#230 a Bat out of Hell?

[O2BQIK]

Originally Posted by Gentry78

seriously you think that if you twin turbo a car or heads and cam then your tranny blows or you snap an axle, you think GM is going to pay your dealer to fix it

Um, no, I'm not saying that. Of course those cars would not have been covered under the powertrain warranty. I was trying to clarify about whether an engine tune alone would void the warranty, since I had never heard that before, and based on the source posted, it seems that it can.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by ElAntonius

I wasn't dismissing you. Just pointing out that 13.9 is approaching the drag times listed on the top list.

And I wouldn't know about the v6s. I do know that all cars are affected by weather and that I would correct a v6 for DA like any other car.

I also don't know the margin of error on the iPhone across a quarter mile. Small error can get magnified across that distance.

iPhone is not consistant enough to be considered acurate. I did a 1/4 mile
run that had me doing over 15 seconds. It felt like all the others and the phone was mounted and started in the same place.

And if all cars are affected by hot humid conditions then there is evidence right there that I have a problem because either it's not affecting other cars, it's affecting them much less or my car is slow.

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

I've been keeping pretty close tabs on the V6 Camaros and for the most part they're not running all that fast in the summer heat. From what I've been seeing, most of them are running high 14s or so in the 1/4 mile. Some are running slower than that.
But that will change with more experience behind the wheel and cooler weather.

I think you'd be pretty suprised if you raced a stock V6 Camaro in a full 1/4 mile race (same track, same day, same weather conditions, etc). Trust me, you will easily win that race.
Based on your dyno pulls, you're car is making a lot more HP than a V6 Camaro.

You just need to get that tune straighten out and you'll have a fast L99. You could easily be sitting at 330rwhp, 340 torque with a tune. That along with a reduction in torque management and your car will be fast.

Today, just for fun, I was playing around with the paddle shifters. I would start out going about 15mph in 1st gear. I would then mash the gas to the floor in 1st gear and then hit the upshift paddle at about 35mph. I would get loud bark and some wheel spin on the shift. It was fun. And it was a good 90 degrees outside.

Scott raced a V6. And lost. That's what got the dealer and GMs attention. Tire chirps would ne nice actualy. I've only heard them a few times in all of my tests.

And if it's the heat and humidity then it affects my car worse than any I've seen. Bonnies car has beaten me in EVERY race we've run. Hers doesn't seem to be affected. Mine should easily be faster. Her car gets the times it's supposed to get. IN THE HEAT. I guess Toyotas Lexus is just a better car then. They've somehow defied the laws of physics and aren't affected by stuff that easily affects the Camaro.

Originally Posted by ThunderSS

so this problem is only prone to the A6 cars????

It would appear.

Originally Posted by WySS

Yup the autos are the only car that get the L99 engine. The L99 is the only engine in the lineup with these problems. If you order (and you did) the 6 speed you get the LS3 and it is not having this issue.

yup.

Originally Posted by patriotpa

...and then only a very few.

My luck I guess.

[Doc]

Just was looking at your sig and I'm wondering, do you have the larger 21" rims? If so, try taking one wheel off and weighing it. The stock 20" wheel with factory tire should weigh about 67 lbs. If you have the larger wheel I'd be interested to know how much heavier it is. Unsprung weight might be slowing you down just enough to make the difference.

[SGOS252382]

[QUOTE=irpq11;74430
jAgain. The V6 cars are running WITH my car. If the heat and humidity are inhibiting my car, why are the V6s not affected as badly?[/QUOTE]


I was making reference to this statement about V6 cars running with your car. I've only heard of 1 car (Scotts) that is running slower than a V6 Camaro (his car has issues). Your statement leads people to beleive that your car is also that slow.

Based on your dyno numbers and the races you've had against your wife's
IS350, your car would easily smoke a V6 Camaro (same day, same track, same conditions).

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Doc

Just was looking at your sig and I'm wondering, do you have the larger 21" rims? If so, try taking one wheel off and weighing it. The stock 20" wheel with factory tire should weigh about 67 lbs. If you have the larger wheel I'd be interested to know how much heavier it is. Unsprung weight might be slowing you down just enough to make the difference.

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

I was making reference to this statement about V6 cars running with your car. I've only heard of 1 car (Scotts) that is running slower than a V6 Camaro (his car has issues). Your statement leads people to beleive that your car is also that slow.

