L99 People Answer Only.

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by aosborn

I had about 2500 miles on mine and was in the group posting those times with an L99

Cool, thanks...can you tell any seat of the pants difference (or ET/mph) in power from delivery date until now?

[mlee]

Originally Posted by aosborn

I had about 2500 miles on mine and was in the group posting those times with an L99

I have 1,800 on mine and was running side by side w/ aosborn.

Last nights Camaro gathering was a blast...especially getting to lineup and race other stock 2010 Camaros.


Now I have baseline numbers and we'll see what next weeks Exhaust, CAI and Tune will do to improve.

Originally Posted by pharmd

Cool, thanks...can you tell any seat of the pants difference (or ET/mph) in power from delivery date until now?

Seems to me like no change since delivery. Little less lifter noise at startup and running a bit smoother after cold start. Also MPG has improved a couple ticks but that may just be smoother driving habits lately.

[rpepka]

Originally Posted by PatrickfromMD

I’m not thrilled either with the poor showing of the L99 on the dynos as well as in the 1/4. Mine feels like it has some dead spots, shifting is soggy, paddle shifting response is terrible, and off the line should feel stronger. On the other hand with these shortcomings and knowing that dyno numbers for the L99 are 50 or more rwhp shy of the LS3, its makes one wonder why its not running significantly slower in the ¼. This tells me the Auto and its gearing have some significant advantages even in its unturned state. It would seem logical to assume that bringing the L99 up to LS3 power standards should give it real advantage to the LS3 M6 combo in the ¼. Tuning the Auto programming and torque management should provide an addition al edge as well. The VVT cam options coming to the market should provide for some broader powerbands then one might otherwise see in a "streatable" LS3 cam combination. On paper things still seem promising. I’ll be watching tuners results to see if this theory holds true. If so, the initial disappoint I see as well as many others, I hope will be pleasantly reversed to one of excitement. LET THE TUNNING BEGIN!

That's Funny, my 05 GTO ran great, the Camaro is very slow!

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by PatrickfromMD

I’m not thrilled either with the poor showing of the L99 on the dynos as well as in the 1/4. Mine feels like it has some dead spots, shifting is soggy, paddle shifting response is terrible, and off the line should feel stronger. On the other hand with these shortcomings and knowing that dyno numbers for the L99 are 50 or more rwhp shy of the LS3, its makes one wonder why its not running significantly slower in the ¼. This tells me the Auto and its gearing have some significant advantages even in its unturned state. It would seem logical to assume that bringing the L99 up to LS3 power standards should give it real advantage to the LS3 M6 combo in the ¼. Tuning the Auto programming and torque management should provide an addition al edge as well. The VVT cam options coming to the market should provide for some broader powerbands then one might otherwise see in a "streatable" LS3 cam combination. On paper things still seem promising. I’ll be watching tuners results to see if this theory holds true. If so, the initial disappoint I see as well as many others, I hope will be pleasantly reversed to one of excitement. LET THE TUNNING BEGIN!

Originally Posted by Sledheadrick

This is nothing new. All of the A4 GTO owners went through the same thing: "A4's suck on the dyno," "Auto trans = no power," etc, etc, etc....


Find a good tuner and have the transmission reprogrammed. Cut off or minimize the torque management, adjust the shift pressure, shift speed and shift points, and if you have the cash, get a 2800 + torque converter. It's worth every penny. The car will haul azz and you'll have a SEG from ear to ear.

You shouldn't be having to spend all this money to get it up to standards of the stock Ls3 SS engine.. I have never heard so many negative stories from owners about 400HP $32,000-$37,000 cars before...Especially when a 4.7 0-60 was quoted to have been run by the auto V8...

[Scott@Bjorn3D]

Originally Posted by Supermans

You shouldn't be having to spend all this money to get it up to standards of the stock Ls3 SS engine.. I have never heard so many negative stories from owners about 400HP $32,000-$37,000 cars before...Especially when a 4.7 0-60 was quoted to have been run by the auto V8...

That is exactly my point, if I would of known the auto would of been like mine is I would of got a stick.

I did not complain until a mustang killed me and then others complained also. GM has all the settings of my car and hopefully there is some new progam for the engine/tranny.

