Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Flowmaster Exhaust
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 08-20-2008, 08:49 PM   #1
topgun1

 
topgun1's Avatar
 
Drives: 10 SIM 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Posts: 1,944
Why does the L99 get special treatment?

I've been trying to understand Chevy's reason for making 2 versions of the 6.2liter V-8 engine. Why does the L99 get 1) Active Fuel Management, 2) variable valve timing, and 3) a transmission that you can "optimize" the shift points.

The fuel economy is only 1 mpg better for the L-99 versus the LS3, so what is the big deal with the AFM and why doesn't the LS3 have it. The detuned, but supposedly faster L-99, doesn't really make much sense. In Chevy's history, there was the same engine, whether it was auto or manual, like the LT1 or LS1, etc.

There is launch control on the 422-hp 6speed manual, but evidently (in preliminary testing) is still 0.3 seconds slower than the 400 hp auto, which doesn't make alot of sense to me.

My beef is that if they are going to have these power-enhancing and fuel-saving technologies on one engine, they should have it on the other, or just offer one engine, with an auto or manual. The competition should be focused on rival cars, not battles for what engine is faster in the same car!, but that's just my two cents worth.

what are your opinions?
__________________
5th Gen Camaros of the Carolinas SIM, 2SS/RS LS3 5/7/11 453.9 RWHP 427.5 RWTQ
VMS Stage 2.5 Comp Cams kit, Cold Air Inductions intake, ADM race scoop, DT 1 3/4" headers, Solo cats, 3" Magnaflow catback, Pypes cutouts, HP tune, H&R SuperSport springs, Eibach sways/spacers, TexasSpeed UD pulley, LSR tensioner pulley, Barton shifter, skip shift eliminator, powder-coated calipers, R1 concept rotors, StopTech pads, Granatelli wires, Lloyds mats, tint, AAC afterburner taillamps, AAC scanner/sidemarkers, SRP pedals, custom engine cover, black bowties, Ridergraphix hood spears....
topgun1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 08:51 PM   #2
shank0668


 
shank0668's Avatar
 
Drives: 1998 Sahara
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,547
Send a message via AIM to shank0668
Quote:
Originally Posted by topgun1 View Post
I've been trying to understand Chevy's reason for making 2 versions of the 6.2liter V-8 engine. Why does the L99 get 1) Active Fuel Management, 2) variable valve timing, and 3) a transmission that you can "optimize" the shift points.

The fuel economy is only 1 mpg better for the L-99 versus the LS3, so what is the big deal with the AFM and why doesn't the LS3 have it. The detuned, but supposedly faster L-99, doesn't really make much sense. In Chevy's history, there was the same engine, whether it was auto or manual, like the LT1 or LS1, etc.

There is launch control on the 422-hp 6speed manual, but evidently (in preliminary testing) is still 0.3 seconds slower than the 400 hp auto, which doesn't make alot of sense to me.

My beef is that if they are going to have these power-enhancing and fuel-saving technologies on one engine, they should have it on the other, or just offer one engine, with an auto or manual. The competition should be focused on rival cars, not battles for what engine is faster in the same car!, but that's just my two cents worth.

what are your opinions?
all the o-60 1/4 mile i would bet is bs
shank0668 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 08:52 PM   #3
topgun1

 
topgun1's Avatar
 
Drives: 10 SIM 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Posts: 1,944
yeah, i'm with you on that--i'm waiting for some real track testing numbers.
__________________
5th Gen Camaros of the Carolinas SIM, 2SS/RS LS3 5/7/11 453.9 RWHP 427.5 RWTQ
VMS Stage 2.5 Comp Cams kit, Cold Air Inductions intake, ADM race scoop, DT 1 3/4" headers, Solo cats, 3" Magnaflow catback, Pypes cutouts, HP tune, H&R SuperSport springs, Eibach sways/spacers, TexasSpeed UD pulley, LSR tensioner pulley, Barton shifter, skip shift eliminator, powder-coated calipers, R1 concept rotors, StopTech pads, Granatelli wires, Lloyds mats, tint, AAC afterburner taillamps, AAC scanner/sidemarkers, SRP pedals, custom engine cover, black bowties, Ridergraphix hood spears....
topgun1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 09:08 PM   #4
camaro&T/A
 
