Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Gen5DIY
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Marketplace > Vendor and Seller review / feedback / experiences

Vendor and Seller review / feedback / experiences Share review & feedback on vendors and sellers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-2010, 05:17 PM   #1
Beauwulf

 
Beauwulf's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 LT RS A6 & '04 Acura RSX Type S
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,529
Trifecta Tune Review.

Well, unlike these other two gentleman, I have not had such a good experience with Vince. True, the tune does help drivability and the tranny does hit harder. But, unlike the other posters here, I have not had the customer service that one would expect as A PAYING CUSTOMER!

Since Vince's return, I've sent numerous E-mails to him with absolutely NO response! I believe I pissed him off by announcing the tune was not ready for release when both Scrming and my self posted little or no results from the tune. As far as I'm concerned, I'm going to find another tuner to work with!
__________________
Beauwulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 12:17 PM   #2
Beauwulf

 
Beauwulf's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 LT RS A6 & '04 Acura RSX Type S
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by nallen00 View Post
Now, to get something off my chest:

The LLT programming is viable and has been viable since December. This has been proven on both bolt-on and forced-inducted LLT's. In stock form, the LLT is in an extremely high state of tune. Vince informed his testers that there may be little or no gains, and still I'm reading posts about flawed programming/poor customer service. If you're testing a performance product with the knowledge that it may have little or no affect on power, you don't announce that the product itself is flawed. And if you do, don't announce that you've been treated unfairly when said company cuts you off...

Scrming, thanks for your detailed/unbiased reviews

- Nate
First off, I never said the program was flawed. I said (at that time) it wasn't ready IN MY VIEW as a tester. The claimed 20 HP gain was unrealized on mine and Scrming's cars. You guys have since come out with a rebuttal that the difference must have been due to the Airaid intake. Well, I have the Airaid and I have shown, in real world track testing that that is an inflated claim "in my opinion".

We ( the membership) see claims for new products all the time and it is up to us to test and evaluate these claims. I was providing, what I felt at the time was, a service to the members here by putting the claims to the test. What has surfaced since is, what I believe to be, the true colors of the people involved with this product.
__________________
Beauwulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 02:31 PM   #3
nallen00
 
Drives: '09 Coby SS/TC
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Indy
Posts: 64
Send a message via Skype™ to nallen00
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauwulf View Post
What has surfaced since is, what I believe to be, the true colors of the people involved with this product.
If you're referring to our investment of more than $1000 for testing, and the more than $2000 of product that Trifecta and ARH have provided free-of-charge (for our project alone), then those are some brilliant colors you're talking about

So Vince is evil, and it's his diabolical scheme to fleece an entire community with faulty product and unsubstantiated claims...? The only contribution you've made to this product are complaints, and you're complaining about the very caveat that was explained to you before testing began. You're also the only one complaining...

We'll have definitive numbers on the 24th. We're testing baseline (untuned), headers (untuned), and headers (tuned). Our tester is currently fitted with JBA shorties/no tune, which should give us solid data for comparison. I'll have results posted that evening.

- Nate
nallen00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 02:54 PM   #4
Beauwulf

 
Beauwulf's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 LT RS A6 & '04 Acura RSX Type S
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by nallen00 View Post
If you're referring to our investment of more than $1000 for testing, and the more than $2000 of product that Trifecta and ARH have provided free-of-charge (for our project alone), then those are some brilliant colors you're talking about

So Vince is evil, and it's his diabolical scheme to fleece an entire community with faulty product and unsubstantiated claims...? The only contribution you've made to this product are complaints, and you're complaining about the very caveat that was explained to you before testing began. You're also the only one complaining...

We'll have definitive numbers on the 24th. We're testing baseline (untuned), headers (untuned), and headers (tuned). Our tester is currently fitted with JBA shorties/no tune, which should give us solid data for comparison. I'll have results posted that evening.

- Nate
I've made a fairly substantial investment to this as well. The cost of the product (though purchased at a discount it was NOT free) the time and expense of dyno time and track testing, and the chance I'm taking if things went badly in losing my engine/trans warranty.

