2010 Camaro Dyno Video / Graphs

[Rick@Livernois]

Yesterday, we had a customer bring his 2010 Camaro SS in for a tune. The car is a bone stock automatic.

The baseline numbers were 318 RWHP / 345 RWTQ, the tuned numbers were 339 RWHP / 360 RWTQ. Similar to our G8 tunes, it did pick up power, but our transmission calibration makes it feel like a whole different car!



Dyno Video - Click Here

Here are a few photos:















Earlier in the week, we had another customer bring his in for a baseline. The car is a 6-speed manual, bone stock with 850 miles on the odometer.

The numbers were 378 RWHP / 381 RWTQ.



Dyno Video - Click Here

Here are a few photos:











Regards,

Rick LeBlanc
Livernois Motorsports

[BADFNZ]

I said it in your other thread, but I'll say it again here.

I can't believe there's a 70hp difference between the two. That's depressing for those that wanted an auto (me). Stock LS1 numbers but weighing 300-400 more is not what I wanted.

[Rick@Livernois]

Originally Posted by BADFNZ

I said it in your other thread, but I'll say it again here.

I can't believe there's a 70hp difference between the two. That's depressing for those that wanted an auto (me). Stock LS1 numbers but weighing 300-400 more is not what I wanted.

Those numbers are very close to what we see from a G8 GT (auto) and slightly higher than we see from a G8 GXP (manual), but they are in the ballpark.

I wouldn't be discouraged. I think with a CAI, Catback, and tune the auto car will run excellent.

or... our most common package for the G8 GT is our stage 1 cam, headers, and CAI and we have one customer with these mods and a converter going high 11's and another customer with these mods + ported intake/tb, and U/D pulley going 12.2 @ 119 mph on street tires with a stock converter.

-Rick

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by BADFNZ

I said it in your other thread, but I'll say it again here.

I can't believe there's a 70hp difference between the two. That's depressing for those that wanted an auto (me). Stock LS1 numbers but weighing 300-400 more is not what I wanted.

You have to take into account the drivetrain loss with the automatic. So there isn't a 70hp difference between motors. But just going by these dyno numbers, I would say there's a 40-50hp difference at the motor. The A6 may be making more like 380 hp at the motor.

We'll need to see some more car dynoed for sure.

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by Rick@Livernois

Those numbers are very close to what we see from a G8 GT (auto) and slightly higher than we see from a G8 GXP (manual), but they are in the ballpark.

I wouldn't be discouraged. I think with a CAI, Catback, and tune the auto car will run excellent.

or... our most common package for the G8 GT is our stage 1 cam, headers, and CAI and we have one customer with these mods and a converter going high 11's and another customer with these mods + ported intake/tb, and U/D pulley going 12.2 @ 119 mph on street tires with a stock converter.

-Rick

What do your stock G8 GT's dyno? automatic
And what do your G8 GXP dyno? automatic

[Rick@Livernois]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

What do your stock G8 GT's dyno? automatic
And what do your G8 GXP dyno? automatic

A stock G8 GT makes around 315 RWHP.

All but one of the GXP's we've done have been manual transmissions and the only auto was baselined with less than 50 miles and then we installed a Magnacharger, Rotofab, Corsa Exhast, and tuned it. I feel the numbers were very low due to the mileage. It made 330 RWHP stock.

Our GXP manual was baselined with 20 miles, then again at 1,000 without any mods and it picked up 20 RWHP.

Once they get some miles, they all seem to make around the same baseline numbers.

-Rick

[BADFNZ]

Originally Posted by Rick@Livernois

Those numbers are very close to what we see from a G8 GT (auto) and slightly higher than we see from a G8 GXP (manual), but they are in the ballpark.

I wouldn't be discouraged. I think with a CAI, Catback, and tune the auto car will run excellent.

or... our most common package for the G8 GT is our stage 1 cam, headers, and CAI and we have one customer with these mods and a converter going high 11's and another customer with these mods + ported intake/tb, and U/D pulley going 12.2 @ 119 mph on street tires with a stock converter.

-Rick

I'm not doubting that with a few mods they'll run great, but the stock numbers are a bit disapointing. I know people say dynos are just tuning tools, but they still show how an engine is performing.

Either these cars are tuned severely conservative from the factory (which might be the case considering your post-tune numbers), or the AFM really puts a damper on the power. I'm pretty sure it's not the transmission, since the 6L80E is just as efficient, if not more, than the 4L60E was.

Since the A6 Vette has basically the same driveline as the A6 Camaro, with the only big difference being the engine, I think it shows how limited (from the factory) the L99 is compared to the LS3.

[BADFNZ]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

You have to take into account the drivetrain loss with the automatic. So there isn't a 70hp difference between motors. But just going by these dyno numbers, I would say there's a 40-50hp difference at the motor. The A6 may be making more like 380 hp at the motor.

We'll need to see some more car dynoed for sure.

Yes, I'm aware of the loss the auto will have compared to the manual. 380hp at the crank is not good, considering GM rated them at 400 at the crank. Either the 6L80E is very inefficient (which we know it's not), or the L99 is a bit overrated from the factory.

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by BADFNZ

Yes, I'm aware of the loss the auto will have compared to the manual. 380hp at the crank is not good, considering GM rated them at 400 at the crank. Either the 6L80E is very inefficient (which we know it's not), or the L99 is a bit overrated from the factory.