Drives: '82 Z28 400SB
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Plover WI
Posts: 173
The reason they used 2 different engines is because AFM doesn't work wth the manual. the reason it's less powerful isn't because of the automatic tranny, it's because of the AFM. it's probably quicker becuase a computer can shift faster than a person (quicker reaction time) why they bothered with it for 1mpg idk...
camaro&T/A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2008, 09:19 PM   #5
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 camaro&T/A View Post
why they bothered with it for 1mpg idk...
for the first time in the camaro the auto is actually getting better mpg then the manual. a manual z28 ls1 could get upwards of 28 mpg highway where as the auto got 25. AFM is the shiznit and made up for the 6th gear the manual had. but now they both have 6 gears. . .and AFM is supposedly good for only 3%.
__________________
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 08-20-2008, 09:44 PM   #6
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: 14,201
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaro&T/A View Post
The reason they used 2 different engines is because AFM doesn't work wth the manual. the reason it's less powerful isn't because of the automatic tranny, it's because of the AFM. it's probably quicker becuase a computer can shift faster than a person (quicker reaction time) why they bothered with it for 1mpg idk...
GM promised AFM and VVT, and they delivered. I'm guessing they tried to put these features in the manual, but the LS3 is just not capable of it without serious modification. I'm fairly certain that someone posted that the manual cannot use AFM at all, but I can't remember the justification for this. The fuel efficiency is a first because it means that the auto will be more fuel efficient than the manual, as boxmonkeyracing stated.
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 01:38 AM   #7
ralniv
 
Drives: far too much
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 72
A slight correction to your gripe... you can't optimize the shift pts on the L99 (at least not without adding mods). GM optimized the shift pts on the L99.

Why did they do it? Probably wanted to showcase some advanced technology and give the appearance of going green. The LS3 didn't get it because GM's AFM doesn't work with manual trannies. I don't know why it doesn't work with manuals. I would expect the Gen V engine with a manual transmission will get some technological love.

I'm glad to see GM squeeze better performance from an automatic transmission. The auto drivers have always been shafted on performance and fuel economy. The role reversal is refreshing; especially since I drive an automatic due to an abundance of city driving.
ralniv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:06 AM   #8
headpunter
Not That sad..considering
 
headpunter's Avatar
 
Drives: Man
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: the part of washington the capital forgot about.
Posts: 3,784
Send a message via AIM to headpunter
they actually are the same architecture and use the same block, heads and pistons/crank. the diffrence is the ls3 block doesnt have the bosses drilled for the afm equipment that goes under the knocksensor plate. so you re getting the same engine just less hp in exhange for the afm equipment.
headpunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:21 PM   #9
MajorTom
 
MajorTom's Avatar
 
Drives: 2005 Pontiac GTO
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 307
The auto version is probably mostly for the image of going green. And I think that when we see real 1/4 mile times we'll see the truth about performance. And I bet there's not much of a difference with a good driver in both cars.

The fact that the Automatic is supposed to be a tad faster has no effect on which transmission I want in my Camaro.
MajorTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:42 PM   #10
Mblock66
 
Mblock66's Avatar
 
Drives: 2005 Subaru Legacy GT
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 313
People need to quit assuming that Auto is "faster".

Some bogus numbers were released and I can't believe people embrased them. The car in production trim hasn't even been released to anyone to test yet. Even with shifts optimized a lighter car with launch control and more power is going to win with a very good driver. Don't forget that GM has put no lift shift technology into its cars now. Like in the Cobalt SS.

You no longer have to lift off the gas when shifting. So there is no loss of RPM and with a clean shift there is now no advantage for the auto.

People said the same thing about the vettes with this tranny. Now the LS3 Manual is running 11.7's and the Autos are still running 12.2's
Mblock66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:43 PM   #11
greenrail
Comic Curmudgeon
 
greenrail's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS-2010 VW CC Sport
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaro&T/A View Post
The reason they used 2 different engines is because AFM doesn't work wth the manual. the reason it's less powerful isn't because of the automatic tranny, it's because of the AFM. it's probably quicker becuase a computer can shift faster than a person (quicker reaction time) why they bothered with it for 1mpg idk...
The reason they botherd is because of CAFE Standards. Everywhere any manufacturer can produce improvements (no matter how small it may appear to us as enthusiasts) is a gain for the overall fleet averages sold in a given year.

