Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
ADM PERFORMANCE
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 11-08-2008, 10:49 PM   #1
VenomZ302
Live to Win, Dare to Fail
 
VenomZ302's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Aqua Blue RS/SS M6
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,788
Trying to decide, so I've got a question about Active Fuel Management

So I'd like an SS, but I'd also like a manual. However, I was wondering about what the boost from AFM would actually be? Does anyone have any experience with what kind of increase you might see? Especially on a sportier car?

Thanks in advance.
VenomZ302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 10:56 PM   #2
BeermanSS
 
BeermanSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2005 Cobalt SS/SC
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wilson, NY
Posts: 214
No experience, my stepbrother had a Tahoe rental the first year it came out, AFM that is, and the only time we could get it to activate was coasting downhill. HA HA. In a much lighter vehicle and built on a much more powerful engine, I'm sure that would be a lot different. I think they only say like a 3-5% gain though while activated. Not sure, anyone feel free to correct me.
BeermanSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 10:57 PM   #3
camaropete
I love crepes
 
camaropete's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS RS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,313
Send a message via AIM to camaropete Send a message via Yahoo to camaropete
Look at it this way, if you go with the stick you get 20+ more HP. AND gas is down to less than $2 in many areas.
camaropete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 10:59 PM   #4
BeermanSS
 
BeermanSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2005 Cobalt SS/SC
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wilson, NY
Posts: 214
and it will stay that way till holidays, and then, till summer driving season next year when it'll hit $5 a gallon. Dont forget it nearly hit 5 this year.
BeermanSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 11:00 PM   #5
BeermanSS
 
BeermanSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2005 Cobalt SS/SC
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wilson, NY
Posts: 214
The two cars will be so close in MPG's its worthless to make that a factor.
BeermanSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 12:52 AM   #6
blackZbandit
 
blackZbandit's Avatar
 
Drives: BLACK ON BLACK 2012 CAMARO SS
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LOS ANGELES, CA
Posts: 744
There is no increase in fuel efficiency in the auto with AFM, both the AT and the MT are expected to acheive 23-24 MPG hwy and about 17-18 city. You do (supposedly) get an extra 22 horses with the manual, but with the optimized shift points on the auto they're both acheiving 0-60 times of approximately 4.6 seconds... so will you ever feel the extra 22 horses? Probably not. So really the decision just boils down to whether an Auto or Manual trans will work better for you. Me, I live in L.A. which = TRAFFIC so I will be getting an auto. Maybe you've got more open roads and lighter traffic in Charleston so the manual may work out better for you.
__________________
BLACK CAR + FLAT BLACK STRIPES + BLACK WHEELS = BLK PW3R!!

****Thanks to Silver Streak for the pic I used to make this sig****
blackZbandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 12:57 AM   #7
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeermanSS View Post
The two cars will be so close in MPG's its worthless to make that a factor.
...gotta hide from that

From further up... counting on gas staying around 2 bucks is extremely shortsighted. OPEC will cut production again, and we will all see gas prices shoot back up.

And this, that they will be so close, is also inaccurate. If all you do is drive from a downtown apartment to the office.. maybe. Because itl only kick on on the highway. But for people like me, that get about half of their miles or more on the highway... that will be significant. Throw on the cruise control and feel the glorious sip of only 4 cylinders. (I say sip only in comparison with the funneling gulp of all 8) But still...
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 01:03 AM   #8
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackZbandit View Post
There is no increase in fuel efficiency in the auto with AFM, both the AT and the MT are expected to acheive 23-24 MPG hwy and about 17-18 city. You do (supposedly) get an extra 22 horses with the manual, but with the optimized shift points on the auto they're both acheiving 0-60 times of approximately 4.6 seconds... so will you ever feel the extra 22 horses? Probably not. So really the decision just boils down to whether an Auto or Manual trans will work better for you. Me, I live in L.A. which = TRAFFIC so I will be getting an auto. Maybe you've got more open roads and lighter traffic in Charleston so the manual may work out better for you.
Before i could even respond to the first load of horse... crap, i get more of it. Lets just think practically for a moment. Do you think GM would spend considerable money developing a new engine and adding technologies if it werent even going to do anything.... Noooo. Then lets consider what this technology they spent money developing does... IT SHUTS DOWN HALF THE ENGINE ON THE HIGHWAY. Tell me please... how would 4 and 8 cylinders burn the same amount of fuel?
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 01:23 AM   #9
TAG UR IT
www.Camaro5store.com
 
