If you had a bone stock 2000 LS1 put down at least 324 RWHP, you had a serious factory freak (or the dyno was reading high). My '01 put down 310, and the '01-'02 F-bodies usually put down a few more HP than the previous cars.

324 RWHP out of the 400 HP L99 sounds about right. Considering the porky mass of the 5th Gen, I doubt anything is "wrong" with the car.

 

Wouldn't weight not be a factor on a stationary dyno?
You're not moving the car. You're turning the rollers.

 

Weight is not an issue on a dyno.

Dyno calibration
Dyno Type
Dyno Correction Factor
Dyno operator
Weather
Condition of car
Type of transmission
Gear ratio
And no doubt other things I am missing

Those are some factors that have to be considered when comparing dyno runs.

The term "tuning tool" once again comes to mind....

 

 

Sounds like what I'm hearing from the camaro fanboy base is : "Yeah the auto Camaro SS is SLOW and who cares?"

Well the owner who started this thread cares because he laid down the cash on the hype of 6.2L performance. I wonder how how well people are going to take it when/if the manual LS3 disappoints as well?

The fat *** Challenger RT auto, weighing in at 200lbs more with .5L less engine, is running mid low 13s all day long at 106. And one fella over on ChallengerForums has factory freak 13.1@108 bone stock.

Yes it is about performance with these cars. And it oughtta be a kick in the gut to see that the Camaro SS auto is such weak sauce.

 

Challenger R/Ts are that fast? I thought they ran low 14s to high 13s.
You mention times for an R/T slushbox. What about an R/T stick? What do they run?

 

Well, hold on a minute. I don't know that anyone is saying "who CARES"....what we're saying is the weight penalty combined with the fact that the car is not broken in yet leads us to believe that there is nothing "wrong" with the car. He talks about losing one race on the street as if this is absolute blanket evidence of the capabilities of the car. I'm not yet convinced - too many variables there.

We already know the manual LS3 will lay down 12s. As more of these cars show up on the streets and at the strip we'll start getting a better sampling of the car's capabilities.

 

That's what I thought too. but no the RT auto is a solid 13.5@106 all day long. Also I got the 12.8 et wrong on the factory freak. It was 13.12@108

The stick owners are in wheelhop hell. 1 guy managed a decent run and ripped off a 13.49@104, but most are in the 14s due the inability to launch. Also some guys have mapped out the gears vs redine and determined a big problem is the required 4 gear shift.

Bottom line, after reading about the performance of the auto vs the stick, I changed my target. I went to a closed down Dodge dealer this past weekend looking for an auto but all he had were 6spds. Didn't even bother.

 

So you took it to the dealer because your butt dyno and one race tells you it is too slow for 400hp? As mentioned, the car isnt broke in, it is heavier, it is smoother, and it probably has alot of electronic nannies like torque managment holding it back. Break it in and get a tune. There is a '10 m6 on ls1tech that went 12.5 with a tune and intake. Im sure the a6 wouldnt be much slower.

 

Exagerate much? 1 camaro owner uses a butt-dyno and untimed runs vs another car and feels dissapointed and we're somehow fanboys for pointing out the obvious which is wait to get real #'s and figures and not jumping to conclusions. And i like how a challenger R/T running 13.5+sec 1/4 miles equals "running mid low 13's all day" especially when the majority of them are high 13 and low 14sec cars. A more accurate statement would be "running mid to high 13's all day". R/T owners need to be more concerned about 315hp GT's than SS's. If anyone's a fanboy here, it's you my friend.

We already know the expected #'s for the L99 and LS3 SS's. Both should be solid low 13sec cars with Ls3 traps showing potential for high 12's. His car may or may not have problems. But he shouldn't jump to conclusion based off "feel" and a few untimed and uncontrolled races. There are way too many other factors.

 

Nitpick much, fanboy?

mid13s mid low 13s, the Challenger RT auto is running fast for its quoted weight and power. I have no dog in the fight between Dodge, Chevy and Ford. I couldn't care less.

I certainly am not pointing at those who said go back and get track numbers. I'm talking about the posts where people are rationalizing the dissappointing performance this owner saw and THEN saying he should be happy with what he has. If you still think the L99 Camaro will prove to be better then good for you.

The races were indeed controlled. He has experience consistently outrunning his son's LS1 bird with an 05 GTO. Then he gets smoked in his new Camaro. Thus qualitatively we can be quite sure HIS Camaro SS is much slower than a stock 05 GTO.

 

A measured, logical, reasoned response.

Refreshing!

 

Let me make a over looked cold shower statement. The L99 and LS3 are proven to be overly restricted in the intake and exhaust department right? Proven fact. Add a measly thousand dollars to the msrp,"for a CAI and a ECM tune",and that should be enough for the whining about the missing 25HP. If not, 2500 more clams gives you another 50+HP with some headers and exhaust. This makes your L99 far better then the R/T chunkinger your comparing to, and the LS3 playing with and doing well against the snake owners.

 

Not nitpicking, i know "fanboys" like you tend to exaggerate when trying to express their distorted views so i felt the need to correct you on that. The old quote the fastest time for one car and compare it to the average or even slower runs of the other car is a tool overused by fanboys.

You are right. I am fan boy of the camaro, but i'm also a fanboy of the mustang (owned 3), wrx, and a slew of other cars. My next car will most definitely be a mustang (either 03/04 Cobra or 10+ GT) so your little label is fine with me.

Obviously our definitions and standards of control differ... i don't see a butt-dyno and some random runs as being conclusive proof that the car is in fact down on power or slower than expected. #'s always speak louder thus quantitative > qualitative. Dyno #'s would be conclusive proof.

Btw: I don't agree with his early assesment that the new SS is 3tenths faster than an Ls2 GTO. Ls2 GTO's have the same output with 200lbs less to pull vs his L99 SS. If anything, his GTO should be quicker if it's a 6spd. As for the Ls1 T/A, we already know well driven examples are more than capable of running very low 13's so beating one in a new SS is no guarantee. I think he set his expectations a little too high when he thought he'd outrun or even keep up with these 2 cars, especially if they're strong-running examples.

Maybe his car isn't running at its peak yet given the low mileage. Maybe there's something wrong with his car and it is in fact down on power. Maybe he isn't used to driving it to its full potential since it is a new car and he hasn't had the amount of seat time he had with his GTO. Maybe his over-expectations got the best of him. There are a hundred other factors.

I'd get the car on a dyno and see what other owners and published tests have to say/run before labeling the car a disappointment/failure/defect.

 

Nice one fanboy, but I'm not using the fastest time for one car and comparing it to the Camaro. Otherwise I'd be calling the Challenger auto a 13flat car running 108 all day long.

But then that IS the problem with being a fanboy, isn't it? Always looking for the angle.


Glad to see you agree with the obvious.


He has run a QUALITATIVE CONTROLLED TEST that shows 1 of 5 things in decreasing order of likelihood.

1) HIS car is not running right.
2) The auto Camaro is a slow POS
3) His engine is going to magically break in and gain 8 car lengths+(.8+ sec) in the next few races with his son.
4) He had the fastest stock 05 GTO ever and was really running mid 12s without ever knowing it.
5) He doesn't know how to drive an automatic.