shifting too.

IMHO, the cars will be comparable in 1/4 mile performance to a stock 03/04 Cobra. In other words, many or most will be low 13 second cars at 109-110 mph. Quite a few will run high 12s @ 110-112 mph. Really good drivers in really good conditions at really good tracks will get down into the mid 12s at ~113-114 mph.

And BTW....my 98 Cobra went 13.6 bone stock, so my 12 year old 305 HP car is just as quick as the new 422 HP 5th Gen.

Neener neener neener.

:lol: Do you recall your 60 foot Bob?

2.00? 1.9x?;)

well, where is the highest power range in the rpm? some cars its not necesarilly redline. i dont know where it is in the camaro, thats why i didnt really say anything about the 6k redline.

GM's specs say that the peak occurs at 5900rpm.

Here is a dyno graph from an LS3 Corvette. The red lines are from the stock baseline run. It appears that the power peak is right around 6000 rpm.

http://lgmotorsports.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/2008%20M6%20LS3%20with%20LG%20Pros%20with%20cats%2 0HallTech%20and%20dyno%20tune.jpg

Some people say that for optimal times, you should shift at the power peak, and that should drop you down to the torque peak. I think that's a load of crap. Horsepower is horsepower, and you want to maximize the area under the curve. IMO, with a car with a dyno graph like the one above, you should run it right up to the 6600 rpm redline.

so 6k is the highest hp but the tq is highest at about 5k. then it drops off quite a bit after you reach max hp. i understand about the rpm dropping when shifting, but that why you shift quickly. it shouldnt drop more than a grand when drag racing. id say anywhere between 3-500 rpms. i would probably shift it around 6200-6300. yeah i know its not too far off of the 6500 rpm but that little drop in rpm when shifting will put you where you need to be in the power band for the next gear.

The problem is you waste your torque multiplication from the lower gear when you shift early. That is why you want to go with max average power and forget about torque.

:lol: Do you recall your 60 foot Bob?

2.00? 1.9x?;)

It's been a LONG time....like 10 years ago! The run was 13.6 @104 mph, and I *think* the 60 ft was in the 2.05 range. What I absolutely do remember is that it was breaking the tires loose really bad on the 1/2....my shifting style isn't real suitable for stock rubber. ;)

Now to caveat all that....this was done at Atco in Feb. For those that know....Nuff said. :cool:

With that horrible 60 ft, there is no doubt in my mind that the mph suffered dramatically too. Probably some mph & ET lost in the relatively low-rpm shifting too.


And BTW....my 98 Cobra went 13.6 bone stock, so my 12 year old 305 HP car is just as quick as the new 422 HP 5th Gen.

Neener neener neener.


What is that suppose to mean? There are older cars with less power that will surely out run a Mod Mound 98 Cobra @ 13.6, and probably for less money... I'll bet the options on 2010 Z are bit nicer than your 98, it's all relative.... That being said, that was a very disappointing run! :no:

so 6k is the highest hp but the tq is highest at about 5k. then it drops off quite a bit after you reach max hp. i understand about the rpm dropping when shifting, but that why you shift quickly. it shouldnt drop more than a grand when drag racing. id say anywhere between 3-500 rpms. i would probably shift it around 6200-6300. yeah i know its not too far off of the 6500 rpm but that little drop in rpm when shifting will put you where you need to be in the power band for the next gear.

Incorrect. First, without doing the math, we cannot determine optimum shift points, but with a 6000 rpm peak and that nice curve, I'd shift that sucker as close to fuel shutoff as possible. Why? Because the rpm will drop WAY WAY WAY more than 3-500 on each shift. More like 2000 (but it will vary somewhat from 1/2 and 2/3 and 3/4). Post the 6060 tranny ratios and I'll tell you how much it will drop from gear to gear.

The theory behind obtaining max acceleration was basically explained above, so I won't go into that again.

What is that suppose to mean? There are older cars with less power that will surely out run a Mod Mound 98 Cobra @ 13.6, and probably for less money... I'll bet the options on 2010 Z are bit nicer than your 98, it's all relative.... That being said, that was a very disappointing run! :no:

You obviously missed the context in which I made that post. To answer your question...in short....my statement meant nothing at all. Much like the ET/MPH the 5th Gen in question ran that sparked all of this.

I don't know if it's been mentioned already... but the quarter mile time is almost irrelevant as it varies a lot between drivers and track/ambient conditions.

What we should all be looking at is the terminal speed. 108mph is not exactly hanging about. It's right on the money as we've seen mph in the region of 108-111mph in recent tests.

