nah, id rather keep the paddle shifter manufacturers happy :)

Personally, if I wanted an auto, I would want the same V8 that comes with the manual to be an option. There's talk that the autos will come with the L99 and the manuals will come with the LS3. I wouldn't be too fond of this if the LS3 wasn't also an option for the auto. I can understand an auto only model that comes with the L99, but I would still want the LS3 as an option for the auto because I want the same power. Does anyone else feel the same?

yeah, but who knows if that is really true or not. we will see tomorrow for sure. :) :) :)

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

Well generally autos produce less power(rwhp) than manuals outright, so if I'm wanting an auto, I don't want to be restricted to buying an already less powerful engine. Hopefully I'll find out tomorrow.

Honda follows this same principle. The Accord sedan and coupe with 5 speed automatics have the 3.5 V6 with AFM. On the Accord coupe, you can get a 6 speed manual, but you do not get AFM on the engine.

You cannot buy an automatic V6 without AFM. I will presume the same will be true for the Camaro L99 and LS3. I think the main reason for that is computer programing - they would need TWO ECMs for the automatic SSs, one for AFM and one without. That would increase production costs and decrease CAFE averages.

That's what has me puzzled. If the story is to be believed it said that the V-8 auto would be the L99 w/395 hp w/AFM and that the standard would be getting the LS3 w/420 horses a 25 horse difference, now if it is the same engine why the huge gap in horses? Now the challenger R/T for example has 370hp for the auto w/MSD and 375hp w/o MSD for the standard just a five horse difference.
Now me personally it don't matter the L99'd still kick the R/T's butt anyways and barring some huge screwup like priceing the Camaro through the Roof I'm getting this car.

I don't understand the huge gap between the manual and auto either if the numbers are correct.. Anyone care to explain??

On the fuel front, my 2005 Monaro with an LS2 requires "premium" (that's 97RON here but I know the format is different to yours in the US) due to the compression ratio - making it cleaner but less easily supercharged/turbocharged.

The LS3 is no different (think it's 11:1) so I would fully expect the Camaro to need higher-octane fuel.

just learn to drive stick. you can learn in a week. but in that week there will be a LOT of tire marks

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.:)

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 :iono:

but sticks get better gas mileage thans autos

not true. At least...not anymore.

But still, wait for 4PM, those numbers are WRONG.

Unfortunately I've got to work this afternoon:cry: , 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?

hmmmmmmm my brothers 5 speed g5 gets better mpg than the auto

It's possible. The tune for regular would affect power, but not E85-compatibility.
Only 6 more hours, now......:D


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...

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).

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?

L76 in the G8 sound familiar?;)

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...

:confused0068:

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.

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....

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

Wait until this afternoon...We'll have facts very soon.

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.

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.

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?

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.

^
So they can be mod friendly if you know how to tune the computer to handle it?

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

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 :thumbup:
Now it just needs to go on a diet. 3914lbs :mad0260:

Any skilled manual transmission driver will also optimize their shift points :D

I guarantee you, I will go up against an automatic SS with my manual, and beat the automatic off the line and in the quarter each and every time.

If you know how and when to shift (the how is almost more important than the when), you can beat the fastest shifting automatics in the world (with the exception of F1 transmissions, which aren't really automatics anyway).

Well after you pratice for a while , But I will bet if we both bought our cars at the same time and left the dealer I would win for a week or so.

I've been driving stick since I was 15. So that's 16 solid years of driving nothing but stick (okay, occasionally I had to drive my Mom's LeSabre or Delta 88 when I still lived at home 10 years ago), and I've burned out only 1 clutch, at that clutch had 167,000 miles on it. All of them mine.

1 minute behind the seat of the Camaro and I'll have it figured out. Clutch take up point, gear pattern and throw, sweet spot of the engine.

I have been driving a stick for 30 years, I raced Pro Stock in the early 80's
and each car is different beleive me it will take time to get used to a setup.

Check out www.rangeracceleration.com you never can have too much practice

Check out my Sig, Stock Motor, Stock Auto Tranny Mustang GT with just Bolt-ons
running 12.41 @ 109 these new auto trannys are freaking fast.

You have a few years of experience on me, so I trust you now ;)

Sorry, I didn't know who you were at first, and thus thought you might be someone just saying stuff without much stick shift experience.

I know the launch control helps. But will the auto trans with the L99 hold each gear to redline? And how about downshifting 2 gears, say from 4th to second? There has to be SOME hesitation or lag in throttle response, or else you'd have tiny pinions and hydraulic fluid all over the street.