Picked up my 2SS RS 2 Nights ago - Kind of disapointed

[BryanB]

Originally Posted by 69Bird

I don’t agree in the hay day of muscle cars late 60'2 early 70's very few cars came from the factory running these kind of numbers. To top it off they where all strippers. Think about the weight difference and the amenities. Heck yeah I'll take a low 13 second car with A/C.

True, but we are not in the 70's anymore, I compare my cars to the current industry standards.

[BryanB]

Looks like I need to put some more miles on her. I'm trying to get the window tinted today and then I'll start putting some miles on it this weekend.

[Banshee]

I too was dissapointed until 300 miles..she then came to life..

I too was disspaointed with the light controls, but you will memorize where the positions are. I only use the auto setting or one click right for holos, nothing else.

The tach? Ah well...I can determine where my shift points are with the sound of the motor and by feel. Unless you are heads up racing do you need to eye a tach.

Myself, I drove the hell out of my car ignoring the 100 mph and the 4k limit. I seated the rings in the right way, taking advice from guys at Roush and an uncle who retired from GM as an engineer at their dyno lab. She will respond well, quite well after you run her hard and will see a GREAT improvement in another 300-400 miles. The sluggishness is quite normal on a tight tolerance new engine.

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by two_wheel_mayhem

13 second quarter mile isn't too shabby for a bone stock car, but it's still slow.

Slow is relative to what you are used to.

And to be honest, the LS3 and the L99 are both not running the "advertised times."
And this guys in Austin Texas (94 degrees and 800ft above sea level). I'd say thats about a DA of 3000 ft at least. So his car might actually feel a little sluggish to him.

Here's the fastest 1/4 mile list from this forum. With the hundreds of guys that have gone to the track, we haven't seen one LS3 trap the advertised speed of 111 mph, and there's only been two cars to run 13.0 or better.

1. speedy6963 - 12.87 @ 109.08 (LS3,M6)
2. NineBall - 13.07 @ 109.07 mph (LS3, M6)
3. Matt (tunetime) - 13.25 @ 106. 4 mph (L99, A6)
4. Foglin - 13.28 @ 106.8 mph (LS3, M6)
5.Amwellls1 - 13.31 @ 107.0 mph (LS3, M6)
6. BLT4SPD - 13.58 @ 96.34 mph (L99,A6)
7. PatrickfromMD - 13.59 @ 104.55 (L99,A6)
8. KoolWhip - 13.71 @ 106.03 (LS3,M6)
9. I Am Legend - 13.82 @ 106.91 mph (LS3,M6)
10. Toehead93 - 13.86 @ 102.66 mph (L99,A6)
Pharmd - 13.90 @ 102.3 mph ( L99, A6)
Mlee - 13.99 @ 103.1 mph (L99, A6)

This will all change this winter with cool dry air. But it does show how the LS3's and L99s are a little off the advertised pace in the summer heat.

[69Bird]

Originally Posted by BryanB

True, but we are not in the 70's anymore, I compare my cars to the current industry standards.

You are correct.

[camarocutt]

MY dealer says ground effects are on back order. Anyone know if this is true?

[69Bird]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

And to be honest, the LS3 and the L99 are both not running the "advertised times."
And this guys in Austin Texas (94 degrees and 800ft above sea level). I'd say thats about a DA of 3000 ft at least. So his car might actually feel a little sluggish to him.

Here's the fastest 1/4 mile list from this forum. With the hundreds of guys that have gone to the track, we haven't seen one LS3 trap the advertised speed of 111 mph, and there's only been two cars to run 13.0 or better.

1. speedy6963 - 12.87 @ 109.08 (LS3,M6)
2. NineBall - 13.07 @ 109.07 mph (LS3, M6)
3. Matt (tunetime) - 13.25 @ 106. 4 mph (L99, A6)
4. Foglin - 13.28 @ 106.8 mph (LS3, M6)
5.Amwellls1 - 13.31 @ 107.0 mph (LS3, M6)
6. BLT4SPD - 13.58 @ 96.34 mph (L99,A6)
7. PatrickfromMD - 13.59 @ 104.55 (L99,A6)
8. KoolWhip - 13.71 @ 106.03 (LS3,M6)
9. I Am Legend - 13.82 @ 106.91 mph (LS3,M6)
10. Toehead93 - 13.86 @ 102.66 mph (L99,A6)
Pharmd - 13.90 @ 102.3 mph ( L99, A6)
Mlee - 13.99 @ 103.1 mph (L99, A6)

This will all change this winter with cool dry air. But it does show how the LS3's and L99s are a little off the advertised pace in the summer heat.