That really shouldn't be an issue. I much like others here, would wait to see what verified track tests show.
__________________
Member Illinois Camaro Club
His Name is Rosie - "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick!" - If you know who said that, then you know the genesis of his name.
greenrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:49 PM   #12
Angrybird 12
Retired, Cancer Survivor
 
Angrybird 12's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 CAMARO 1LT, 08 Vue, 14 Spark
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: J. C. Tennessee
Posts: 17,693
Has anyone mentioned the possibility that the AFM is only on the Automatic because the Valvetrain isn't as strong as the normal Valvetrain and if it was on the Manual and you missed a Shift or downshifted too soon you could over rev the engine and destroy the valvetrain...Most Automatics will not downshift untill the rpms are in a safe range. also may be why the AFM has less horsepower.
__________________
Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE...CAMARO!

Previous Camaros: 1974, 1979 and 2010.
Angrybird 12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 03:22 PM   #13
CamaroSpike23
Mr. Nitpicky
 
CamaroSpike23's Avatar
 
Drives: anything I can get my hands on
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: anywhere and everywhere
Posts: 22,861
Send a message via Yahoo to CamaroSpike23
Quote:
Originally Posted by topgun1 View Post
I've been trying to understand Chevy's reason for making 2 versions of the 6.2liter V-8 engine. Why does the L99 get 1) Active Fuel Management, 2) variable valve timing, and 3) a transmission that you can "optimize" the shift points.

The fuel economy is only 1 mpg better for the L-99 versus the LS3, so what is the big deal with the AFM and why doesn't the LS3 have it. The detuned, but supposedly faster L-99, doesn't really make much sense. In Chevy's history, there was the same engine, whether it was auto or manual, like the LT1 or LS1, etc.

There is launch control on the 422-hp 6speed manual, but evidently (in preliminary testing) is still 0.3 seconds slower than the 400 hp auto, which doesn't make alot of sense to me.

My beef is that if they are going to have these power-enhancing and fuel-saving technologies on one engine, they should have it on the other, or just offer one engine, with an auto or manual. The competition should be focused on rival cars, not battles for what engine is faster in the same car!, but that's just my two cents worth.

what are your opinions?
the L99 is an LS3 with AFM.
AFM does not work with a manual (tho we've discussed possiblities for that elsewhere)
History is changing, CAFE restrictions are adding to the pressure auto makers have already.
some people want their cake and eat it too, AFM gives you that. nice strong off the line, 400 hp, 4 cyl running when cruising. GM wants to sell as many of these cars as possible. offering a powerful engine that has the capability to save on the mpg's is what some people want. not everyone who buys this car is going to hot rod the hell out of it.

and your beef is correct, to an extent. they aren't battling it out between the two cars to see which one is the best between them, they are getting baseline numbers to throw to the masses (and the competitors' faces) almost every car that has come out has been tested in the auto and manual trim, not to fight against itself, but to get the numbers for both auto and manual

Quote:
Originally Posted by shank0668 View Post
all the o-60 1/4 mile i would bet is bs
why, cus an auto has to be slower than a manual? cus the manual has to have better fuel economy?

or is it cus the auto is now a 6speed as well, and can therefore have a larger array of gear ratios.... speaking of which, auto's 1st gear is like ~4:1 where the manual is ~3:1. freakin crazy. which leads to the auto being able to get out of the hole a lot faster/easier with less power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mblock66 View Post
People need to quit assuming that Auto is "faster".

Some bogus numbers were released and I can't believe people embrased them. The car in production trim hasn't even been released to anyone to test yet. Even with shifts optimized a lighter car with launch control and more power is going to win with a very good driver. Don't forget that GM has put no lift shift technology into its cars now. Like in the Cobalt SS.

You no longer have to lift off the gas when shifting. So there is no loss of RPM and with a clean shift there is now no advantage for the auto.

