Question for the gearheads.

[PQ]

The L99s have averaged around 50 less HP to the wheels, stock, than the LS3.

Why did the L99 test .1 sec faster 0-60 and only .1 sec slower in the Quarter mile?

According to GM and most of the rags, they were pretty much the same within a tenth either way. It would seem to me that the LS3 would be a lot faster.

Anyone?

[camaro1]

bait and switch with the test cars that magazines got and the cars sold to the public??

[Camar0wn3d]

Yea it seemed strange to me how the L99 being handicapped 26HP, a few pounds heavier, and about an additional 10% drivetrain loss kept such close times to the LS3.

The way I justified it was the gearing difference made up for it.

--Edit-- removed my false information to prevent future confusion. Thanks jsuperman81

[jpsuperman81]

The A6 is not a 3.73 it actually has a lower numbered gear. It was suppose to be something about how the car was tuned and programmed to shift and it would edge out the manual in the 0-60, i remember reading it on here long time ago. Obviously with the slow ones out there, a mistake was made somewhere.

[ElAntonius]

Taller gearing off the line, IIRC. Also, if you look at the torque curve for the L99, it's flatter, meaning it has a wider power band than the LS3.

Truth is, horsepower is largely a false construct...again examining the nature of the engines, while the LS3 makes 26 more horsepower, it only is over 10 lb-ft of torque, and the L99 is closer to its maximum across more of the rev range.

The reason for the higher HP rating on the LS3 is that it revs a bit higher, but as the old saying goes:

Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races.

[jpsuperman81]

Hydra-Matic 6l80 six-speed automatic (SS) w/ TAPshift
Gear ratios (:1):
First: 4.03
Second: 2.36
Third: 1.53
Fourth: 1.15
Fifth: 0.85
Sixth: 0.67
Reverse: 3.06
Final drive ratio: 3.27


TR6060 six-speed manual (SS)
Gear ratios (:1):
First: 3.01
Second: 2.07
Third: 1.43
Fourth: 1.00
Fifth: 0.84
Sixth: 0.57
Reverse: 3.28
Final drive ratio: 3.45

[Camar0wn3d]

Edited my above post. Yea I just read that the A6 final drive is 3.27 so that blows my theory out of the water.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by camaro1

bait and switch with the test cars that magazines got and the cars sold to the public??

I'm not gonna say that, but you can.

Originally Posted by jpsuperman81

The A6 is not a 3.73 it actually has a lower numbered gear. It was suppose to be something about how the car was tuned and programmed to shift and it would edge out the manual in the 0-60, i remember reading it on here long time ago. Obviously with the slow ones out there, a mistake was made somewhere.

Originally Posted by ElAntonius

Taller gearing off the line, IIRC. Also, if you look at the torque curve for the L99, it's flatter, meaning it has a wider power band than the LS3.

Truth is, horsepower is largely a false construct...again examining the nature of the engines, while the LS3 makes 26 more horsepower, it only is over 10 lb-ft of torque, and the L99 is closer to its maximum across more of the rev range.

The reason for the higher HP rating on the LS3 is that it revs a bit higher, but as the old saying goes:

Horsepower sells cars, Torque wins races.

We're seeing bigger Torque gains with the tunes than HP.

So I guess the L99s are just tuned lower than the ones the testers got.

Originally Posted by jpsuperman81

Hydra-Matic 6l80 six-speed automatic (SS) w/ TAPshift
Gear ratios (:1):
First: 4.03
Second: 2.36
Third: 1.53
Fourth: 1.15
Fifth: 0.85
Sixth: 0.67
Reverse: 3.06
Final drive ratio: 3.27


TR6060 six-speed manual (SS)
Gear ratios (:1):
First: 3.01
Second: 2.07
Third: 1.43
Fourth: 1.00
Fifth: 0.84
Sixth: 0.57
Reverse: 3.28
Final drive ratio: 3.45

[PQ]

Well, that's all good but the LS3s seem to be easily faster across the board from what we've seen.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by irpq11

I'm not gonna say that, but you can.



We're seeing bigger Torque gains with the tunes than HP.

So I guess the L99s are just tuned lower than the ones the testers got.

I dunno about that. Junkie's fast list for stock cars in the quarter mile has a few L99's on there...

[PQ]

Originally Posted by GTAHVIT

I dunno about that. Junkie's fast list for stock cars in the quarter mile has a few L99's on there...

Yup. I looked at that. But I did an average and the LS3s are performing a lot better. Considering there are a lot more L99s out there than LS3s, it's kinda interesting.

[ElAntonius]

Originally Posted by irpq11

Well, that's all good but the LS3s seem to be easily faster across the board from what we've seen.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21013

I might be misunderstanding you, but seems to be an even sprinkling of L99s and LS3s there.

TBH, if a MT is slow, everyone is quick to blame the driver. If an AT is slow, it's 'gotta be' the car's fault.

Someone on here (sorry, forgot who it was) alluded to having a feel for the AT, having to know when to step it in, when to back off. Not saying it should be as difficult as some people are having a time with, but sub 14 should be possible even in summer conditions...if someone is getting really close to that, maybe they should analyze factors other than blaming the trans.

That doesn't excuse the poor showing of some cars on here, but analyzing the problem also means dismissing other sources of car slowdown.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by irpq11

Yup. I looked at that. But I did an average and the LS3s are performing a lot better. Considering there are a lot more L99s out there than LS3s, it's kinda interesting.

Truthfully, I think a lot of those L99 times are slower due to driving skillz.

I just don't think GM deliberately detuned the cars for production???? To make customers unhappy???

So It's not like it saves them money to detune the ECM...

Just doesn't make sense to me. I know that's not the topic of this thread.

so back on topic...

It really isn't that much easier to launch an Auto over a manual. In fact I'd probably have worse launches with an auto now cus my dd's have always been manuals.

[Gentry78]

first gear is way lower so that helps a munch