It makes me wonder how the ECU is programmed. GM may have put a real low performance tune outside of perfect conditions? I know in 89 GM put an awesome tune on the cars released to the press but didn’t apply the same tune to production vehicles. Either way it doesn’t matter because we all know the car has the potential to put out some serious power!

[Banshee]

Originally Posted by 69Bird

I don’t agree in the hay day of muscle cars late 60'2 early 70's very few cars came from the factory running these kind of numbers. To top it off they where all strippers. Think about the weight difference and the amenities. Heck yeah I'll take a low 13 second car with A/C.

Agreed..

As a person who has owned and researched 60's and early 70's cars, top speed, 1/4 mile times, I can say that very few broke into the 13 second realm that were affordable.

Also take into consideration that these cars, when tested, ran 106-110 octane, got 8-12 mpg, ran on 14-15" wheels and were usually 3000-3300#

If you look at the top 10 on this list, you will see the first two were fiberglass bodies (2600-2800#) and the third had a 4.10 gear. Hardly compatible with freeway driving.

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...s-50fast.shtml

The 2010 Camaro clocks in at what low 13's and roughly 110 mph? Also gets up to 25 mpg and weighs 400-500# more than the #3 1969 Roadrunner which is comparable in ET and trap speed...The 440 6 pack in the 69 got 10-12 mpg.

Comparatively, I say the 2010 Camaro wins..

[Sir Nuke]

[QUOTE=BryanB;775477]I picked up a CGM 2SS RS 2 nights ago, have only driven it about 30-40 miles so far but I'm just not impressed with the car.

I have a 6 speed and I hate how I can't see the tachometer when I'm driving because the steering wheel is in the way.............[/QUOTE]

For starters congrats on getting your car......a LOT of poeple are still waiting...... as far as the tach...how long has it been since you drove a standard? or is this your first one? either way, its your camaro is new to you, and you will learn the sound of your car, iuts heartbeat. in time you will not need to look at the tach, as you will FEEL the car, your instict will take over and shift it when it need to be shifted, it will become part of you as time goes by.

[69Bird]

Originally Posted by Banshee

Agreed..

As a person who has owned and researched 60's and early 70's cars, top speed, 1/4 mile times, I can say that very few broke into the 13 second realm that were affordable.

Also take into consideration that these cars, when tested, ran 106-110 octane, got 8-12 mpg, ran on 14-15" wheels and were usually 3000-3300#

If you look at the top 10 on this list, you will see the first two were fiberglass bodies (2600-2800#) and the third had a 4.10 gear. Hardly compatible with freeway driving.

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...s-50fast.shtml

The 2010 Camaro clocks in at what low 13's and roughly 110 mph? Also gets up to 25 mpg and weighs 400-500# more than the #3 1969 Roadrunner which is comparable in ET and trap speed...The 440 6 pack in the 69 got 10-12 mpg.

Comparatively, I say the 2010 Camaro wins..

And you have creature comforts!
Yeah I didnt even think about the octane factor. My Bird has a 10.75 to 1 and no matter how well it is tuned I HAVE to mix some unleaded race gas to keep it from detonating.

[dreammy]

Originally Posted by camarocutt

MY dealer says ground effects are on back order. Anyone know if this is true?

Dealer said a couple weeks

[SSmoothie]

Bryan, Have you really gone out and hammered the throttle down? I mean there are some people that really don't understand or know how to do this. I know you need to break in the motor then take it out and throttle the hell out of it.

If your not happy with it then:

LET THE MODDING BEGIN

[Banshee]

Originally Posted by 69Bird

Yeah I didnt even think about the octane factor. My Bird has a 10.75 to 1 and no matter how well it is tuned I HAVE to mix some unleaded race gas to keep it from detonating.

My 68 Firebird 400 HO 4 speed is running 104 octane straight. I am completely stock, heads milled to 70 cc and am at 10.87 to 1. Although the Bird looks great, there is no way in hell a 375 HP 400 can break into the same ET and MPH realm being 3290# "stock".

[thejoker1232]

if you thought it was big why did you buy it? if you thought it would be slow why did you buy it?

i am working hard and saving up everything i have just to hopefully one day put a downpayment on this car i know it's a big car, and i drive a mercury so uh yeah its faster, but i love the fact that it is big it says to the mustangs and all the smaller sports cars IM HERE in a big way