What this means is that if Bob Cosby could run 13.6 at 104mph then the Camaro is capable of a much lower than that. :D

13.6 does suck for the car, but I don't think 108 is very representative either. I believe you'll see most in the 110 mph range.

id say anywhere between 3-500 rpms.
Because the rpm will drop WAY WAY WAY more than 3-500 on each shift. More like 2000 (but it will vary somewhat from 1/2 and 2/3 and 3/4). Post the 6060 tranny ratios and I'll tell you how much it will drop from gear to gear.

I think 2010 thought they were referring to the loss of RPM between shifts as opposed to RPM drop from one gear to the next.

I'm not even going to own one, but I'm hoping they are actually quite a bit faster. I guess the time would be more disappointing had it been a Z28. It didn't really look like the guy was hammering on it too hard.

It looks like 1st gear is a little long. He didnt shift until 50mph.

if there has to be a shift before 60 first and second should be short so he shifts around 30-40 and gets a better launch

My 15 year old sister could drive better than that. Its so friggin obvious that he dogged it to inflate how much of a performance increase their overpriced packages provide. The Hennessey organization has no class.

:rolleyes: right back at you. The guy has obviously had no practice launching the car, and he's already two tenths quicker than the fastest time anybody has ever gotten out of a stock LT1.

It may or may not be about "learning to drive". It might just be learning that car's quirks. :)



Um. I don't see the value in comparing the LS3 2010 to ANY LT1 powered car. Let's see a comparison to a 2002 LS1 SS... and in that light, truly disappointing numbers, and if Henessey's driver wasn't sandbagging, he ought to go sit in the stands, because he has no place behind the wheel at the track.

My '98 SS convertible did better stock...
And if the driver reads this... kiss my ass, go back to the track, and drive it like you mean it, pu$$y.

wouldnt spend my money on these guys anyways if i want overpriced ill go to lingenfelter least i know id get my car back

i would probably shift it around 6200-6300. yeah i know its not too far off of the 6500 rpm but that little drop in rpm when shifting will put you where you need to be in the power band for the next gear.
You do that, I'll shift at redline, and let's see who crosses the line first. I'll be waiting ;).

Seriously, I can't think of a single "good example" of why NOT to shift at redline, and shift at HP peak instead :shrug:. When you factor in the RPM drop, it doesn't keep you as high in the power-band if you don't.

Drive that thing 'til the rev-limiter is about to kick in, THEN shift. It'll git'er done every time :thumb:.

Somebody get me the tranny ratios and I'll calculate theoretical shift points.

:)

1st: 3.01
2nd: 2.07
3rd: 1.43
4th: 1.00
5th: 0.84
6th: 0.57
Rev: 3.28
Rear Ratio: 3.45

And don't forget to factor in the rear tire size (height): 275/40/20

Somebody get me the tranny ratios and I'll calculate theoretical shift points.

:)

Here you go Sir:

Tremec TR6060 Camaro SS
First: 3.01
Second: 2.07
Third: 1.43
Fourth: 1.00
Fifth: 0.84
Sixth: 0.57
Reverse: 3.28
Final drive ratio: 3.45

This dyno chart is for the 2009 Corvette LS3, but it might help... http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2009/HPT%20Library/Gen%20IV/Gen%20IV%20Car/2009_62L_LS3_combination_n.pdf

For comparison, the C5 Z06 trans ratios are:
1st Gear 2.97
2nd Gear 2.07
3rd Gear 1.43
4th Gear 1.00
5th Gear 0.84
6th Gear 0.56
Reverse 3.28
Final drive 3.42

Short shifting isn't optimum, particularly 3rd gear... at least, not through my experience with the LS6 and a very similar tranny.

1/2 = redline
2/3 = redline
3/4 = redline

Redline = 6600

I must caveat these numbers with the fact that I was trying to grab HP vs rpm numbers from a graph, so the accuracy is only as good as my getting-rather-old calibrated eye!

CAPN Pete....rear gear and tire height have no bearing on theoretical optimum shift points. :)

EDIT: Also....I did use the C6 LS3 graph that 1fastdog provided.

1/2 = redline
2/3 = redline
3/4 = redline

Redline = 6600

I must caveat these numbers with the fact that I was trying to grab HP vs rpm numbers from a graph, so the accuracy is only as good as my getting-rather-old calibrated eye!

CAPN Pete....rear gear and tire height have no bearing on theoretical optimum shift points. :)

EDIT: Also....I did use the C6 LS3 graph that 1fastdog provided.