People said the same thing about the vettes with this tranny. Now the LS3 Manual is running 11.7's and the Autos are still running 12.2's
wow... you need to quit assuming the Manual is "faster"


i can show you plenty of cars with less than 350 hp that are faster than 500hp cars. hell, the bolt-on record for LT1s is 11.9 for the manual and.....wait for it.....11.6 for the auto. both motors pushing 346 hp.

and the manual driver is one hell of a driver too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyman 08 View Post
Has anyone mentioned the possibility that the AFM is only on the Automatic because the Valvetrain isn't as strong as the normal Valvetrain and if it was on the Manual and you missed a Shift or downshifted too soon you could over rev the engine and destroy the valvetrain...Most Automatics will not downshift untill the rpms are in a safe range. also may be why the AFM has less horsepower.


thats a possiblity, the main reason is that you get a slight "jerk" from the motor when it shuts down or starts up those 4 cyls. with an auto, the torque converter/tranny fluid takes that and you dont feel it, whereas with the manual, it would be a lot stronger of a jolt
__________________
Never race anything you can't afford to light on fire and push off a cliff
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
Nobody makes CamaroSpike happy. You just disgust him a little less than other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogwinters View Post
Read that link that Spike posted, it'll tell you everything you need to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WheelmanSS View Post
Post count is truly an accurate measure of how cool someone is on the Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Norris View Post
I piss excellence
and fart awesomeness
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
Nobody makes CamaroSpike happy. You just disgust him a little less than other people.
"You can think I'm wrong, but that's no reason to quit thinking.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overflow View Post
But not all people were born awesome like you, Spike.
CamaroSpike23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 07:09 PM   #14
SoFlaZ

 
SoFlaZ's Avatar
 
Drives: Nothing special :-(
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: FL
Posts: 940
It just came to me, the L99 is a L92 from an Escalade with a LS3 intake manifold instead of a vortec mani and probably a different cam for low end torque reasons in a large SUV. It's not so much that its special treatment, thats just how the motor comes I guess. Though idk how hard it would be to outfit the LS3 at least with VVT.
SoFlaZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 11:21 PM   #15
stovt001


 
stovt001's Avatar
 
Drives: 2006 Cobalt, 2004 Taurus wagon
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Posts: 3,817
Don't take the manual (or even auto) mileage numbers at face value. While the old EPA tests were overly optimistic, the new ones went too far in the other direction and now they're overly pessimistic. Its really not hard to beat the new ratings (I get 30 mpg in stop and go traffic with my lead foot in my Cobalt, even though its only rated at 26 mpg combined or something like that) and I imagine the spread could get even greater in the real world.
__________________
"It's kind of fun to do the impossible" - Walt Disney

There's a great big beautiful tomorrow
shining at the end of every day
There's a great big beautiful tomorrow
Just a dream away
stovt001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 11:47 PM   #16
MerF
Go Rays!
 
MerF's Avatar
 
Drives: 03 Trailblazer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St Pete, Florida
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mblock66 View Post
People need to quit assuming that Auto is "faster".
See kids, this is why benchracing is bad for you.

No car with a clutch will ever be faster in a straight line than an equivalant car with a T/C (or rediculously expensive dual clutch). It's common sense that a computer and valves can shift faster than a human. Period.
MerF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 12:50 AM   #17
headpunter
Not That sad..considering
 
headpunter's Avatar
 
Drives: Man
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: the part of washington the capital forgot about.
Posts: 3,784
Send a message via AIM to headpunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoFlaZ View Post
It just came to me, the L99 is a L92 from an Escalade with a LS3 intake manifold instead of a vortec mani and probably a different cam for low end torque reasons in a large SUV. It's not so much that its special treatment, thats just how the motor comes I guess. Though idk how hard it would be to outfit the LS3 at least with VVT.
no the l99 is a ls3 with the bolt-ons for vvt and afm
headpunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 08:45 AM   #18
Dan
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2004 GTO
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 448
The L99 doesn't have VVT, only the 3.6 does.
Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 09:39 AM   #19
headpunter
Not That sad..considering
 
headpunter's Avatar
 
Drives: Man
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: the part of washington the capital forgot about.
Posts: 3,784
Send a message via AIM to headpunter
doesnt it need to open the cylinders that are disabled by the afm so they dont act like a compression brake?
headpunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 09:59 AM   #20
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,787
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by headpunter View Post
doesnt it need to open the cylinders that are disabled by the afm so they dont act like a compression brake?
Having the valves closed, and the cylinders sealed is part of the AFM system. The pressures in the deactive cylinders act like a spring. Otherwise, could you imagine the power loss: you'd have half an engine just sucking power through frictional losses.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 02:45 PM   #21
headpunter
Not That sad..considering
 
headpunter's Avatar
 
Drives: Man
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: the part of washington the capital forgot about.
Posts: 3,784
Send a message via AIM to headpunter
ahhh thats makes alot of sense now that i think about it
headpunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 03:33 PM   #22
Robert91RS

