Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
B&M
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 07-21-2008, 08:07 AM   #51
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,788
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jak View Post
now if it is the same engine why the huge gap in horses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supermans View Post
I don't understand the huge gap between the manual and auto either if the numbers are correct.. Anyone care to explain??
No explanation...yet. There will be a hp discrepancy; one has AFM, and one doesn't - so it's inevitable. But keep in mind that most of the numbers released aren't...accurate. This was a British car site that 'leaked' everything, and the disciples are making it clear that the text is wrong. So wait until this afternoon, and you'll get more complete answers.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 08:25 AM   #52
fastball
White 'n Nerdy
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,650
I would have to guess the reason for the large discrepency in HP between AFM and non-AFM is for fuel economy. They are probably really congnisant of fuel numbers, and their logic is those who buy the automatic aren't as "purist" or "enthusiast" as those who buy stick, so, a significant decrease in HP numbers won't bother those who opt for the slush box.

If you want power and the ability to modify, and don't care about fuel economy, buy stick
__________________
fastball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 08:31 AM   #53
shank0668


 
shank0668's Avatar
 
Drives: 1998 Sahara
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,564
Send a message via AIM to shank0668
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastball View Post
I would have to guess the reason for the large discrepency in HP between AFM and non-AFM is for fuel economy. They are probably really congnisant of fuel numbers, and their logic is those who buy the automatic aren't as "purist" or "enthusiast" as those who buy stick, so, a significant decrease in HP numbers won't bother those who opt for the slush box.

If you want power and the ability to modify, and don't care about fuel economy, buy stick
but sticks get better gas mileage thans autos
shank0668 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 08:38 AM   #54
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,788
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by shank0668 View Post
but sticks get better gas mileage thans autos
not true. At least...not anymore.

But still, wait for 4PM, those numbers are WRONG.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 08:49 AM   #55
Jak
 
Jak's Avatar
 
Drives: 03 Dodge Dakota
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 627
Unfortunately I've got to work this afternoon , so I'll see it tonight. Now, I've been thinking about this, could GM be taking gas prices in mind with the L99? Remember awhile back Scott said to forget everything we knew about engines for the Camaro. Could the L99 be geared for regular unleaded and be set up for FlexFuel (Would that explaine the difference in HP?) where the LS3 would run on super unleaded. Yeah, I know, we'll have to wait for this afternoon for the real answers, but what do you think about this theory? Possible?





Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
No explanation...yet. There will be a hp discrepancy; one has AFM, and one doesn't - so it's inevitable. But keep in mind that most of the numbers released aren't...accurate. This was a British car site that 'leaked' everything, and the disciples are making it clear that the text is wrong. So wait until this afternoon, and you'll get more complete answers.
Jak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 08:53 AM   #56
shank0668


 
shank0668's Avatar
 
Drives: 1998 Sahara
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,564
Send a message via AIM to shank0668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
not true. At least...not anymore.

But still, wait for 4PM, those numbers are WRONG.
hmmmmmmm my brothers 5 speed g5 gets better mpg than the auto
shank0668 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 08:55 AM   #57
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,788
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jak View Post
Yeah, I know, we'll have to wait for this afternoon for the real answers, but what do you think about this theory? Possible?
It's possible. The tune for regular would affect power, but not E85-compatibility.
Only 6 more hours, now......


And Shank, when I said "not true", I meant in some cars. Automatics are starting to return the same, if not better mpg than a manual counterpart in some vehicles. But there's too many variables (like gearing, and driving-habits) to say for sure if any one approach definitely gives an improvement. And that's new...it used to be the case where the automatic delivered worse mileage; no argument...
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 09:10 AM   #58
fastball
White 'n Nerdy
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 1,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by shank0668 View Post
but sticks get better gas mileage thans autos
That is true, in most cases, from the old days when both transmissions were hooked to the same exact engine with the same exact everything.

AFM is not yet developed properly to work well with manual transmissioned cars. GM is going to use AFM as much as they can to increase their CAFE as much as possible. They aren't going to alienate those of us who still want our performance with the manual, but at the same time they are trying as best they can to improve fuel economy wherever possible.