Based on your dyno numbers and the races you've had against your wife's
IS350, your car would easily smoke a V6 Camaro (same day, same track, same conditions).

Timing is a constant. Me and Scott have both got a consistant 0-60 time of 6.2 seconds. That's what his car did against the V6 that he raced. If he's getting 6.2, and I'm getting 6.2, and the LT he raced got 6.2, all in the same hot humid conditions, it stands to reason that the LT would have beat me by a nose as well. Or maybe I beat it by a nose. It shouldn't even be close.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Doc

Just was looking at your sig and I'm wondering, do you have the larger 21" rims? If so, try taking one wheel off and weighing it. The stock 20" wheel with factory tire should weigh about 67 lbs. If you have the larger wheel I'd be interested to know how much heavier it is. Unsprung weight might be slowing you down just enough to make the difference.

I've said before, I'll give it AT THE MOST .2 second difference, but I'm sure it would only be .1 second. Certainly NOT a full second to 60. It's NOT a factor.

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by irpq11

Timing is a constant. Me and Scott have both got a consistant 0-60 time of 6.2 seconds. That's what his car did against the V6 that he raced. If he's getting 6.2, and I'm getting 6.2, and the LT he raced got 6.2, all in the same hot humid conditions, it stands to reason that the LT would have beat me by a nose as well. Or maybe I beat it by a nose. It shouldn't even be close.

You need to go to a track and get some real numbers. Originally Scott was saying his car was running 7.0+ sec, 0-60mph. It appears his car has been getting a little faster overtime. It would be interesting if he raced a V6 Camaro now to see if the results would be any different.

Your car dynoed something like 315 rwhp on its 3rd pull (something like that). Thats more HP than the V6 cars are making at the flywheel. So I can't see why your car wouldn't be significantly faster than a V6.
The dyno numbers I found for a V6 Camaro were from a manual and it made 246 rwhp, 220 torque.

I would find someone with a V6 Camaro and race them. If you can't easily beat them, you need to contact GM.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

You need to go to a track and get some real numbers. Originally Scott was saying his car was running 7.0+ sec, 0-60mph. It appears his car has been getting a little faster overtime. It would be interesting if he raced a V6 Camaro now to see if the results would be any different.

Your car dynoed something like 315 rwhp on its 3rd pull (something like that). Thats more HP than the V6 cars are making at the flywheel. So I can't see why your car wouldn't be significantly faster than a V6.

I would find someone with a V6 Camaro and race them. If you can't easily beat them, you need to contact GM.

Scott raced the V6 AFTER his car was getting consistant 6.2s. And I have gotten plenty of 7+ second 0-60 runs with my car. High 6s I've had a ton. Maybe that's the variable here. Should I EVER get on it and record a 7.8 second 0-60? Because I have. A bunch of times. The 6.2 that we have been posting is the most consistant times. I must have recorded over 150 0-60 times by now. I'd have to say around 25 to 30 of which were over 7 seconds. maybe we're being to optomistic when we describe the problem. I try to be as acurate as I can in giving my times. Nevermind what my HP was on the dyno. It doesn't mean the car will be fast. And someone here told me that if they used SAE smoothing, the corrected HP would have been a lot lower. If I have a car that does a 7.8 second 0-60, I don't suppose a 'track' run would bring it dow to 5.0

The track is good for timing. More acurate. But we can clock these things to within .2 easily. Road conditions are fine because 'hooking up' is NOT an issue. The wheels don't spin. So other than a more acutly timed run, what is the advantage of the track when your wheels aren't breaking loose anyway?

This is frustrating as hell. I have a car with a problem. I KNOW IT DOES. And I'm being told from EVERY corner that there is nothing wrong with it.

I invite ANYONE on here to PLEASE come and drive this car and see if you guys think I'm full of it then.

[Slvr1SSA6]

The dyno numbers are NOT the issue with these cars. Yes they are fat with fuel, and yes they are not timed for optimum performance so the hp numbers are a little low. They are tuned this way for reliability (warranty). The issue with these cars being beat by 6 cylinder cars is the FACT that the torque management has these cars so constrained at take off they wont get out of their own way. You won’t see all of that torque management on a dyno sheet. My guess that the ones that are running ?good? for some reason the torque management isn’t set as high.

