Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
JDP Motorsports
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons

Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons Bolt-Ons | Intakes | Exhaust

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-2009, 12:50 PM   #1
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,880
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Question for the gearheads.



The L99s have averaged around 50 less HP to the wheels, stock, than the LS3.

Why did the L99 test .1 sec faster 0-60 and only .1 sec slower in the Quarter mile?

According to GM and most of the rags, they were pretty much the same within a tenth either way. It would seem to me that the LS3 would be a lot faster.

Anyone?
__________________
PQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 12:53 PM   #2
camaro1

 
camaro1's Avatar
 
Drives: 550+RWHP 2010 camaro
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 1,588
bait and switch with the test cars that magazines got and the cars sold to the public??
__________________
415ci stroker, TVS 2300 Magnacharger, cnc heads, cam, yank ss3200 converter, Kooks long tubes, Bwoody true cold air kit, ZL1 Pump, magnaflow 3" cat-back, lowering springs,BMR control arms and tie rod bars, 3.73 gears, diff mounts, RX can, ADM fuel controller
camaro1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:01 PM   #3
Camar0wn3d
formerly "wh0rsep0wer"
 
Camar0wn3d's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 1SS RS CGM
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 483
Yea it seemed strange to me how the L99 being handicapped 26HP, a few pounds heavier, and about an additional 10% drivetrain loss kept such close times to the LS3.

The way I justified it was the gearing difference made up for it.

--Edit-- removed my false information to prevent future confusion. Thanks jsuperman81
__________________
2010 1SS/RS - CGM/Gray Interior - M6
SOLD (stupid recession)
Kooks 1 7/8" headers, Solo Mach-X, Vararam.

2012 2LS - I'm back in BLACK!

Last edited by Camar0wn3d; 08-04-2009 at 01:07 PM. Reason: I'm a moron.
Camar0wn3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:03 PM   #4
jpsuperman81
That's Right 478whp450tq!
 
jpsuperman81's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS/RS Rally Yellow
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Indian Trail, NC
Posts: 2,335
The A6 is not a 3.73 it actually has a lower numbered gear. It was suppose to be something about how the car was tuned and programmed to shift and it would edge out the manual in the 0-60, i remember reading it on here long time ago. Obviously with the slow ones out there, a mistake was made somewhere.
__________________
I would like to apoligize ahead of time if any of my posts bother you, I am quite a large smartass and very expressive of my opinion!
I came here to chew bubble gum and kick ass and I'm all out of bubble gum!
Ordered Feb. 13 2009: 2SS/RS/M6/Sunroof/ Rally Yellow built 8/7 Vin# 33534, Delivered 8/26/09!
jpsuperman81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:06 PM   #5
ElAntonius
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 1SS A6
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 140
Taller gearing off the line, IIRC. Also, if you look at the torque curve for the L99, it's flatter, meaning it has a wider power band than the LS3.

Truth is, horsepower is largely a false construct...again examining the nature of the engines, while the LS3 makes 26 more horsepower, it only is over 10 lb-ft of torque, and the L99 is closer to its maximum across more of the rev range.

The reason for the higher HP rating on the LS3 is that it revs a bit higher, but as the old saying goes:

Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races.
__________________
A House Divided...
ElAntonius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:08 PM   #6
jpsuperman81
That's Right 478whp450tq!
 
jpsuperman81's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2SS/RS Rally Yellow
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Indian Trail, NC
Posts: 2,335
Hydra-Matic 6l80 six-speed automatic (SS) w/ TAPshift
Gear ratios (:1):
First: 4.03
Second: 2.36
Third: 1.53
Fourth: 1.15
Fifth: 0.85
Sixth: 0.67
Reverse: 3.06
Final drive ratio: 3.27


TR6060 six-speed manual (SS)
Gear ratios (:1):
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
__________________
I would like to apoligize ahead of time if any of my posts bother you, I am quite a large smartass and very expressive of my opinion!
I came here to chew bubble gum and kick ass and I'm all out of bubble gum!
Ordered Feb. 13 2009: 2SS/RS/M6/Sunroof/ Rally Yellow built 8/7 Vin# 33534, Delivered 8/26/09!
jpsuperman81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:09 PM   #7
Camar0wn3d
formerly "wh0rsep0wer"
 
Camar0wn3d's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 1SS RS CGM
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 483
Edited my above post. Yea I just read that the A6 final drive is 3.27 so that blows my theory out of the water.
__________________
2010 1SS/RS - CGM/Gray Interior - M6
SOLD (stupid recession)
Kooks 1 7/8" headers, Solo Mach-X, Vararam.