 
Robert91RS's Avatar
 
Drives: Everywhere
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: TX
Posts: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
Having the valves closed, and the cylinders sealed is part of the AFM system. The pressures in the deactive cylinders act like a spring. Otherwise, could you imagine the power loss: you'd have half an engine just sucking power through frictional losses.
aahhhhh......I don't think that's right. I'll go check.
Robert91RS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 03:39 PM   #23
Robert91RS

 
Robert91RS's Avatar
 
Drives: Everywhere
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: TX
Posts: 852
Ok, yes Dragon was right.(as usual) Here is the explanation.

How it's done
In order to deactivate a cylinder, the exhaust valve is prevented from opening after the power stroke and the exhaust gas charge is retained in the cylinder and compressed during the exhaust stroke. Following the exhaust stroke, the intake valve is prevented from opening. The exhaust gas in the cylinder is expanded and compressed over and over again and acts like a gas spring. As multiple cylinders are shut off at a time (cylinders 1, 4, 6 and 7 for a V8), the power required for compression of the exhaust gas in one cylinder is countered by the decompression of retained exhaust gas in another. When more power is called for, the exhaust valve is reactivated and the old exhaust gas expelled during the exhaust stroke. The intake valve is likewise reactivated and normal engine operation is resumed. The net effect of cylinder deactivation is an improvement in fuel economy and likewise a reduction in exhaust emissions. General Motors was the first to modify existing, production engines to enable cylinder deactivation, with the introduction of the Cadillac L62 "V8-6-4" in 1981.

Sorry Dragon.
Robert91RS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 04:30 PM   #24
Grape Ape
 
Drives: 96 Bronco w/ a 5 speed
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PNW
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert91RS View Post
Ok, yes Dragon was right.(as usual) Here is the explanation.

How it's done
In order to deactivate a cylinder, the exhaust valve is prevented from opening after the power stroke and the exhaust gas charge is retained in the cylinder and compressed during the exhaust stroke. Following the exhaust stroke, the intake valve is prevented from opening. The exhaust gas in the cylinder is expanded and compressed over and over again and acts like a gas spring. As multiple cylinders are shut off at a time (cylinders 1, 4, 6 and 7 for a V8), the power required for compression of the exhaust gas in one cylinder is countered by the decompression of retained exhaust gas in another. When more power is called for, the exhaust valve is reactivated and the old exhaust gas expelled during the exhaust stroke. The intake valve is likewise reactivated and normal engine operation is resumed. The net effect of cylinder deactivation is an improvement in fuel economy and likewise a reduction in exhaust emissions. General Motors was the first to modify existing, production engines to enable cylinder deactivation, with the introduction of the Cadillac L62 "V8-6-4" in 1981.

Sorry Dragon.
From what I've read the deactivation takes place during the compression stroke and the charge being compressed is cold air (and fuel).

This should allow a slightly faster reactivation and less heat soak.
Grape Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 05:34 PM   #25
MerF
Go Rays!
 
MerF's Avatar
 
Drives: 03 Trailblazer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St Pete, Florida
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grape Ape View Post
From what I've read the deactivation takes place during the compression stroke and the charge being compressed is cold air (and fuel).

This should allow a slightly faster reactivation and less heat soak.
That wouldn't make sense, you have the possibility of igniting the mixture in a cylinder that can't let it escape...not good.
MerF 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
L99 heads vs LS3/L92 camaro1 Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 37 05-27-2014 09:27 PM
Why the L99? The Vette uses a LS3 with Auto 6-sp! Why cant the SS Have this option? D-Unit Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 21 02-17-2009 07:16 AM
L99 discussion The_Blur Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 85 07-25-2008 02:07 PM
L99 Theory, Gas Guzzler Tax pruettfan 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 12 07-22-2008 01:06 PM
After Market Goodies Nickdago 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 73 07-21-2008 11:48 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 PM.


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