You know, I could be wrong but I think I've seen this business plan before. You know the one where a company rushes a product to market with inflated claims. They know it will sell like hotcakes because there is no other competition (well except for Mac and Unix) then fix the problems latter. Well, I for one am not willing to wait for "Service Pack 2" to have a product deliver what was promised!
__________________
Beauwulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 03:49 PM   #5
nallen00
 
Drives: '09 Coby SS/TC
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Indy
Posts: 64
Send a message via Skype™ to nallen00
You took these risks knowingly...that's how testing works. Slandering everyone involved doesn't change the fact there is nothing wrong with this product. We're dealing with an engine that has been developed to the very edge of its capabilities. If the engine is already at optimum tuning before we try to modify it, there won't be any gains. We’ve proven the ability to modify fuel ratios, ignition timing curves, cam timing profiles, etc. – all the pieces needed for performance-tuning.

- Nate
nallen00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 04:10 PM   #6
Beauwulf

 
Beauwulf's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 LT RS A6 & '04 Acura RSX Type S
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by nallen00 View Post
You took these risks knowingly...that's how testing works. Slandering everyone involved doesn't change the fact there is nothing wrong with this product. We're dealing with an engine that has been developed to the very edge of its capabilities. If the engine is already at optimum tuning before we try to modify it, there won't be any gains. We’ve proven the ability to modify fuel ratios, ignition timing curves, cam timing profiles, etc. – all the pieces needed for performance-tuning.

- Nate
I've been racing since the 70s. I know and accept the risks involved. That does NOT mitigate said risks in the knowing!

I have never stated that this product "does not work". My statement 4 weeks ago was for the membership as an advisory to give process time to "mature" before committing to a purchase that , ultimately, might not yield the claimed results. And, I was "on board" with this process up to the point where you got involved and I had no further responses from Vince.

As a paying customer, I have a right to get what I paid for and I don't feel that I did.

As to your claims of slander... I have stated my opinions on the matter and, the last time I checked, we still live in America so I am entitled to them.

So, I'm done with this discussion and, in my best Forest Gump impression "That's all I have to say about that!"
__________________
Beauwulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 05:43 PM   #7
Beauwulf

 
Beauwulf's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 LT RS A6 & '04 Acura RSX Type S
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by nallen00 View Post
It was never claimed that you would see an increase in power. In fact, it was explained to you that there may not be any gain in power. This has been stated to exhaustion. You participated anyway, didn't see any gains, and proceeded to announce that the tuning didn't meet stated claims. What claims...? Our "claims" are dyno verified...

Correct.
OK, you dragged me back into this for one more post.

If you really want to "prove" the performance gains, pick someone in "neutral" territory who has an Airaid CAI installed and give him the tuning service. Let him pick a dyno and get baselines. then tune the car. After he drives the car for a week, go back to the same dyno and get the numbers... and, let's be sure the hood is closed on both sets of pulls.!
__________________
Beauwulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 06:29 PM   #8
nallen00
 
Drives: '09 Coby SS/TC
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Indy
Posts: 64
Send a message via Skype™ to nallen00
Firstly, my tester is participating 100% free-of-charge. I don't agree with how the initial testing was conducted, but what's done is done. There are good reasons to use private owners for testing, and good reasons not to. It depends entirely on what you intend to accomplish. And if you do accept a private owner for testing, you have to eat the costs - it's just good business.

Secondly, the only remaining issues are tuning for forced inducted applications where there is a significant difference between reported MAF and what the PCM calculates should be entering the engine based on normally aspirated conditions. There are no other issues. If you're stock, don't waste your money. If you're modded, you will not realize the full potential of those modifications without tuning.

Lastly, everyone knew the risks going in. They accepted these risks. What's silly is later complaining about the risks should they ever surface.

However, you do raise a good point about Vince's availability. At present, Vince is the only person with the hardware/software to generate tunes, so this is a valid concern. Eventually, select dealers will have the ability to provide programming support, but I do not know when this will happen.

- Nate
nallen00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 06:56 PM   #9
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by nallen00 View Post
Firstly, my tester is participating 100% free-of-charge. I don't agree with how the initial testing was conducted, but what's done is done. There are good reasons to use private owners for testing, and good reasons not to. It depends entirely on what you intend to accomplish. And if you do accept a private owner for testing, you have to eat the costs - it's just good business.

Secondly, the only remaining issues are tuning for forced inducted applications where there is a significant difference between reported MAF and what the PCM calculates should be entering the engine based on normally aspirated conditions. There are no other issues. If you're stock, don't waste your money. If you're modded, you will not realize the full potential of those modifications without tuning.

Lastly, everyone knew the risks going in. They accepted these risks. What's silly is later complaining about the risks should they ever surface.