It is quite possible due to this anomily that automatics will get better fuel economy than manuals (thus another dagger into the heart of manuals everywhere).
__________________
fastball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 09:17 AM   #59
Dan
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2004 GTO
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmliptak View Post
It APPEARS the L99 is the L3 with AFM, etc, its a 6.2, but it has been rumored for quite some time that there would be a hp difference between the auto and the stick..I hear what you are saying, we should know a great deal more tommorrow
You know one of the biggest reasons why I don't believe it? If that is true and this isn't a truck engine (better not be), why isn't it an LSx?
Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 09:18 AM   #60
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,788
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan View Post
If that is true and this isn't a truck engine (better not be), why isn't it an LSx?
L76 in the G8 sound familiar?
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 09:23 AM   #61
jmliptak
 
Drives: D
Join Date: May 2008
Location: D
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jak View Post
Remember awhile back Scott said to forget everything we knew about engines for the Camaro. Could the L99 be geared for regular unleaded and be set up for FlexFuel (Would that explaine the difference in HP?) where the LS3 would run on super unleaded. Yeah, I know, we'll have to wait for this afternoon for the real answers, but what do you think about this theory? Possible?

The HP difference does not appear to be due to E85, it will get lower mileage due to the energy content per liter, but produce MORE horsepower due to an increase in octane rating.

http://www.iowacorn.org/ethanol/ethanol_5a.html

What is the range of a flexible fuel ethanol vehicle?
Ethanol has less energy content than gasoline. However, E85 also has a much higher octane (ranging from 100 to 105) than gasoline. FFVs are not optimized to E85, so they experience a 5% to 15% drop in fuel economy. This will vary based on temperature and driving conditions. For comparison purposes, aggressive driving habits can result in a 20% loss and low tire pressure can reduce mileage by 6%.

Research indicates Ford FFVs experience a 5% horsepower gain on E85.
The range of any particular vehicle is dependent on the size of the fuel tank and driving habits.


One the articles posted talked about a higher geared rear end in the auto as well, so I suspect that you are right, that the auto will be pointed towards gettting the same or perhaps even better mileage with the auto, especially on the highway I suspect with the AFM....

I would love to have flex fuel on both the LS3 and the auto, its a lot cheaper around me right now and would probably offset the lower mileage right now...That would be quite a statement from GM, our LS3 can run on ethanol and produce more horsepower than on gas...

jmliptak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 09:42 AM   #62
SilverTurtle
Reality Check Specialist
 
SilverTurtle's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 Z28, 2012 45th SS
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ATX
Posts: 1,724
Send a message via AIM to SilverTurtle Send a message via Yahoo to SilverTurtle
y'all are going to be so surprised this afternoon... some people in this thread have gotten some stuff right... but there's alot of speculation in here that's wrong... talk to me in 7 hours.
__________________
got tequila?
SilverTurtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 09:46 AM   #63
jmliptak
 
Drives: D
Join Date: May 2008
Location: D
Posts: 373
Is the broadcast really gonna go that long?????? It would be cool if it did.....

I gotta go to the store and buy the right cable so I can project the webcast on the big screen when its on...

I think you can count on MANY people asking you, it will be fun to look in the rearview mirror and laugh at some of the stuff we dreamed up....
jmliptak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 09:57 AM   #64
radz28
Petro-sexual
 
radz28's Avatar
 
Drives: Ultra-Grin
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Crapramento, Crapifornia
Posts: 13,043
I wonder if GM has reached a power threshold for engines with AFM then. I understand the way the lifters work and that jazz, but is it because anymore lift will result in the lift collapsing or pumping because the cam profile would be too aggressive? I wonder if there is a way for GM to integrate some multi-displacement technology with the L92's VVT (or whatever it's called.)

I think pretty much all of GM's current high performance engines (except for the LS9 and LSA) will run on sub-premium fuel, but the PCM will retard timing a lot until it stops detecting detonation. I'd run premium regardless, with a splash of unleaded 100. Gas here in CA sucks donkey b@lls, and the best we get is crappy 91 and unless you find a station with individual fuel nozzles, if the person in front of you just finished pumping 87, and you select 91, you're probably going to get a couple gallons of that 87 until you start actually getting the 91 you selected. Stations with separate nozzles are harder to find around here, so those are the places I frequent when I fill up my Camaro.