TAG UR IT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 ZL1 #705
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SA, Texas
Posts: 26,389
autos always eat more gas than manuals.

prime example. turtle and i both drove our 2002 SS's up to Indy in Sept.

His is an auto and mine is a manual.

I got 26mpg's average and he got 22mpg's average. We both drove together and we had pretty much identical driving habits.

WAIT!!! They are both LS1's!!! sorry....

Again, I might not be able to explain it as well as some of the other gearheads can, but I will say this. The auto eats more gas than a manual. Same thing for the LS3 vs. L99. L99 without AFM would not get the same mpg's....it would be lower.

Both the LS3 and L99 are going to get the same miles per gallon. And, the only REAL test that will prove this is when they are running around on the streets and we are able to perform our own tests.
TAG UR IT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 01:30 AM   #10
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Im sure you know a good bit about cars. but i have to go against you here. New cars (within the last 3 years) have autos that get just as good, or better MPG than manuals.

When im not as tired ill come and give some examples, but i really think all of you bashin the AFM are just upset that it might actually be smarter not to drive a stick camaro. Sorrry...
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 08:29 AM   #11
GTAHVIT
One Lucky Guy.
 
GTAHVIT's Avatar
 
Drives: #22 Tom Henry Racing 2010 2SS/RS
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Augustine FL
Posts: 28,778
^ I don't see that anyone is bashing the AFM. All anyone is saying is that it has to overcome the lower gas mileage found in auto tranny's. For the most part eryone is applauding it's capabilities.

Maybe our standards should be higher, but, any auto that gets the same mpg as a manual in the same car is good right?
GTAHVIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 09:07 AM   #12
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
how would 4 and 8 cylinders burn the same amount of fuel?
It's bound to be close; the same amount of energy is required to move the car, and engine friction doesn't go down much -- it's still only got one crankshaft, and those pistons are still moving. The valves are shut off, so those pistons aren't pumping any air (instead, the air in those cylinders acts as a spring, releasing almost as much energy as is stored in it during each stroke), and the active pistons have to make all the power. The 4 active pistons still have to make as much power as the 8 pistons would make.

This saves fuel because the engine is operating slightly closer to its optimum BSFC range, among other reasons. However, the difference isn't very much, and the real world results seem to be about a 5 to 10% difference at best -- about enough to make up for the common difference between automatic and manual under EPA testing.

A driver who is willing to shift early and shift often can almost certainly get better MPG from the manual than the AFM-equipped auto, though if the paddle shifters are obedient then the auto with AFM might come out ahead.
__________________
Removing weight has surprisingly little effect on fuel economy
Engine break-in procedure | Gear ratios
2002 GMC Sierra 4x4 5.3 (190,000 miles and going strong)
1980 Buick Lesabre family heirloom with 36,000 miles
2008 Volkswagen Rabbit 2 door I5-2.5 5spd DD lease
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23 View Post
she really underestimates the damage i would do to her reproductive organs
http://allOffTopic.com is the place for all the naughty stuff you can't get away with on this forum...
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 09:22 AM   #13
VenomZ302
Live to Win, Dare to Fail
 
VenomZ302's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Aqua Blue RS/SS M6
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,788
Thanks for the information. I really just wish they could (or just would?) put a switch somewhere on the console/steering wheel/wherever that determines how many of the cylinders are operating. But oh well. Maybe that would be bad for the engine or something.

Didn't know that it would really only kick in on the highway. That probably means that I'd rarely ever use AFM. Looks like I'll have to research it a bit more, and hey, I won't be getting the Camaro for about a year, so I've got some time to decide.
VenomZ302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 09:45 AM   #14
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 2,699
I would love a switch, and to have it available with the manual transmission. I bet I'd get 35mpg easily.