THats pretty cool :D

listen guys i love the new camaro, the design is breathtaking , but they made the car really heavy, acceleration will suffer because of it. it is nearly 4,000 pounds

Henessey aside, since it's been confirmed the car will do 0-60 in 4.7 with a roll out ..... it didn't suffer that much.

listen guys i love the new camaro, the design is breathtaking , but they made the car really heavy, acceleration will suffer because of it. it is nearly 4,000 pounds

I love this car too, but it's got a serious case of "Heyyyyyy Heyyy HEY".

I will test-drive it before I consider ordering.

Its so friggin obvious that he dogged it to inflate how much of a performance increase their overpriced packages provide. The Hennessey organization has no class.
I finally got a chance to watch the video this morning. They show the complete timeslip, and a video of the run. They're not hiding anything. Then, in the YouTube comments (and this is the first time I've ever seen anything useful posted there, so I forgive you guys for ignoring then), the poster of the video responds to some comments saying that they were babying the car with an easy launch and slow shifting because it's new. It's a well-worded and honest reply, IMO.

I'm not an HPE fan, and I completely agree that their time sucked, but I really don't think that anything they did here was lacking in class.

listen guys i love the new camaro, the design is breathtaking , but they made the car really heavy, acceleration will suffer because of it. it is nearly 4,000 pounds

What does that have to do with HPE's lazy quarter mile run? Oh, right, nothing. GM's published time is 12.9 @ 111, which is faster (MPH) than anybody has ever gotten out of a bone-stock LS1 4th gen, and quicker (ET) than the vast majority. It's certainly a lot faster than HPE managed. Magazine testers, so far, have managed a best time of 13.0, but I assure you that GM's drivers have had more time behind the wheel than Car and Driver's have.

We've had hundreds of threads on this site with people bitching about the car's weight. Go post in one of those. :mad:

I finally got a chance to watch the video this morning. They show the complete timeslip, and a video of the run. They're not hiding anything. Then, in the YouTube comments (and this is the first time I've ever seen anything useful posted there, so I forgive you guys for ignoring then), the poster of the video responds to some comments saying that they were babying the car with an easy launch and slow shifting because it's new. It's a well-worded and honest reply, IMO.

I'm not an HPE fan, and I completely agree that their time sucked, but I really don't think that anything they did here was lacking in class.



What does that have to do with HPE's lazy quarter mile run? Oh, right, nothing. GM's published time is 12.9 @ 111, which is faster (MPH) than anybody has ever gotten out of a bone-stock LS1 4th gen, and quicker (ET) than the vast majority. It's certainly a lot faster than HPE managed. Magazine testers, so far, have managed a best time of 13.0, but I assure you that GM's drivers have had more time behind the wheel than Car and Driver's have.

We've had hundreds of threads on this site with people bitching about the car's weight. Go post in one of those. :mad:

i am not bitching about the car's weight, i drive a new corvette:yes: i could care less what the car does in the 1/4

i could care less what the car does in the 1/4


For crying out loud, it's "I COULDN'T care less"

For crying out loud, it's "I COULDN'T care less"
Grammar police! Grammar police!!! :eek: :cry:

Grammar police! Grammar police!!! :eek: :cry:

That's not grammar, that's a basic understanding of the words he's using. Specifically, we're talking about understanding what it means to care or not care about something, and understanding "could" vs. "could not".

If you don't care about something, then you could not care less (because it would be impossible to care about something less than not caring at all).

If you do care about something, then you could care less.

Maybe he could care less. I won't presume to know how much caring is going on. But I will post a nice little visual to help everyone out...

http://www.orble.com/images/i-could-care-less.JPG

Oh Lord, not again. Let the improper use of a word or two (or even a phrase) slide, please. We know what he/she/it meant, and we all do it from time time to time.

Even you, Jake. And as a Mod, you'd think you WOULDN'T want to start a pissing match?????

Jus ah thout. :D

Even you, Jake. And as a Mod, you'd think you WOULDN'T want to start a pissing match?????

I really wouldn't consider this a pissing match. Just a quick public service language lesson. :)

JakeRobb is my hero. Misuse of the English language drives me insane, as well.

I put all this info into the speed calculator @ http://f-body.org/gears/

Watching the video and comparing the speed shown vs that calculator will let you know that he did shift right around 6000 in each gear.