However, you do raise a good point about Vince's availability. At present, Vince is the only person with the hardware/software to generate tunes, so this is a valid concern. Eventually, select dealers will have the ability to provide programming support, but I do not know when this will happen.

- Nate
Silly? Only thing that got mentioned was that Vince was not responding to e-mails.... To which I say if it's important pick up the phone... which is what I do... But I hardly call that silly...

I don't think anyone is voicing any other concern but that... The TRUTH is the GROUP BUY announced while Vince was GONE forced Beauwulf and me to voice our concerns about the tune. We were both waiting for Vince to return and review all the data! But that GROUP BUY FORCED our hand and we posted our experience to that point! We were certainly being patient waiting for 3 weeks... I was all set to give Vince all the time he need to review things..

IMHO all this could have been avoided it the Alpha car has been 100% stock and the OTHER people involved would not have hyped the 24 RWHP / 17 RWTQ gain before THEY had all the details...

That being said I look forward to working with Vince improving my tranny and any future mods I do...

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS I AM LOOKING OUT FOR MY V6 CAMARO5 BROTHERS... NOT THE VENDORS.... it that gets me slapped, banned or worse so be....
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 07:52 PM   #10
67 GTO
13.453 @ 101.90
 
67 GTO's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2LT Rally Yellow
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SE Pa.
Posts: 1,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrming View Post
.... it that gets me slapped, banned or worse so be....
Banned from C5F? OK, one less I'll have to smack down..... J/K

All the best.
67 GTO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 07:53 PM   #11
nallen00
 
Drives: '09 Coby SS/TC
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Indy
Posts: 64
Send a message via Skype™ to nallen00
I've actually made a conscious effort to exclude you from this, but OK.

The gains are dyno verified, so there's nothing to hype. And there has never been a claim of increased power for stock LLTs. Instead of arguing with either of you, I conceded that there could be a problem, and waited for Vince to return. When Vince contacted me, I discussed your posts with him, and this was his response:

"I’m not surprised. I warned them ahead of time that there was no guarantee we’d see any gains in power at all, only that we’d tune it to the best of our ability based on the information we have. The LLT tune is viable now – we’re remote-tuning an LLT Camaro with twin turbos on it. We have dyno sheets proving a 20HP gain on the test car we used." - 01FEB10

Vince was aware of the group buy and ARH testing before he left...but...since the programming was still very new at the time, I took you at your word that there could be an issue with the tune. I later discovered that there wasn't, and that's been my only real gripe with either of you to date. We also discussed not selling the tune to stock LLT owners prior to his vacation, and that has been my position since posting the GB.

- Nate
nallen00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 08:04 PM   #12
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by nallen00 View Post
I've actually made a conscious effort to exclude you from this, but OK.

The gains are dyno verified, so there's nothing to hype. And there has never been a claim of increased power for stock LLTs. Instead of arguing with either of you, I conceded that there could be a problem, and waited for Vince to return. When Vince contacted me, I discussed your posts with him, and this was his response:

"I’m not surprised. I warned them ahead of time that there was no guarantee we’d see any gains in power at all, only that we’d tune it to the best of our ability based on the information we have. The LLT tune is viable now – we’re remote-tuning an LLT Camaro with twin turbos on it. We have dyno sheets proving a 20HP gain on the test car we used." - 01FEB10

Vince was aware of the group buy and ARH testing before he left...but...since the programming was still very new at the time, I took you at your word that there could be an issue with the tune. I later discovered that there wasn't, and that's what we're discussing now. We did, however, discuss not selling the tune to stock LLT owners, and that has been my position since posting the GB.

- Nate
The gains were on a car with an AFTERMARKET INTAKE! I know EXACTLY what was said between Vince and myself! I was fully aware that there might be ZERO gains and I was perfectly FINE putting down my hard earned CASH knowing full well I might not see and dang thing!

Problem is every one jumped all over that 20 HP gains ignoring that fact that the car had and aftermarket intake and and possibly crappy gas!

And I'm not talking about the ARH/Tune group buy... I'm talking about the original TUNE group buy that was setup... I sure don't remember ANYONE saying oh, by the way might not see ANY gain! I don't remember anyone discussing THAT in THIS forum until Beauwulf and I spoke up!!! I don't think ANYONE was going to plop down $$$$ for no gains!

