Official 1/4 Mile (V6) 2010+ Camaro Fast List

[Archer911]

I'm a bit curious - looking at all of these numbers, is there any particular reason why it seems that there isn't much 'gain' (if you consider pure quickness to be 'gain') from the Superchargers? I thought that these units would give the V6 much better numbers, esp for the price, etc.. Any thoughts?

[lscamaro]

Originally Posted by Archer911

I'm a bit curious - looking at all of these numbers, is there any particular reason why it seems that there isn't much 'gain' (if you consider pure quickness to be 'gain') from the Superchargers? I thought that these units would give the V6 much better numbers, esp for the price, etc.. Any thoughts?

Simply because it takes more than just a supercharger to get faster. Have to learn how to launch and make sure it hooks as well

[Archer911]

OK, good point - but all (most) things being equal in this forum anyway - and I def don't claim to be any expert at launching/dragging in general (though I am def learning a LOT from the folks that have posted in here), it just seems that the top performers, even with SC's, don't seem to have that much better (if at all) numbers than those without.. I guess my point is, once the car is moving, it seems that the SC would really provide the 'oomph' to give much better numbers than non-FI cars, etc.. I just don't know if a 6k investment in FI is worth such (seemingly) minimal gains where you want it - to be a 'sleeper' when sitting next to an SS or 'Stang, etc..
But I def get your point - seems launch technique is as important as mechanical ability..thanks for the reply

[lscamaro]

Originally Posted by Archer911

OK, good point - but all (most) things being equal in this forum anyway - and I def don't claim to be any expert at launching/dragging in general (though I am def learning a LOT from the folks that have posted in here), it just seems that the top performers, even with SC's, don't seem to have that much better (if at all) numbers than those without.. I guess my point is, once the car is moving, it seems that the SC would really provide the 'oomph' to give much better numbers than non-FI cars, etc.. I just don't know if a 6k investment in FI is worth such (seemingly) minimal gains where you want it - to be a 'sleeper' when sitting next to an SS or 'Stang, etc..
But I def get your point - seems launch technique is as important as mechanical ability..thanks for the reply

You're 100% right though. I too expected more from a 6000 dollar mod. The numbers have definitely been disappointing from the superchargers. I was expecting a lot more 12s by now but it really hasn't happened.

[Archer911]

12's would be nice, and even put them close to being the 'v8 killers' that they're touted to be - but what bothers me is that they aren't even showing much better numbers than the V6's with other mods (tuning, cold air, nitro, etc)..def disappointing.. ah well, it is a mystery.. thanks again for the input..

[lscamaro]

Imo nitrous is the best power adder for this car if going for best track times. Not only is it pretty consistent, but its also a lot cheaper.

[rtcat600man]

You need to put things into perspective relative to each other.

Example:

Up until a couple weeks ago, the fastest stock V6 was 14.247 from a 2010 LLT Camaro making 314 HP at the crank. (happens to be a fellow club member and friend of mine).

Compared to my best run of 13.664 from a 2010 LLT Camaro making approx. 350 HP at the crank. I have just about every bolt on mod known for our Camaro. Along with some suspension items, and smaller drag radials.

This is a difference of 0.583 seconds.


Now compare the above information to a 2010 LLT Camaro with IPF supercharger BBK's, HF cats, ice-o-later; making approx. 475 HP at the crank ran a best of 12.804 on stock tires. At the moment this is still the fastest supercharged V6 Camaro on our list. (happens to be a fellow club member and friend of mine too).

This is a difference of 1.443 seconds faster than the stock Camaro above. Using the old rule of thumb that for every 10 HP is worth another 0.1 second this would put his crank HP at approx. 458 That is within 3.7 % of what his approx. HP is currently at according to our information. Close enough in my book for Ricer math.


Now comparing the IPF run to mine, I find the time difference to be 0.86 seconds. Or approx. 436 HP this is closer to 9 % difference. However, I was running drag radials and hooked up much better than he did. Which all equates to a faster ET. My 60' was 1.936 compared to his slow 2.004. If he was running a drag radial, he could easily dropped his 60' time another 0.2 seconds and this would be worth 0.4 off the big end. Which would have put his time at approx. 12.4. This would be a difference of 1.2 seconds between him and I. Which would be approx. 120 more HP or approx 470 HP total.


All 3 above examples ran the 1/4 mile at the same track. The stock one ran his time on 11/5/2011, while my pass and the IPF Camaro ran our passes on 4/21/2013. Both dates had some good cold air.