In the Camaro it will almost certainly operate much more than it does in a full size truck. The Camaro has a much better power-to-drag ratio, so AFM might kick in for almost any steady cruise.
__________________
Removing weight has surprisingly little effect on fuel economy
Engine break-in procedure | Gear ratios
2002 GMC Sierra 4x4 5.3 (190,000 miles and going strong)
1980 Buick Lesabre family heirloom with 36,000 miles
2008 Volkswagen Rabbit 2 door I5-2.5 5spd DD lease
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23 View Post
she really underestimates the damage i would do to her reproductive organs
http://allOffTopic.com is the place for all the naughty stuff you can't get away with on this forum...
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 10:02 AM   #15
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtahvit View Post
^ I don't see that anyone is bashing the AFM. All anyone is saying is that it has to overcome the lower gas mileage found in auto tranny's. For the most part eryone is applauding it's capabilities.

Maybe our standards should be higher, but, any auto that gets the same mpg as a manual in the same car is good right?
Hmm. All i know is about 3 people said that there either wasnt a difference, or it is negligable. I just dont understand the logic behind that reasoning. Umm.. a new engine that shuts downs cylinders on highway driving, purpose built to achieve better gas mileage... and people say "ahhh... itl get the same mileage." How?????

Anyway. Worst-case, it doesnt get you any better mileage, you will still have put some money behind the development of further advances, advances that will keep our auto industry alive, and more money in your pocket in the long run
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 11:13 AM   #16
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
Hmm. All i know is about 3 people said that there either wasnt a difference, or it is negligable. I just dont understand the logic behind that reasoning. Umm.. a new engine that shuts downs cylinders on highway driving, purpose built to achieve better gas mileage... and people say "ahhh... itl get the same mileage." How?????
They're saying that the auto with AFM gets the same mileage as the manual without. The auto with AFM gets significantly better mileage than it would if it didn't have AFM.

An example of a modern GM V8 automatic getting less fuel economy than when equipped with manual:
EPA ratings for 2006 Pontiac GTO:
Manual: 15/18/23
Auto: 14/16/19
__________________
Removing weight has surprisingly little effect on fuel economy
Engine break-in procedure | Gear ratios
2002 GMC Sierra 4x4 5.3 (190,000 miles and going strong)
1980 Buick Lesabre family heirloom with 36,000 miles
2008 Volkswagen Rabbit 2 door I5-2.5 5spd DD lease
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23 View Post
she really underestimates the damage i would do to her reproductive organs
http://allOffTopic.com is the place for all the naughty stuff you can't get away with on this forum...
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 12:20 PM   #17
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 TAG UR IT View Post
autos always eat more gas than manuals.

prime example. turtle and i both drove our 2002 SS's up to Indy in Sept.

His is an auto and mine is a manual.

I got 26mpg's average and he got 22mpg's average. We both drove together and we had pretty much identical driving habits.

WAIT!!! They are both LS1's!!! sorry....

Again, I might not be able to explain it as well as some of the other gearheads can, but I will say this. The auto eats more gas than a manual. Same thing for the LS3 vs. L99. L99 without AFM would not get the same mpg's....it would be lower.
To be very fair -- the auto 4thgen is a 4-speed and the manual 4thgen is a 6speed. Same issue with the GTO. Hardly apples to apples. And the new 6-speed autos are much more than simply two more gears...

I agree with SemperFi's point that with AFM on the highway (mostly), you'll see more gains than GM tells us we will. I'm not saying crazy-high 50mpg or anything like that. But there is a real, and good chance than an automatic SS Camaro would have reported better mpg than the manual SS on that trip of yours, TAG.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 01:30 PM   #18
TheClassicCarKid

 
TheClassicCarKid's Avatar
 
Drives: V45
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeermanSS View Post
and it will stay that way till holidays, and then, till summer driving season next year when it'll hit $5 a gallon. Dont forget it nearly hit 5 this year.
There won't be enough demand to drive it that high. We'll all be so poor we won't pay it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1320junkie View Post
All of the stang guys in one thread..wow..lol
.
TheClassicCarKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 01:52 PM   #19
blackZbandit
 
blackZbandit's Avatar
 
Drives: BLACK ON BLACK 2012 CAMARO SS
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LOS ANGELES, CA
Posts: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAG UR IT View Post
autos always eat more gas than manuals.

prime example. turtle and i both drove our 2002 SS's up to Indy in Sept.