2012 2LS - I'm back in BLACK!
Camar0wn3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:16 PM   #8
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,880
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaro1 View Post
bait and switch with the test cars that magazines got and the cars sold to the public??
I'm not gonna say that, but you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsuperman81 View Post
The A6 is not a 3.73 it actually has a lower numbered gear. It was suppose to be something about how the car was tuned and programmed to shift and it would edge out the manual in the 0-60, i remember reading it on here long time ago. Obviously with the slow ones out there, a mistake was made somewhere.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ElAntonius View Post
Taller gearing off the line, IIRC. Also, if you look at the torque curve for the L99, it's flatter, meaning it has a wider power band than the LS3.

Truth is, horsepower is largely a false construct...again examining the nature of the engines, while the LS3 makes 26 more horsepower, it only is over 10 lb-ft of torque, and the L99 is closer to its maximum across more of the rev range.

The reason for the higher HP rating on the LS3 is that it revs a bit higher, but as the old saying goes:

Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races.
We're seeing bigger Torque gains with the tunes than HP.

So I guess the L99s are just tuned lower than the ones the testers got.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsuperman81 View Post
Hydra-Matic 6l80 six-speed automatic (SS) w/ TAPshift
Gear ratios (:1):
First: 4.03
Second: 2.36
Third: 1.53
Fourth: 1.15
Fifth: 0.85
Sixth: 0.67
Reverse: 3.06
Final drive ratio: 3.27


TR6060 six-speed manual (SS)
Gear ratios (:1):
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
__________________
PQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:16 PM   #9
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,880
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Well, that's all good but the LS3s seem to be easily faster across the board from what we've seen.
__________________
PQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:19 PM   #10
GTAHVIT
One Lucky Guy.
 
GTAHVIT's Avatar
 
Drives: #22 Tom Henry Racing 2010 2SS/RS
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Augustine FL
Posts: 28,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by irpq11 View Post
I'm not gonna say that, but you can.



We're seeing bigger Torque gains with the tunes than HP.

So I guess the L99s are just tuned lower than the ones the testers got.

I dunno about that. Junkie's fast list for stock cars in the quarter mile has a few L99's on there...
GTAHVIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:23 PM   #11
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,880
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTAHVIT View Post
I dunno about that. Junkie's fast list for stock cars in the quarter mile has a few L99's on there...
Yup. I looked at that. But I did an average and the LS3s are performing a lot better. Considering there are a lot more L99s out there than LS3s, it's kinda interesting.
__________________
PQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:25 PM   #12
ElAntonius
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 1SS A6
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by irpq11 View Post
Well, that's all good but the LS3s seem to be easily faster across the board from what we've seen.
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21013

I might be misunderstanding you, but seems to be an even sprinkling of L99s and LS3s there.

TBH, if a MT is slow, everyone is quick to blame the driver. If an AT is slow, it's 'gotta be' the car's fault.

Someone on here (sorry, forgot who it was) alluded to having a feel for the AT, having to know when to step it in, when to back off. Not saying it should be as difficult as some people are having a time with, but sub 14 should be possible even in summer conditions...if someone is getting really close to that, maybe they should analyze factors other than blaming the trans.

That doesn't excuse the poor showing of some cars on here, but analyzing the problem also means dismissing other sources of car slowdown.
__________________
A House Divided...
ElAntonius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:27 PM   #13
GTAHVIT
One Lucky Guy.
 