Well here is the deal on that..we know they have the same head design, the same parts in the shortblock....L99 has a little less compression and the AFM system with the 4 AFM lifters, and a little different cam spec. So...essentially to correct that buy the AFM delete kit, remove the stupid AFM system, and use a thinner head gasket to bump up compression...if you planned on a cam swap now would be the time, since your already replacing parts, and this would negate the small difference in stock cam specs.

Just face it guys, if you bought an L99 (like I did), your gonna have to mod and mod quickly, because your already starting out from behind vs the manual (and behind the Mustang or so it appears).

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by BADFNZ

Yes, I'm aware of the loss the auto will have compared to the manual. 380hp at the crank is not good, considering GM rated them at 400 at the crank. Either the 6L80E is very inefficient (which we know it's not), or the L99 is a bit overrated from the factory.

Yeah, we'll have to see a few more cars dynoed before making any conclusions. In the different thread (L99 1/4 mile baseline) it was mentioned that that car made over 330 rwhp stock.
But 320 rwhp is very common for an Automatic LS2 GTO, and they are also rated at 400hp.

So go figure.

But the 345 ft lbs of torque is really nice. That's considerably more than my stock automatic 06 GTO made.

[Andro]

Good info

[69 Hugger]

My dealer emailed me to come up and check out a SS on monday, I want this car that I ordered but having to play catchup to the LS3 has been my biggest gripe. First it was only 25-26 hp differents then the dynos started showing the real numbers. Been reading threads today and the L99 owners/some are not happy with their HP/performance. If I was still able to drive a maual thats the way I'd go. Just have to spend a little more money to catch up withe LS3's thats all right ?

[Scott@Bjorn3D]

Well I for one am upset. GM tells us it is a 400HP car and it does the same 0-60 as the LS3. In my cars case that is total

I am very unhappy with the setup of my car now that a Mustang kicked my but so badly.

[PatrickfromMD]

Here is ny baseline run done this morning at Maryland Performance Center.
Certainly not big numbers, but it’s what it is.
I got 305 RWHP, and a guy with the same car but a M6 got 343, so I’m figuring it’s realistic. (Delta of 38 RWHP L99A6 vs. LS3M6)
They say the Superflow is a touch conservative
Hopefully in the weeks ahead I’ll be able to report some gains




Ok, so when your not as happy with whats under the hood , you make up for it on top of the hood (at your favorite bar of course)

[Chocolate Apocalypse]

Are these number with the TC locked or unlocked? Also, were the pulls done in 3rd or 4th?

[Verio]

Seriously? 95 HP loss from the drive-train? I don't buy that.

[KarFan]

Rick I know your a reputable shop and have heard great things about Livernois Motorsports, especially when I lived in MI.

Any idea why the A6 is so detuned from the M6. Seems like the L99-A6 is loosing 20% or so in driveline looses and the M6 only 11-12%? (Your dyno figures) Is the AFM the reason or is it tuned to be this way to maybe protect the 6L80E/IRS along the lines of torque management?

Either way it sounds like you're going to be getting a lot of interest in basic performance upgrades for the L99 crowd.

[davidj]

Ouch!! Stiletto’s on the hood.

[PatrickfromMD]

My pull was done in 4th gear with the tap shift in manual mode.
I do not know if the torque converter was locked or not (what would the default mode be)
The tuner had the HP tuners beta and mentioned my L99 was running less timing than the LS3. He also mentioned the A/F was conservative.
He believes (from his initial review) that the L99 is more conservatively tuned than the LS3

(oh, and as for the stilettos, I guess I was feeling a bit dangerous at 3:00am. The car gets attention when I take it to work, but not nearly as much as when she does.)

[GMRULZ]

Another thing worth noting is the A6 does not have a true 1:1 gear, so it will read a little lower on the dyno because of this. I would not worry about dyno numbers as much as ET/MPH in the 1/4. Thats where the proof in the pudding is. I have also heard that the exhaust is more restrictive on the auto, don`t know that for sure but I think it was mentioned in an ARH thread, seems kinda wierd to use 2 different exhausts though from a cost of manufacture standpoint, also if it is true that the tune is more conservative in the auto, a tune will pick up more than on a m6, then there is the torque management that may be rearing its ugly head and is almost always worse on the auto cars...Just another thing to tune out...

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by GMRULZ

Another thing worth noting is the A6 does not have a true 1:1 gear, so it will read a little lower on the dyno because of this. I would not worry about dyno numbers as much as ET/MPH in the 1/4. Thats where the proof in the pudding is. I have also heard that the exhaust is more restrictive on the auto, don`t know that for sure but I think it was mentioned in an ARH thread, seems kinda wierd to use 2 different exhausts though from a cost of manufacture standpoint, also if it is true that the tune is more conservative in the auto, a tune will pick up more than on a m6, then there is the torque management that may be rearing its ugly head and is almost always worse on the auto cars...Just another thing to tune out...

The different exhaust for the auto is due to the "jake brake" like noise created by cylinder deactivation...Chevy didn't want the potential crossovers from infiniti or lexus complaining about how noisy their camaro's were while getting 25mpg hwy, so they used multiple cats, and resonators to achieve a much quieter, albiet slower auto.

[O2BQIK]

318 RWHP on a Dynojet? I must say I'm disappointed with that...some 4th gen LS1s hit that... :(