Like I said, Beauwulf and I were completely HAPPY waiting and giving Vince time he to digest everything until IMHO you came in here and stirred every thing up!
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 08:13 PM   #13
nallen00
 
Drives: '09 Coby SS/TC
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Indy
Posts: 64
Send a message via Skype™ to nallen00
Good luck to you
nallen00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 08:19 PM   #14
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
And here's were you put words in my mouth:

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showpo...2&postcount=20

and I quote:

"Most of you are familiar with comments that have been made regarding the viability of Trifecta's LLT tune. These comments were made by Trifecta's own "beta testers", and did a very good job of convincing everyone that the LLT programming was ineffective/detrimental. I had my suspicions, but instead of waiting to discuss the issue with Vince, I went on the word of his testers. I should have waited:"

I NEVER said the programming was ineffective/detrimental! I simply said I saw NO GAINS... which you NOW admit is a possibility! So you tried to paint ME as the bad guy! And now you're back peddling...
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 08:38 PM   #15
ROD1
Back to the hunt....
 
ROD1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro RS V6 #1301 DOB 3/23/09
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ithaca NY
Posts: 2,561
[Q
ROD1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 08:40 PM   #16
ROD1
Back to the hunt....
 
ROD1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro RS V6 #1301 DOB 3/23/09
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ithaca NY
Posts: 2,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by nallen00 View Post
Good luck to you
Wow! Im out! Good luck to you!
ROD1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 08:42 PM   #17
kga10734
Don't Feed the Troll
 
kga10734's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2LT/RS & 1999 Corvette
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montgomery, TX
Posts: 782
I don't see why a "beta tester" would have to pay for anything until they saw HP gains, and then they should get the tune at a discount since they are donating their time and vehicle.

I believe if this V6 is going to be tuned for more HP, the company working on it will have to find a ex-Bosch employee that knows this PCM and get them to help program it for what ever price they name. They should start out with a bone stock car.
__________________
kga10734 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 10:23 PM   #18
wer2foxs
 
wer2foxs's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 VR SS
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 713
If everyone recalls yours truly and another C5 member were offered Trifecta Tunes through Nallen back in January. I am not going into details of what happened however the inconsistency of information given to us did not add up so we decided to back out of this project. It may have all been a misunderstanding however neither one of us was not willing to take that chance. I never intended to mention this on this on C5 but after reading this thread I felt I needed to add another opinion.
wer2foxs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 03:41 AM   #19
Beauwulf

 
Beauwulf's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 LT RS A6 & '04 Acura RSX Type S
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,529
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS I AM LOOKING OUT FOR MY V6 CAMARO5 BROTHERS... NOT THE VENDORS.... it that gets me slapped, banned or worse so be....[/QUOTE]

+1 ... oh, you forgot to add "deleted" to the list.
__________________
Beauwulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 04:19 AM   #20
scrming
Red Brick of Vengeance!
 
scrming's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 Second Brick
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: at my pulpit
Posts: 7,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by kga10734 View Post
I don't see why a "beta tester" would have to pay for anything until they saw HP gains, and then they should get the tune at a discount since they are donating their time and vehicle.

I believe if this V6 is going to be tuned for more HP, the company working on it will have to find a ex-Bosch employee that knows this PCM and get them to help program it for what ever price they name. They should start out with a bone stock car.
Couple of things..

1) I did get a discounted price... I have no problem with the price I paid for things.. Like I mentioned I knew going it I might see zero gains... but I also knew however I could see a benefit from firmer shifts and the reduction of the torque management...

2) Perhaps I wasn't clear. Vince is able to adjust/tune/manipulate the computer... it's not that the tune doesn't work... it's a matter of the stock tune already being highly optimized and their simply not being a lot of room for improvement.

And since we haven't heard anything from the other tuning company in a couple weeks, my wild guess is perhaps they are running into the same thing... no real big gains to be found from just a tune...
scrming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 08:56 AM   #21
ROD1
Back to the hunt....
 
ROD1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro RS V6 #1301 DOB 3/23/09
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ithaca NY
Posts: 2,561
I would really like to thank Beau and Scrm for their honesty. They have good money invested and were willing to sacrifice for the Cam5 community. Hats off to you guys!
ROD1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 09:29 AM   #22
esperman
You Can Call Me Jay
 
esperman's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 1LT RJT Manual w/CAI & Solo
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Louisville, KY area
Posts: 1,247
I agree with Screaming....this Tune option may work very well for those who want LT, NOS or some other big upgrades. I also have no problem with Nate or his company...but getting annoyed with a Trifecta customer's honest impressions bug me. And I don't think 'wulf hijacked this thread ... since he & screaming were all of our testers for this experiment.