It is all a matter of how you want to review the numbers.

[lscamaro]

Originally Posted by rtcat600man

You need to put things into perspective relative to each other.

Example:

Up until a couple weeks ago, the fastest stock V6 was 14.247 from a 2010 LLT Camaro making 314 HP at the crank. (happens to be a fellow club member and friend of mine).

Compared to my best run of 13.664 from a 2010 LLT Camaro making approx. 350 HP at the crank. I have just about every bolt on mod known for our Camaro. Along with some suspension items, and smaller drag radials.

This is a difference of 0.583 seconds.


Now compare the above information to a 2010 LLT Camaro with IPF supercharger BBK's, HF cats, ice-o-later; making approx. 475 HP at the crank ran a best of 12.804 on stock tires. At the moment this is still the fastest supercharged V6 Camaro on our list. (happens to be a fellow club member and friend of mine too).

This is a difference of 1.443 seconds faster than the stock Camaro above. Using the old rule of thumb that for every 10 HP is worth another 0.1 second this would put his crank HP at approx. 458 That is within 3.7 % of what his approx. HP is currently at according to our information. Close enough in my book for Ricer math.


Now comparing the IPF run to mine, I find the time difference to be 0.86 seconds. Or approx. 436 HP this is closer to 9 % difference. However, I was running drag radials and hooked up much better than he did. Which all equates to a faster ET. My 60' was 1.936 compared to his slow 2.004. If he was running a drag radial, he could easily dropped his 60' time another 0.2 seconds and this would be worth 0.4 off the big end. Which would have put his time at approx. 12.4. This would be a difference of 1.2 seconds between him and I. Which would be approx. 120 more HP or approx 470 HP total.


All 3 above examples ran the 1/4 mile at the same track. The stock one ran his time on 11/5/2011, while my pass and the IPF Camaro ran our passes on 4/21/2013. Both dates had some good cold air.


It is all a matter of how you want to review the numbers.

I understand what you're saying but if we're comparing systems, I'd have to say that the best way to compare them would be on an average don't you think? That way everyone is on a level playing field based solely on the times they've been able to put up. Having said that, on average the IPF supercharger numbers haven't looked good at all. If you compare them on average, the IPF supercharger numbers aren't even in the 12s since only DetDuke has been able to run a 12. The average between all three members who have IPF superchargers and have posted their slips is at a 13.68. I most definitely agree with Archer's statement that you should be getting way better numbers with 6k invested into a supercharger. Especially when you consider that the average of the bolt ons is at 13.60. The argument for better conditions, better traction, etc. can be made but is almost a mute point considering the bolt on numbers have those exact same variances.

If you look at nitrous, which at worst cost 2k (and not even 2k, 1.5k if you're going balls to the wall and closer to 1k if you're only running the necessities) they make up 6 out of the 10 overall fast list guys. The average ET between all the nitrous members who have posted is at a 12.88. Which is a whole .8 ET difference over the supercharger crowd. That's a huge gap in my book. And again, the nitrous members are from all over the country with different temps and traction.

[rtcat600man]

Originally Posted by lscamaro

I understand what you're saying but if we're comparing systems, I'd have to say that the best way to compare them would be on an average don't you think? That way everyone is on a level playing field based solely on the times they've been able to put up. Having said that, on average the IPF supercharger numbers haven't looked good at all. If you compare them on average, the IPF supercharger numbers aren't even in the 12s since only DetDuke has been able to run a 12. The average between all three members who have IPF superchargers and have posted their slips is at a 13.68. I most definitely agree with Archer's statement that you should be getting way better numbers with 6k invested into a supercharger. Especially when you consider that the average of the bolt ons is at 13.60. The argument for better conditions, better traction, etc. can be made but is almost a mute point considering the bolt on numbers have those exact same variances.

If you look at nitrous, which at worst cost 2k (and not even 2k, 1.5k if you're going balls to the wall and closer to 1k if you're only running the necessities) they make up 6 out of the 10 overall fast list guys. The average ET between all the nitrous members who have posted is at a 12.88. Which is a whole .8 ET difference over the supercharger crowd. That's a huge gap in my book. And again, the nitrous members are from all over the country with different temps and traction.

I agree completely with you comments too. Which is partially why I never invested into the turbo's or superchargers for my Camaro. Part of the issue is tuning too.

No doubt that nitrous is the best bang for the buck on the 1/4 mile. But we also have to keep in mind that it is illegal to run on the street. Just a minor technicality, along with not everyone wants to run the bottle.