GTAHVIT's Avatar
 
Drives: #22 Tom Henry Racing 2010 2SS/RS
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Augustine FL
Posts: 28,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by irpq11 View Post
Yup. I looked at that. But I did an average and the LS3s are performing a lot better. Considering there are a lot more L99s out there than LS3s, it's kinda interesting.
Truthfully, I think a lot of those L99 times are slower due to driving skillz.

I just don't think GM deliberately detuned the cars for production???? To make customers unhappy???

So It's not like it saves them money to detune the ECM...

Just doesn't make sense to me. I know that's not the topic of this thread.

so back on topic...

It really isn't that much easier to launch an Auto over a manual. In fact I'd probably have worse launches with an auto now cus my dd's have always been manuals.
GTAHVIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:30 PM   #14
Gentry78
HOOK'EM
 
Gentry78's Avatar
 
Drives: 97 c1500/92 olds
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,283
first gear is way lower so that helps a munch
Gentry78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 01:32 PM   #15
Gentry78
HOOK'EM
 
Gentry78's Avatar
 
Drives: 97 c1500/92 olds
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTAHVIT View Post
Truthfully, I think a lot of those L99 times are slower due to driving skillz.

I just don't think GM deliberately detuned the cars for production???? To make customers unhappy???

So It's not like it saves them money to detune the ECM...

Just doesn't make sense to me. I know that's not the topic of this thread.

so back on topic...

It really isn't that much easier to launch an Auto over a manual. In fact I'd probably have worse launches with an auto now cus my dd's have always been manuals.
yup and with newer cars with more TM you can't load up the tranny as much as you used to be able to
Gentry78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 02:13 PM   #16
nuptualnemesis
NuptualNemesis
 
nuptualnemesis's Avatar
 
Drives: Silver 1SS M6 - 480hp 11.57/120.79
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Baton Rouge, LA www.Divorcefor399.com
Posts: 299
L99's have more bottom and average torque because of VOD. They also have a "torque converter" in automatic cars that multiplies the amount of torque to the rear wheels. This gets them down the 60 foot quicker. They can launch at lower rpms with less wheel spin. Six speeds need more wheel spin to keep rpms in power band but will catch the automatic around midtrack. These are heavy cars and they need a lot of torque to get moving. L99's respond better to a tune in stock form, about 20hp more. They are detuned in factory tune compared to LS3. Six speeds shift to fourth gear about 100 feet from the traps effectively using only three gears. With a 390 or 411 rear end there would be torque multiplication in all four gears and the automatic would not even come close.
nuptualnemesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 02:22 PM   #17
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,880
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTAHVIT View Post
Truthfully, I think a lot of those L99 times are slower due to driving skillz.

I just don't think GM deliberately detuned the cars for production???? To make customers unhappy???

So It's not like it saves them money to detune the ECM...

Just doesn't make sense to me. I know that's not the topic of this thread.

so back on topic...

It really isn't that much easier to launch an Auto over a manual. In fact I'd probably have worse launches with an auto now cus my dd's have always been manuals.
Please don't misunderstand.

I don't belive GM did anything intentional. AT ALL. Fbod talked to me and I feel absolutely in good hands.





Quote:
Originally Posted by ElAntonius View Post
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21013

I might be misunderstanding you, but seems to be an even sprinkling of L99s and LS3s there.

TBH, if a MT is slow, everyone is quick to blame the driver. If an AT is slow, it's 'gotta be' the car's fault.

Someone on here (sorry, forgot who it was) alluded to having a feel for the AT, having to know when to step it in, when to back off. Not saying it should be as difficult as some people are having a time with, but sub 14 should be possible even in summer conditions...if someone is getting really close to that, maybe they should analyze factors other than blaming the trans.

That doesn't excuse the poor showing of some cars on here, but analyzing the problem also means dismissing other sources of car slowdown.
Actually, it was Junkie who said that.