[mlee]

Originally Posted by Scott@Bjorn3D

That is exactly my point, if I would of known the auto would of been like mine is I would of got a stick.

I did not complain until a mustang killed me and then others complained also. GM has all the settings of my car and hopefully there is some new progam for the engine/tranny.

...and you would then be complaining that the L99s were just as fast on the track... Man this whining is getting old... I'm outa here.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by Scott@Bjorn3D

That is exactly my point, if I would of known the auto would of been like mine is I would of got a stick.

I did not complain until a mustang killed me and then others complained also. GM has all the settings of my car and hopefully there is some new progam for the engine/tranny.

We'll all be here waiting to see what happens. Let's all hope it is an easy fix that the dealer can do like a flash of the computer (if it is acknowledged by GM as an issue) and keep you in warranty. If the fastest time you got was a 4.9 0-60 and you were late in flooring it in your race. Considering it was an older model Mustang you should have at least caught up to it since the average time would be 5.5 0-60 with an auto and 5.3 with a stick. Only the 2010's with a track pack can get 4.9 stock. (Yes it might have been modded and so forth but I doubt it based on your description and the driver). In either case you should be able to hit the gas and get at least 4.9-5.1 from a stand-still with the auto SS. Well Scott, keep us all informed

[Restroom]

All I can say, not having driven either, is if I ever find a dealer who's not crooked, a moron, or a combination thereof, I'm not even going to let them mark up an order without a test-drive. Ordinarily, this would be a common-sense, expected part of any consideration, let alone sale, but dealers are still convinced these cars are worth more than they actually are, so I'll wait until they come to their senses.

I already have a pretty car that runs like dogshit. I don't need two.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by Restroom

All I can say, not having driven either, is if I ever find a dealer who's not crooked, a moron, or a combination thereof, I'm not even going to let them mark up an order without a test-drive. Ordinarily, this would be a common-sense, expected part of any consideration, let alone sale, but dealers are still convinced these cars are worth more than they actually are, so I'll wait until they come to their senses.

I already have a pretty car that runs like dogshit. I don't need two.

Then to be safe, order the manual..

[toehead93]

You guys crack me up. Someone said if they new the L99 0-60 time was going to be so slow they would have bought the manual LS3. Guess what the 0-60 time are the same at 4.7 seconds. Even with torque management in the auto it will still run the same 0-60 time as the stick, how upset will you be when you trade your auto in for the manual and it isn't any faster?

The way I see it is my auto runs equal to the LS3 even with torque managment keeing me down. Tune that out and the L99 should be even quicker.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by toehead93

You guys crack me up. Someone said if they new the L99 0-60 time was going to be so slow they would have bought the manual LS3. Guess what the 0-60 time are the same at 4.7 seconds. Even with torque management in the auto it will still run the same 0-60 time as the stick, how upset will you be when you trade your auto in for the manual and it isn't any faster?

The way I see it is my auto runs equal to the LS3 even with torque managment keeing me down. Tune that out and the L99 should be even quicker.

I'm glad your Camaro auto is running 4.7 0-60's, however there is no need to make fun of others having a situation where theirs are under-performing in that category.

[ChevyBoiSS]

Is it just the early build cars with this problem?? or is this every L99?

[toehead93]

Originally Posted by Supermans

I'm glad your Camaro auto is running 4.7 0-60's, however there is no need to make fun of others having a situation where theirs are under-performing in that category.

I don't think their cars are under performing. I think they perceive this to be the case but it's not, unless they have a true mechanical ot tuning problem, which would be covered under warranty, the L99 will run 0-60 in 4.7 seconds. However since it 90-degrees around most of the country we are not going to see 4.7 second times, we need cool, dry air to run those times...even the almighty LS3 won't run 0-60 in 4.7 seconds in this heat. I'm not making fun of people, I am simply pointing out that I think many are over-reacting.

Are these folks really having serious mechanical problems? I miised something if that is the case.

[CamaroSkooter]

I just got mine last Friday, I'll try it out today on the way home from work and report back. Just to need to find someplace good to go step on the gas pedal and not worry about idiots :P