His is an auto and mine is a manual.

I got 26mpg's average and he got 22mpg's average. We both drove together and we had pretty much identical driving habits.

WAIT!!! They are both LS1's!!! sorry....

Again, I might not be able to explain it as well as some of the other gearheads can, but I will say this. The auto eats more gas than a manual. Same thing for the LS3 vs. L99. L99 without AFM would not get the same mpg's....it would be lower.

Both the LS3 and L99 are going to get the same miles per gallon. And, the only REAL test that will prove this is when they are running around on the streets and we are able to perform our own tests.
Thank you TAG...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
Im sure you know a good bit about cars. but i have to go against you here. New cars (within the last 3 years) have autos that get just as good, or better MPG than manuals.

When im not as tired ill come and give some examples, but i really think all of you bashin the AFM are just upset that it might actually be smarter not to drive a stick camaro. Sorrry...
No one, particularly myself who you accused of posting "horse... crap", are bashing AFM because we prefer sticks... like I said, I live in L.A. and never have and never will drive a stick as long as I do. AFM is an amazing technology as most cars on the road today are auto's, but as TAG stated most AT's are not as feul efficient as MT's. AFM was never meant to be an advancement over MT's, just an advancement over AT's w/ low fuel economy. It is a technological breakthrough that GM was able to get such great MPG's on the auto because in these times most people (who mostly drive AT's) don't want a 17mg highway car no matter how many horses it has.
__________________
BLACK CAR + FLAT BLACK STRIPES + BLACK WHEELS = BLK PW3R!!

****Thanks to Silver Streak for the pic I used to make this sig****
blackZbandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 01:58 PM   #20
blackZbandit
 
blackZbandit's Avatar
 
Drives: BLACK ON BLACK 2012 CAMARO SS
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LOS ANGELES, CA
Posts: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
I agree with SemperFi's point that with AFM on the highway (mostly), you'll see more gains than GM tells us we will. I'm not saying crazy-high 50mpg or anything like that. But there is a real, and good chance than an automatic SS Camaro would have reported better mpg than the manual SS on that trip of yours, TAG.
I think that with the fuel crisis we've just gotten over and are probably heading back into that the last thing GM wants to be conservative about is fuel economy. I agree that in the real world you may see better mileage with the L99, but if GM were confident in that theory I'm sure they would have reported it already... especially given that the AT is a $1000 option and the General would love to give you every reason they can to buy it.
__________________
BLACK CAR + FLAT BLACK STRIPES + BLACK WHEELS = BLK PW3R!!

****Thanks to Silver Streak for the pic I used to make this sig****
blackZbandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 02:03 PM   #21
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 blackZbandit View Post
I think that with the fuel crisis we've just gotten over and are probably heading back into that the last thing GM wants to be conservative about is fuel economy. I agree that in the real world you may see better mileage with the L99, but if GM were confident in that theory I'm sure they would have reported it already... especially given that the AT is a $1000 option and the General would love to give you every reason they can to buy it.
No, no...I'm not saying they're being conservative about it. Traditionally, real-world results aren't kind to automatic transmissions...but AFM isn't utilized 100% in EPA testing -- because it's them who rate the cars, not GM (if you have time, go check out the EPA's testing procedures, and then read up on how AFM operates.) That's what I meant...there's untapped potential in real-world driving.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 05:49 PM   #22
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
No, no...I'm not saying they're being conservative about it. Traditionally, real-world results aren't kind to automatic transmissions...but AFM isn't utilized 100% in EPA testing -- because it's them who rate the cars, not GM (if you have time, go check out the EPA's testing procedures, and then read up on how AFM operates.) That's what I meant...there's untapped potential in real-world driving.
Very strong points, and good truths by all. ^

However i think you will soon see cars with autos that get better gas mileage than manuals. because those computers will manage it like a... computer. And finally computers in cars will be up to the task.