Yes, there are a number of L99s sprinkled in. There are more M6s higher on the list than A6s and the average for the LS3s in that thread are 13.30 seconds. The average for the L99s is 13.64 seconds. I didn't count any times of cars that were moded. And the bottom 3 of the LS3 list is hurting the average badly. lol

I got this:

LS3s L99s
12.8 13.1
12.8 13.2
13.0 13.2
13.0 13.5
13.2 13.6
13.2 13.7
13.3 13.8
13.3 13.8
13.5 13.9
13.5 13.9
13.7 14.0
13.8 14.0
13.8

So this particular data would show kind of what you'de expect when you consider the HP and TQ numbers. I'would have figured even worse. The LS3 doesn't show a time over 13.5 until the 13th on the list. The L99 is showing only 4 that are 13.5 or better.

So the question is it would seem that this is what we should have expected, right?
__________________
PQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 02:27 PM   #18
coolman
Guest
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 4,871
I think they did d tune not to save money but to get the car out of tha gas guzzler tax zone. It makes the car more an easier sell. Look at gto's Auto had gas guzzler manuals didn't with the same motor. sorry back on topic, the auto I believe would plant harder off the line which would get it to 60 faster, but the little less weight and alittle more hp gets the manual thru the 1320 faster.
coolman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 02:27 PM   #19
GTAHVIT
One Lucky Guy.
 
GTAHVIT's Avatar
 
Drives: #22 Tom Henry Racing 2010 2SS/RS
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Augustine FL
Posts: 28,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by irpq11 View Post
Please don't misunderstand.

I don't belive GM did anything intentional. AT ALL. Fbod talked to me and I feel absolutely in good hands.





Actually, it was Junkie who said that.

Yes, there are a number of L99s sprinkled in. There are more M6s higher on the list than A6s and the average for the LS3s in that thread are 13.30 seconds. The average for the L99s is 13.64 seconds. I didn't count any times of cars that were moded. And the bottom 3 of the LS3 list is hurting the average badly. lol

I got this:

LS3s L99s
12.8 13.1
12.8 13.2
13.0 13.2
13.0 13.5
13.2 13.6
13.2 13.7
13.3 13.8
13.3 13.8
13.5 13.9
13.5 13.9
13.7 14.0
13.8 14.0
13.8

So this particular data would show kind of what you'de expect when you consider the HP and TQ numbers. I'would have figured even worse. The LS3 doesn't show a time over 13.5 until the 13th on the list. The L99 is showing only 4 that are 13.5 or better.

So the question is it would seem that this is what we should have expected, right?
Oh no, not directed at you, I was just posting my thought on that issue.

Yeah I know where you stand on all of this.
GTAHVIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 02:30 PM   #20
GTAHVIT
One Lucky Guy.
 
GTAHVIT's Avatar
 
Drives: #22 Tom Henry Racing 2010 2SS/RS
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Augustine FL
Posts: 28,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolman View Post
I think they did d tune not to save money but to get the car out of tha gas guzzler tax zone. It makes the car more an easier sell. Look at gto's Auto had gas guzzler manuals didn't with the same motor.
again, why? if the tunes they were using prior to SORP were already being used to caluclate the MPG and hence avoid the GG tax. Why detune it?

They already had the numbers they needed? They have nothing to gain by doing that...

JMHO.
GTAHVIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 02:37 PM   #21
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,880
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Just read the thread as laid out.

The purpouse of this thread is NOT to attempt to say that there was an intentional misleading thing by GM. I don't believe this is the case.

I'm just asking a legitimate question. A technical and mechanical question. I'm trying to learn something here.

It did kinda sound like I was accusing GM of misinfo. lol




The Camaro SS, L99 and LS3 cars were tested almost equal in the numbers. Within a tenth of a second of eich other. The L99 will show much more power loss to the wheels being an automatic tranny. The LS3 allready starts 26 HP more. The dyno numbers bear this out with the LS3 showing about 50 more HP at the ground.

So, ASSUMING ALL INFO IS ACCURATE, does this make sense? Please explain what is happening to keep the L99 as fast as the LS3?
__________________
PQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 02:38 PM   #22
PQ
1st State Chevy supporter
 
PQ's Avatar
 
Drives: Hybrid SS Camaro
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 36,880
Send a message via Yahoo to PQ
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTAHVIT View Post
again, why? if the tunes they were using prior to SORP were already being used to caluclate the MPG and hence avoid the GG tax. Why detune it?