If I decide to void my powertrain warranty...Vince may the be the best way to go. I'm still undecided. Too early.

But I suggest he start posting more and responding to members here...since it's his product.

Last edited by esperman; 02-15-2010 at 09:40 AM.
esperman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 09:36 AM   #23
esperman
You Can Call Me Jay
 
esperman's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 1LT RJT Manual w/CAI & Solo
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Louisville, KY area
Posts: 1,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by kga10734 View Post
I don't see why a "beta tester" would have to pay for anything until they saw HP gains, and then they should get the tune at a discount since they are donating their time and vehicle.

I believe if this V6 is going to be tuned for more HP, the company working on it will have to find a ex-Bosch employee that knows this PCM and get them to help program it for what ever price they name. They should start out with a bone stock car.
I've beta tested before. Paying ANYTHING at all is contrary to the term "BETA TESTER" especially if you screw up YOUR car.......and the vendor shrugs it off cause you knew the risks
esperman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 11:32 AM   #24
CatiaJockey


 
CatiaJockey's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2LT RS
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ocean Springs, Ms
Posts: 3,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROD1 View Post
I would really like to thank Beau and Scrm for their honesty. They have good money invested and were willing to sacrifice for the Cam5 community. Hats off to you guys!
Ditto! Thanks guys!
__________________
CatiaJockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 11:36 AM   #25
VinceTrifecta
 
Drives: 2013 Cadillac ATS4 2.0L Turbo
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 69
Hi all,

This is a very good thread here. I don't get a chance to spend much time on the forums, but it was suggested I come here and post up.

We are a custom tuning company, we specialize in analyzing a customer's vehicle for inefficiencies, then make incremental adjustments to the tune until our analysis concludes the vehicle is optimally tuned.

The first 2010 LLT car we did produced a gain of 23HP and around 17TQ on the dyno, and I'll post the dyno sheet if I can find it. The reason it gained this much power was because the equipment that had been installed by the owner caused the WOT fuel mixture to be incorrect (very lean).

We've since tuned three of these cars - two "beta testers", and one "production car". We're in the process of also tuning a twin-turbo'd 2010 V6 Camaro (which is going very well).

The two beta testers' cars ended up accepting very few tuning changes. Despite the modifications, the vehicles showed a very decent air to fuel ratio, so there wasn't much to do there. The dyno car was way too lean, and the production customer's vehicle was drowning in fuel at WOT due to his modifications, to the point of misfiring which has been resolved.

As for timing, GM basically throws a bunch of timing at these engines, and lets the knock sensors pull it back out to adapt to the fuel quality. Our dyno car showed a solid 9* of knock retard (KR) on the dyno with the stock tune. Obviously we're not going to get any more timing into the engine, but we did experiment with WOT air to fuel ratio to see if we could reduce the KR with more (or less) fuel, and we also tried removing timing from the base timing table.

For cam phasing, we tried modifying these tables also, but we did not see any substantial changes in power, but did verify the cam phase changed via data logging.

So, we've proven the ability to change the cam phasing, timing, air/fuel ratio, DTCs, and torque management settings - all the things necessary to provide custom tuning.

I'll be the first to say this is not going to be a mass-market tune for stock vehicles, though, since GM tuned these so well from the factory. It only makes sense if the vehicle has a modification that skews the tune. It's not that it isn't understood how to tune them, only that GM didn't leave us much room for improvement. One area I'd like to delve into is the knock detection logic, but unlike other tuners that sacrifice engine safety for dyno numbers, I'm not real excited about reducing the knock detection factors - this is an area I trust the factory in.
VinceTrifecta 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
Official 1/4 Mile (V8) 2010+ Camaro Fast List Merc Dragstrip and Launch Techniques Discussion 2557 04-12-2014 07:18 PM
Unofficial 1/4 Mile (V8) 2010+ Camaro Fast List Merc Dragstrip and Launch Techniques Discussion 254 04-01-2014 10:40 AM
My Trifecta V6 tune update... scrming Camaro V6 LLT Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 35 02-26-2010 12:30 PM
Custom Tuning by Trifecta and NALLEN Engineering nallen00 V8 Bolt-Ons & Tunes 19 02-06-2010 10:32 AM
LS3 goes 11`s Bonestock! GMRULZ Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 28 12-08-2008 09:10 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 PM.


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