All good conversation to spark some winter talk and further enhance the typical bench racing that takes place in the winter months.

Let us not forget about this thread either to further back your comments on Nitrous being the better for the cost.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115679

[sycraft]

Tires used on the pass: Nitto NT05

Please update, not my best but its what I have
Performance Mods (if any): IPF Supercharger, Solo Cats and exhaust. Ram twin disc clutch, LSR Suspension ( Road Course setup)
Transmission: M6
Category submitted for: Power Adders (Forced Induction)
R/T........... .940
60'............. 1.982
330'........... 5.627
660'........... 8.667
660’ mph... 79.56
1000'.......... 11.271
1320'.......... 13.408
1320’ mph… 105.51
Name of the track: Palm Beach International
Date of pass: 11/2/2013
Weather conditions DA 1770

[rtcat600man]

Originally Posted by sycraft

Tires used on the pass: Nitto NT05

Please update, not my best but its what I have
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Performance Mods (if any): IPF Supercharger, Solo Cats and exhaust. Ram twin disc clutch, LSR Suspension ( Road Course setup)
Transmission: M6
Category submitted for: Power Adders (Forced Induction)
R/T........... .940
60'............. 1.982
330'........... 5.627
660'........... 8.667
660’ mph... 79.56
1000'.......... 11.271
1320'.......... 13.408
1320’ mph… 105.51
Name of the track: Palm Beach International
Date of pass: 11/2/2013
Weather conditions DA 1770

Welcome to the list.............updated ...........

[MagnumForceGB]

Posted this in the FI List but not here, new best time for me.

Mods:
IPF Supercharger
VMAX Ported Throttle Body
MACE Stage 4 Ported Intake Manifold
MACE Plenum Spacer
VMAX 3/8th Intake Manifold Spacer
American Racing Headers with gutted cats
ARK DT-S
BMR Trailing Arms and Subframe Inserts
245/50R19 Pirelli PZero Nero All-Season's with 3/32nd tread after 35,000 miles.

Transmission: Auto

RT: 0.312
60': 2.312
330': 5.906
1/8: 8.828
1/8 MPH: 83.44
1000': 11.340
1/4: 13.429
1/4 MPH: 106.90

Track: Thunder Valley Raceway Park in Noble, OK
Date/Time: November 1st, 2013 @ 1851
DA: 1568 ft



Video (against a stock V6 Camaro):


I spun my tires deep into 2nd gear, tires are gone so I need new ones badly.

Also, since everybody is talking about improvements with the supercharger. Before my best run out of 80+ runs was 14.45 @ 99 MPH. Now I ran 13.43 @ 107 MPH. The week before I was trapping at 101 MPH with my supercharger since I had 8 degrees of Knock Retard, this run I only had 4 degrees of Knock Retard and picked up 6 MPH.

[rtcat600man]

Originally Posted by MagnumForceGB

Posted this in the FI List but not here, new best time for me.

Mods:
IPF Supercharger
VMAX Ported Throttle Body
MACE Stage 4 Ported Intake Manifold
MACE Plenum Spacer
VMAX 3/8th Intake Manifold Spacer
American Racing Headers with gutted cats
ARK DT-S
BMR Trailing Arms and Subframe Inserts
245/50R19 Pirelli PZero Nero All-Season's with 3/32nd tread after 35,000 miles.

Transmission: Auto

RT: 0.312
60': 2.312
330': 5.906
1/8: 8.828
1/8 MPH: 83.44
1000': 11.340
1/4: 13.429
1/4 MPH: 106.90

Track: Thunder Valley Raceway Park in Noble, OK
Date/Time: November 1st, 2013 @ 1851
DA: 1568 ft



Video (against a stock V6 Camaro):


I spun my tires deep into 2nd gear, tires are gone so I need new ones badly.

Also, since everybody is talking about improvements with the supercharger. Before my best run out of 80+ runs was 14.45 @ 99 MPH. Now I ran 13.43 @ 107 MPH. The week before I was trapping at 101 MPH with my supercharger since I had 8 degrees of Knock Retard, this run I only had 4 degrees of Knock Retard and picked up 6 MPH.

Updated your time.

[jeff4946]

Originally Posted by lscamaro

Imo nitrous is the best power adder for this car if going for best track times. Not only is it pretty consistent, but its also a lot cheaper.

Well, after initial cost of system, and replacement if engine, and what I lost on the trade in, I would beg to differ.... More like around $16k