All this speculation is killing me!!!
__________________
"...What IS true: We anticipated that this would happen - we are never finished - and yes, Ford DOES deserve to win now and then. To think that GM can come out with a car to make ford throw in the towel is simply foolhardy..." - fbodfather
radz28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 10:31 AM   #65
SilverTurtle
Reality Check Specialist
 
SilverTurtle's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 Z28, 2012 45th SS
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: ATX
Posts: 1,724
Send a message via AIM to SilverTurtle Send a message via Yahoo to SilverTurtle
Quote:
Originally Posted by radz282003 View Post
I wonder if GM has reached a power threshold for engines with AFM then. I understand the way the lifters work and that jazz, but is it because anymore lift will result in the lift collapsing or pumping because the cam profile would be too aggressive? I wonder if there is a way for GM to integrate some multi-displacement technology with the L92's VVT (or whatever it's called.)

I think pretty much all of GM's current high performance engines (except for the LS9 and LSA) will run on sub-premium fuel, but the PCM will retard timing a lot until it stops detecting detonation. I'd run premium regardless, with a splash of unleaded 100. Gas here in CA sucks donkey b@lls, and the best we get is crappy 91 and unless you find a station with individual fuel nozzles, if the person in front of you just finished pumping 87, and you select 91, you're probably going to get a couple gallons of that 87 until you start actually getting the 91 you selected. Stations with separate nozzles are harder to find around here, so those are the places I frequent when I fill up my Camaro.

All this speculation is killing me!!!
can't talk about the auto SS engine just yet, but I can tell you that GM's "premium" recommendation is based on 91 octane... and that the premium recommendation is just that, a recommendation... the engine will run on regular unleaded gas, but there is a plain of programming in the computer that is described as "low octane" and the spark is adjusted to match up with that... this low octane spark table is also the default table for when you have a MAF failure.

I really wish Sunoco would make a move into the Texas region... I'd love to be able to pump 94 octane into our high performance V8s and I'd even pump it, on occasion, into our 5.3L Tahoe
__________________
got tequila?
SilverTurtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 10:52 AM   #66
The_Blur
Jayhawk USN
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: 6.2L of AWESOME! 2011 L99 2SS
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NAS Whiting Field
Posts: 14,253
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
Wait until this afternoon...We'll have facts very soon.
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 10:55 AM   #67
AirGoya

 
AirGoya's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro SS
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago/Carbondale
Posts: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by shank0668 View Post
hmmmmmmm my brothers 5 speed g5 gets better mpg than the auto
Thats because the manual has 5 speeds unlike the autos 4 speeds. Now the camaro will have equal 6 speeds on both sides so the auto should get equal, if not better mpg than the manual.
__________________
-Tim

AirGoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 11:41 AM   #68
Grape Ape
 
Drives: 96 Bronco w/ a 5 speed
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PNW
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by radz282003 View Post
I wonder if GM has reached a power threshold for engines with AFM then. I understand the way the lifters work and that jazz, but is it because anymore lift will result in the lift collapsing or pumping because the cam profile would be too aggressive? I wonder if there is a way for GM to integrate some multi-displacement technology with the L92's VVT (or whatever it's called.)

All this speculation is killing me!!!
The L76’s deact lifters are not able to absorb as much lift as the LS2’s stock cam has. So if you installed a hotter cam the valves still would open slightly when the cam hit max lift and confuse the computer.

I am expecting someone to start offering hot cams rocker packages for these motors soon that would bump the valve lift up to whatever the valve spring and piston clearance allow.

I also expect the power to be the same for stick and autos with the next generation of small blocks since they should be designed for AFM.
Grape Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 11:42 PM   #69
ralniv
 
Drives: far too much
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 72
I have to say that I'm rather disappointed with the 6sp auto SS specs. A 400 hp engine sounds great (literally and figuratively), but the nearly 4,000 lb curb weight is pooing on my parade. I'm hopeful that the car is agile for a 4,000 lb fat cat.

