Looks like there is finally proof, the Manual IS Quicker....

[headpunter]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

and it all means nothing if you cant get it to the ground.

case in point
346hp LT1 - 11.8 seconds 1/4 mile

i wasnt even refering to that, some one said the rear end was good for 600 ft lbs and i was refering to my talk with Oppenhieser about how they put 750hp through the rearend so my comment was to infer that 750hp in a LS v8 would be closer to 680-700 ft/lbs . i was just making a point about the rearend and transmission strength not what was better.

[Jamestwilliams]

Originally Posted by headpunter

i wasnt even refering to that, some one said the rear end was good for 600 ft lbs and i was refering to my talk with Oppenhieser about how they put 750hp through the rearend so my comment was to infer that 750hp in a LS v8 would be closer to 680-700 ft/lbs . i was just making a point about the rearend and transmission strength not what was better.

Did he say that was through a stock tranny, or were they just testing the rear end through a machine, just wondering because I thought the stock tranny was only rated to about 450lbft of torque.

[Shifty 6]

I wonder if the moderator could merge this thread with the "auto faster than mt" thread. That could be interesting.

[headpunter]

Originally Posted by Jamestwilliams

Did he say that was through a stock tranny, or were they just testing the rear end through a machine, just wondering because I thought the stock tranny was only rated to about 450lbft of torque.

no confimations either way.

[bobscogin]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

horsepower sells cars.
torque wins races.

That's a popular belief, but it's not accurate. Torque is simply a measure of instantaneous force, not power over time, and a part of the equation that determines horsepower. Horsepower, on the other hand, is the measure of the rate at which work is done, and that determines the car's rate of acceleration. A better way to say what is meant by "torque wins races" is to say that horsepower developed by higher torque at lower rpm wins races, because that develops useable horsepower at rpm levels likely to be seen on street driven cars.

Bob

[Crowley]

Originally Posted by bobscogin

That's a popular belief, but it's not accurate. Torque is simply a measure of instantaneous force, not power over time, and a part of the equation that determines horsepower. Horsepower, on the other hand, is the measure of the rate at which work is done, and that determines the car's rate of acceleration. A better way to say what is meant by "torque wins races" is to say that horsepower developed by higher torque at lower rpm wins races, because that develops useable horsepower at rpm levels likely to be seen on street driven cars.

Bob

You know what I got out of that ...

torque wins races.

[bobscogin]

Originally Posted by Crowley

You know what I got out of that ...

torque wins races.

Just make sure you get the torque meter then, and don't bother with a tach.

Bob

[MajorTom]

Originally Posted by Jamestwilliams

Did he say that was through a stock tranny, or were they just testing the rear end through a machine, just wondering because I thought the stock tranny was only rated to about 450lbft of torque.

I believe the transmission in both cars are rated for a lot more than 450lbft. I know GM names their Automatics using a very simple formula.


6= number of gears

L= longitudinal mounting

80= torque capacity minus a zero (meaning 800lbft)

E= electronically controlled

That's for the auto. But I believe the T-56 in the GTO was supposed to be able to handle more than the 4L60e (which would be 600lbft if you're paying attention) in the auto version.

The trans designations is something I learned from training at my auto repair shop.

[Crowley]

In regards to the tranny .. I'm not sure how the 6 speed holds up against the T56, but in my cobra I was making a lot more than 450ftlbs and it seemed to hold up just fine. That being said, I didn't beat it to death and it never had slicks ...

Crowley

[Crowley]

Originally Posted by bobscogin

Just make sure you get the torque meter then, and don't bother with a tach.

Bob

LOL .. definitely know what you mean .... A nice broad torque band is nice as long as you can use put it to the ground. It makes sense that if you are going to make modifications that will increase torque, you should have the proper mods done so you can safely keep it on the ground ... point taken I think one thing that people will find out is that with the IRS in there, it will be easier to keep it to the ground (as long as the half shafts can withstand it ....)

Crowley

[Design1stCode2nd]

Here is something I've been wondering. The 08 M3 is 416hp 290 something tq and weighs 3700 and change and gets 4.1-4.3 0-60 (mag testing so who knows), wouldn't the SS be about 4.3-4.5 just based on power to weight? Or are there lots of other factors at play?

Not that it matters for me as anything under 5 seconds is plenty fast for me.

[rayhawk]

Originally Posted by Design1stCode2nd

Here is something I've been wondering. The 08 M3 is 416hp 290 something tq and weighs 3700 and change and gets 4.1-4.3 0-60 (mag testing so who knows), wouldn't the SS be about 4.3-4.5 just based on power to weight? Or are there lots of other factors at play?

Not that it matters for me as anything under 5 seconds is plenty fast for me.

The new M3 has a redline of somewhere over 8000 rpm, which is how they get to over 400 hp, as hp is proportional to rpm HP=Torque*rpm/5252. So the M3 is more of a race car engine, producing very little hp down low-compared to what we are used to. By using a lot of expensive technology, such as individual throttle bodies-8! that isolate pulses they are able to achieve acceptable street manners with what would otherwise be too aggressive of a camshaft.

There are some obvious tradeoffs in longevity, as a motor that needs to be pushed that high just to really get going will not last like a 6000 rpm motor, in my opinion.

As for your question, gearing also plays a key role as I would be willing to bet the M3 is geared much more aggressively than the Camaro, and even with a tiny 4L v8 still gets only 20mpg on the highway. I think this is why it would be somewhat faster with similar hp and weight, they sacrificed a lot of efficiency and longevity for performance. To each his own I suppose.

[JJ#48Racing]

I hope the 4.6 0-60 for the M6 turns out to be true, but I'll be skeptical of any times until a few production cars are tested.

[Wm Holden]

Originally Posted by JJ#48Racing

I hope the 4.6 0-60 for the M6 turns out to be true, but I'll be skeptical of any times until a few production cars are tested.

Me too.