I do suppose this thread has just about been fully explored.
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 06:28 PM   #23
blackZbandit
 
blackZbandit's Avatar
 
Drives: BLACK ON BLACK 2012 CAMARO SS
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LOS ANGELES, CA
Posts: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
No, no...I'm not saying they're being conservative about it. Traditionally, real-world results aren't kind to automatic transmissions...but AFM isn't utilized 100% in EPA testing -- because it's them who rate the cars, not GM (if you have time, go check out the EPA's testing procedures, and then read up on how AFM operates.) That's what I meant...there's untapped potential in real-world driving.
Well it sounds like we both agree then!! I think in the real world AFM will overperform also, just not by a signifcant amount.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
Very strong points, and good truths by all. ^

However i think you will soon see cars with autos that get better gas mileage than manuals. because those computers will manage it like a... computer. And finally computers in cars will be up to the task.

I do suppose this thread has just about been fully explored.
I agree with that also, only problem with the Camaro's (or any performance vehicle's) case is that MPG's is on the opposite end of a see-saw with a very heavy performance expectation on the other. Sure you can tune the ecu on a Camry to be biased towards MPG's instead of power, but on the Camaro that's not gonna fly. As we know the shift points on the L99/AT have been optimized to match the LS3/MT's 0-60 time. If they wanted they probably could've squeezed out better fuel economy and sacrificed acceleration, and maybe could've done the opposite. But as far as I know in the real world 400+ HP and 25 MPG CITY/30 MPG HWY do not coexist.
__________________
BLACK CAR + FLAT BLACK STRIPES + BLACK WHEELS = BLK PW3R!!

****Thanks to Silver Streak for the pic I used to make this sig****
blackZbandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 06:32 PM   #24
BowtieGuy
Enlightened
 
BowtieGuy's Avatar
 
Drives: Nothing Currently
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackZbandit View Post
But as far as I know in the real world 400+ HP and 25 MPG CITY/30 MPG HWY do not coexist.
Then you clearly haven't seen the Prius GT concept.
__________________
If you believe it is your right to speak freely no matter the content, relevance, or intelligence of statement, then it is my duty to the powers that be to set you straight.

People have to talk about something just to keep their voice boxes in working order. So they'll have good voice boxes in case there's ever anything really meaningful to say.
Kurt Vonnegut
BowtieGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 06:38 PM   #25
Supermans
Camaro & Stang Enthusiast
 
Supermans's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Mustang 5.0 in Kona Blue
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackZbandit View Post
There is no increase in fuel efficiency in the auto with AFM, both the AT and the MT are expected to acheive 23-24 MPG hwy and about 17-18 city. You do (supposedly) get an extra 22 horses with the manual, but with the optimized shift points on the auto they're both acheiving 0-60 times of approximately 4.6 seconds... so will you ever feel the extra 22 horses? Probably not. So really the decision just boils down to whether an Auto or Manual trans will work better for you. Me, I live in L.A. which = TRAFFIC so I will be getting an auto. Maybe you've got more open roads and lighter traffic in Charleston so the manual may work out better for you.
Where did you hear or read that both L99 and Ls3 will be able to achieve 4.6 sec 0-60 in the new Camaro SS?
__________________
Bought my Camaro from Eric Hall(817) 421-7266
Supermans 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
Can you S/C an active fuel mgt engine? Fast1 Forced Induction - V8 40 10-23-2008 09:06 PM
Camaro ls3 news...true or false? Dark Knight Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 74 06-05-2008 06:29 PM
Active Fuel Management and Camaro The80sman Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 5 01-23-2008 12:49 PM
Active Fuel Management? MJA03 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 41 01-09-2008 03:25 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:03 PM.


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