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

 

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...bination_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.

 

THats pretty cool

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Grammar police! Grammar police!!!

 

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...

 

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.

 

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