I was figuring on an SS that weighed nearer to 3,500 lbs. I better go on a diet so I can recover some of GM's weight overruns!
ralniv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2008, 12:51 AM   #70
boxmonkeyracing
juggernaut
 
boxmonkeyracing's Avatar
 
Drives: VRSCF, 2011 SS vert
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: kenly, nc
Posts: 3,345
Send a message via AIM to boxmonkeyracing Send a message via Yahoo to boxmonkeyracing
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralniv View Post
I have to say that I'm rather disappointed with the 6sp auto SS specs. A 400 hp engine sounds great (literally and figuratively), but the nearly 4,000 lb curb weight is pooing on my parade. I'm hopeful that the car is agile for a 4,000 lb fat cat.

I was figuring on an SS that weighed nearer to 3,500 lbs. I better go on a diet so I can recover some of GM's weight overruns!
have faith, and 3500 lbs is closer to what the 4th gens weighted and this is a bigger car. . .how could it weight that much?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fbodfather View Post
We do not want to use the Z28 moniker on a car that does not deserve this hallowed name.
boxmonkeyracing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2008, 02:12 AM   #71
ralniv
 
Drives: far too much
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 72
Does anyone know if the AFM engines are mod-friendly? Will the engine computer barf if you improve engine breathing (.e.g. intake, exhaust or cam swap).
ralniv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2008, 02:40 AM   #72
Mindz
E.B.A.H.
 
Mindz's Avatar
 
Drives: you wild...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the happy padded room wearing a jacket that makes me hug myself...
Posts: 18,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape View Post
The L76’s deact lifters are not able to absorb as much lift as the LS2’s stock cam has. So if you installed a hotter cam the valves still would open slightly when the cam hit max lift and confuse the computer.

I am expecting someone to start offering hot cams rocker packages for these motors soon that would bump the valve lift up to whatever the valve spring and piston clearance allow.

I also expect the power to be the same for stick and autos with the next generation of small blocks since they should be designed for AFM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralniv
Does anyone know if the AFM engines are mod-friendly? Will the engine computer barf if you improve engine breathing (.e.g. intake, exhaust or cam swap).
I think this post answered it.
__________________
Blue Rush, 2010 SS [Car of the Week 3/22/2010] Traded in on...ZLZBUBB, 2013 ZL1
Mindz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2008, 04:56 PM   #73
AirGoya

 
AirGoya's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Camaro SS
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago/Carbondale
Posts: 815
^
So they can be mod friendly if you know how to tune the computer to handle it?
__________________
-Tim

AirGoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2008, 07:02 PM   #74
camaro1

 
camaro1's Avatar
 
Drives: 550+RWHP 2010 camaro
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 1,588
there will be a way to de-activate the afm and mod for whatever cam you want,

just look at alll the new trucks, gm and dodge that use dod/afm, the hand held tuners already support turning the dod/afm off
__________________
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 07-22-2008, 07:51 PM   #75
2K05GT
Muscle Car Fanatic
 
Drives: 2005 Mustang GT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 267
The V8-equipped Camaro SS delivers better numbers across the board. Chevy's Camaro SS outfitted with the 422-hp 6.2-liter LS3 V8 six-speed manual hits 60 mph in 4.9 seconds and runs a 13.4-second quarter-mile at 108 mph according to Oppenheiser. Strangely enough, Oppenheiser also claims that the automatic-equipped SS Camaro, which is rated at 400 hp, runs from zero to 60 mph in just 4.6 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 13.3 seconds. "We optimized the shift points," he said.

Whoo hooo the Auto will be faster than the Manual
Now it just needs to go on a diet. 3914lbs
__________________
2K05GT 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
FINAL Production 2010/2009 Camaro! (PICS) rray200 Camaro Photos | Spyshots | Video | Media Gallery 799 05-19-2011 11:48 PM
Video: Discussion on American cars (Talks about the Camaro) AirGoya 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 9 07-09-2008 12:53 AM
Production Engine Options Discussion motorhed Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 13 05-27-2008 01:35 PM
*Spoilers*Transformers Discussion Thread*Spoilers* Zyreal Off-topic Discussions 36 07-31-2007 01:03 AM
General discussion on the 2008-2009 camaro BlacLac02 Site Related Announcements / Suggestions / Feedback / Questions 2 11-03-2006 04:15 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 PM.


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