That calculator shows that 3rd gear can be held until 112MPH, so I have a feeling that GM's engineers set this car up to run the best in the quarter mile without needing a shift to 4th in stock trim. That's kind of like how they set up the Z06 to not require a shift before 60mph ;)

I also put it into DragSim. At 4050 pounds and on its most conservative level (.25seconds per shift @6k) it still ran a 13.10@110.8 with a 2.55 sixty foot. When set to a professional driver with .100 second shifts @6500 it ran a 12.43@114.1 with a 2.07 sixty foot time. Changing to stickier tires drops that to 11.99@114.6 with a 1.90 sixty foot. I was guesstimating a lot though.

I was guesstimating a lot though.
Guesstimating is not a real word!!! Language police! Language police!!! :cry:

:p

In all seriousness, thanks for that info :). I was curious how the gearing was going to work out with the taller tires and modest 3.45 rear gear. Clearly, a set of 4.10's and sticky tires will do WONDERS for the car :yes: :cool:.

..... and shifting QUICKLY, above 6000 RPM ;).

I put all this info into the speed calculator @ http://f-body.org/gears/

Watching the video and comparing the speed shown vs that calculator will let you know that he did shift right around 6000 in each gear.

That calculator shows that 3rd gear can be held until 112MPH, so I have a feeling that GM's engineers set this car up to run the best in the quarter mile without needing a shift to 4th in stock trim. That's kind of like how they set up the Z06 to not require a shift before 60mph ;)


I definitely think GM worked hard on this car to get it to run the number. I personally don't like the choice of gears from a drag racing perspective but I think they put in more work that they probably did on the 4th Gens when it came to 0-60 and 1/4 mile acceleration. When you think about the fine line between bettering the performance of the current competition and getting the gas mileage numbers while maintaining the large wheel diameter for style and moving the high curb weight it was really well done.

What does that have to do with HPE's lazy quarter mile run? Oh, right, nothing. GM's published time is 12.9 @ 111, which is faster (MPH) than anybody has ever gotten out of a bone-stock LS1 4th gen, and quicker (ET) than the vast majority. It's certainly a lot faster than HPE managed. Magazine testers, so far, have managed a best time of 13.0, but I assure you that GM's drivers have had more time behind the wheel than Car and Driver's have.


FYI, I'm pretty sure that GMHTP got 12.8 out of a bone stock 1998 LS1 Z28.

Edit: I stand corrected....it was 13.0. I thought it was around 12.8 for some reason.....I'll keep looking, but you are correct Robb.

With that horrible 60 ft, there is no doubt in my mind that the mph suffered dramatically too. Probably some mph & ET lost in the relatively low-rpm shifting too.

IMHO, the cars will be comparable in 1/4 mile performance to a stock 03/04 Cobra. In other words, many or most will be low 13 second cars at 109-110 mph. Quite a few will run high 12s @ 110-112 mph. Really good drivers in really good conditions at really good tracks will get down into the mid 12s at ~113-114 mph.

And BTW....my 98 Cobra went 13.6 bone stock, so my 12 year old 305 HP car is just as quick as the new 422 HP 5th Gen.

Neener neener neener.

What is the weight on an 03 04 cobra anyways?

FYI, I'm pretty sure that GMHTP got 12.8 out of a bone stock 1998 LS1 Z28.

Edit: I stand corrected....it was 13.0. I thought it was around 12.8 for some reason.....I'll keep looking, but you are correct Robb.


Your close. Evan Smith of MM&FF a sister publication to GMHTP drove the famed 1999 Z28 6M to a 12.89 at Atco raceway in very good cold air. He then backed it up in a 2001 SS 6M to a 12.96 in far hotter conditions at ETown.

Time to post it again for the zillionth time :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/capn233/Copyof01Bullitt_Article2c.jpg

FYI, I'm pretty sure that GMHTP got 12.8 out of a bone stock 1998 LS1 Z28.

Edit: I stand corrected....it was 13.0. I thought it was around 12.8 for some reason.....I'll keep looking, but you are correct Robb.

My name is Jake. :)

That is completely in agreement with what I said: 12.9 @ 111 is faster than all, and quicker than nearly all known stock LS1 4th gen timeslips.

That GMHTP run is the only sub-13-second run I've ever heard of on a bone-stock LS1 car. It's far from the norm.

What is the weight on an 03 04 cobra anyways?

3600 and some change, if memory serves.

Not bad times considering the circumstances, but not impressive either when people are paying $50k out the door.


:cool:

3600 and some change, if memory serves.

Just looked it up. 3665 for the coupe. Good memory, Bob!