They already had the numbers they needed? They have nothing to gain by doing that...

JMHO.
__________________
PQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 02:40 PM   #23
UCF w00t
Geek
 
UCF w00t's Avatar
 
Drives: IOM 2010 Camaro 2SS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orlando
Posts: 4,456
To be honest, this is kinda what I expected and seems to be coming to fruition.

Good stick driver beats L99.
Good or avg L99 beats average LS3
bad L99 and bad stick... anyone's guess
UCF w00t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 02:41 PM   #24
coolman
Guest
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 4,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTAHVIT View Post
again, why? if the tunes they were using prior to SORP were already being used to caluclate the MPG and hence avoid the GG tax. Why detune it?

They already had the numbers they needed? They have nothing to gain by doing that...

JMHO.
I guess I meant d tune in a differant light than your thinking. What I meant was , I think that's why they did the l99 instead of just putting the ls3 in the automatic. I didn't mean that they designed and built the l99 and then d tuned it to sell it.
coolman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2009, 02:44 PM   #25
GTAHVIT
One Lucky Guy.
 
GTAHVIT's Avatar
 
Drives: #22 Tom Henry Racing 2010 2SS/RS
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Augustine FL
Posts: 28,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElAntonius View Post
Taller gearing off the line, IIRC. Also, if you look at the torque curve for the L99, it's flatter, meaning it has a wider power band than the LS3.

Truth is, horsepower is largely a false construct...again examining the nature of the engines, while the LS3 makes 26 more horsepower, it only is over 10 lb-ft of torque, and the L99 is closer to its maximum across more of the rev range.

The reason for the higher HP rating on the LS3 is that it revs a bit higher, but as the old saying goes:

Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpsuperman81 View Post
The A6 is not a 3.73 it actually has a lower numbered gear. It was suppose to be something about how the car was tuned and programmed to shift and it would edge out the manual in the 0-60, i remember reading it on here long time ago. Obviously with the slow ones out there, a mistake was made somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuptualnemesis View Post
L99's have more bottom and average torque because of VOD. They also have a "torque converter" in automatic cars that multiplies the amount of torque to the rear wheels. This gets them down the 60 foot quicker. They can launch at lower rpms with less wheel spin. Six speeds need more wheel spin to keep rpms in power band but will catch the automatic around midtrack. These are heavy cars and they need a lot of torque to get moving. L99's respond better to a tune in stock form, about 20hp more. They are detuned in factory tune compared to LS3. Six speeds shift to fourth gear about 100 feet from the traps effectively using only three gears. With a 390 or 411 rear end there would be torque multiplication in all four gears and the automatic would not even come close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irpq11 View Post
Just read the thread as laid out.

The purpouse of this thread is NOT to attempt to say that there was an intentional misleading thing by GM. I don't believe this is the case.

I'm just asking a legitimate question. A technical and mechanical question. I'm trying to learn something here.

It did kinda sound like I was accusing GM of misinfo. lol




The Camaro SS, L99 and LS3 cars were tested almost equal in the numbers. Within a tenth of a second of eich other. The L99 will show much more power loss to the wheels being an automatic tranny. The LS3 allready starts 26 HP more. The dyno numbers bear this out with the LS3 showing about 50 more HP at the ground.

So, ASSUMING ALL INFO IS ACCURATE, does this make sense? Please explain what is happening to keep the L99 as fast as the LS3?
I really think the above posts are the biggest contributors to the scenario you are asking about.

GTAHVIT is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please answer my question... IROCanSS 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 23 07-16-2009 05:49 PM
LS3 Transmission Question Seawolf 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 13 06-12-2009 02:16 PM
Question about the After.... Tecca Camaro Price | Ordering | Tracking | Dealers Discussions 1 04-15-2009 04:05 PM
OK WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION OM FINANCING leatherneck Camaro Price | Ordering | Tracking | Dealers Discussions 22 03-26-2009 03:53 PM
2SS exhaust, 2 part question. HELP!! 2SS is mine!! Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 13 11-16-2008 06:51 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.