I own a 93 Z28 automatic with (currently) the only mod installed being a Moroso CAI. With regular 87 octane fuel, and using my G-Tech Performance Meter to measure, I pulled a 0-60 MPH time of 6.08. This sounded great to me until I saw, on the following link, that a 93 Z28 6-speed with stock setup has a 0-60 time of 6.3 seconds. Wouldn't the 6-speed have a lot faster 0-60 MPH time than an automatic, even though I have a CAI? What I guess I'm asking is, Do you think my G-Tech Meter is reading wrong somehow?

 

I'm not for sure how your machine works but an automatic is usually always faster off the line. You just can't shift faster than hydraulic pressure so therefore i can see where you could be somewhat faster

 

I wouldnt trust a g-tech to be to accurate, i heard that if you spin the tires it makes them even more off

as for the avg 0-60 times i duno

 

even 6.0 sounds slow...

the Gtech isn't the god's-gift for accuracy. it's just a measureing tool

the advantage is that it is consistent. even if it is 2 seconds off on 1/4mi times...if it is consistently off...you are still able to see how mods affect performance.

 

For cars running in the range of 12 to 15-second 1/4-miles, you can approximate 1/4-mile ET by adding 8.5 seconds to your 0-60mph time. A 6.0-sec 0-60 time would be typical of a 14.5-sec 1/4-mile ET, so you should be seeing 0-60 times well below 6.0-seconds for a stock LT1.

Using low octane fuel as you are, would explain the poor 0-60mph time. You are throwing away performance with low octane fuel.

 

Time sounds a little slow to me. I have the Gtech Pro SS and it is very accurate for what it is.

 

with headers, exhaust CAI and tune i ran 5.1-5.3 0-60. 13.8 in the 1/4

 

Dude, 91+ only. Read the manual. You're retarded.... er it's retarding-timing that is

 

Yeah low octane isn't good for it at all. At least use middle grade.

 

Actually, I checked my owner's manual just before I started putting the 87 octane in my car (because it's cheaper). My manual says that 91 is recommended, and that 89 and 87 can be used, but with slower acceleration results. Although I agree that premium fuel is better for performance, I think if running standard fuel in my car would mess something up, my manual would tell me so.

 

Really... what is another $1-2 a fill up going to do? You bought a Camaro... it's not meant for p****footing it

 

That's the way I look at it. $30 for 10 gallons of regular, or $32 for premium. As long as I'm already paying $30 for the tank, another $2 isn't going to kill me, it's only 7% more

 

Yeah, stick with premium fuel. The price difference isn't going to kill you, and it's worth it. Particularly if you are filling up at a Chevron station- the Techron they advertise so heavily is not in the cheap gas.

FWIW, my Formula runs 0-60 in about 5.1 if I can find traction- not bad for a six-speed car on street tires. My bike does it in 2.9 if I can keep the front end down.

 

Thanks for the help, guys.

 

Most magazines got a 5.5 for 93-95, 5.4 for 96-97, and 5.2 for 98-02, on average. I tend to place more stock in the e.t. and mph, myelf.