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by irpq11

Scott raced the V6 AFTER his car was getting consistant 6.2s. And I have gotten plenty of 7+ second 0-60 runs with my car. High 6s I've had a ton. Maybe that's the variable here. Should I EVER get on it and record a 7.8 second 0-60? Because I have. A bunch of times. The 6.2 that we have been posting is the most consistant times. I must have recorded over 150 0-60 times by now. I'd have to say around 25 to 30 of which were over 7 seconds. maybe we're being to optomistic when we describe the problem. I try to be as acurate as I can in giving my times. Nevermind what my HP was on the dyno. It doesn't mean the car will be fast. And someone here told me that if they used SAE smoothing, the corrected HP would have been a lot lower.

The track is good for timing. More acurate. But we can clock these things to within .2 easily. Road conditions are fine because 'hooking up' is NOT an issue. The wheels don't spin. So other than a more acutly timed run, what is the advantage of the track when your wheels aren't breaking loose anyway?

This is frustrating as hell. I have a car with a problem. I KNOW IT DOES. And I'm being told from EVERY corner that there is nothing wrong with it.

I invite ANYONE on here to PLEASE come and drive this car and see if you guys think I'm full of it then.

Well, then you need to get it back to the dealership for testing. What's weird is you putting a lot more HP to the ground than a V6. So why wouldn't it go faster?
We've had guys run mid 13s with only 305 rwhp. Your car is making more than that, that's why I can't see how it could be as slow as a V6 Camaro.

Its really weird.

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by Slvr1SSA6

The dyno numbers are NOT the issue with these cars. Yes they are fat with fuel, and yes they are not timed for optimum performance so the hp numbers are a little low. They are tuned this way for reliability (warranty). The issue with these cars being beat by 6 cylinder cars is the FACT that the torque management has these cars so constrained at take off they wont get out of their own way. You won’t see all of that torque management on a dyno sheet. My guess that the ones that are running ?good? for some reason the torque management isn’t set as high.

Yeah, that's something I kind of forgot. That could definately be the problem for these guys. They're making decent hp on the dyno (decent meaning way more than a V6 Camaro makes), yet they're still not running fast times.

[Gentry78]

Originally Posted by O2BQIK

Um, no, I'm not saying that. Of course those cars would not have been covered under the powertrain warranty. I was trying to clarify about whether an engine tune alone would void the warranty, since I had never heard that before, and based on the source posted, it seems that it can.

i was just using your cars that you have in your sig just as a example, i didn't know what angle you where looking at it from

but yeah a tune or any reflash that's not recorded and done by a dealer or local mechanic(as long as its been approved by GM, such as one they may do at a dealer as an update) will cause a powertrain warranty void and they will know because the new ecu keeps count of them as well as key turns, so if you try getting a second ecu and putting a tune on that one then switch them back out for warranty time just make sure you have some key turns on that one to match the miles on your car lol

[djsnoflake]

I know it sucks, but it seems like you guys have 2 options:

1: Go get a tune somewhere and deal with the warranty complications that could arise

2: Wait for GM to help you. In the thread about the pre delivery checklist fiasco, the Fbod says that he and GM are working on a fix. I know it sucks to have to wait for something that should have been done right from the beginning, but to paraphrase what my old man says:

Sometimes you have to pee with the weiner you got.

At least you guys have decent weather all year around. If this is happening to anyone in Canada, they might basically have to wait until next year if the fix takes too long to get, cause we are probably gonna have snow on the ground in 2 + 1/2 months

[PQ]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

Yeah, that's something I kind of forgot. That could definately be the problem for these guys. They're making decent hp on the dyno (decent meaning way more than a V6 Camaro makes), yet they're still not running fast times.

I'm not a gearhead but it seems that, even with TM, the car should run the doors off of a V6 when it puts out more HP and TQ.

Originally Posted by Gentry78

but yeah a tune or any reflash that's not recorded and done by a dealer or local mechanic(as long as its been approved by GM, such as one they may do at a dealer as an update) will cause a powertrain warranty void and they will know because the new ecu keeps count of them as well as key turns, so if you try getting a second ecu and putting a tune on that one then switch them back out for warranty time just make sure you have some key turns on that one to match the miles on your car lol

If I have to go to this length, I'll just mod the car and to hell with GMs warranty.

Originally Posted by djsnoflake

I know it sucks, but it seems like you guys have 2 options:

1: Go get a tune somewhere and deal with the warranty complications that could arise

2: Wait for GM to help you. In the thread about the pre delivery checklist fiasco, the Fbod says that he and GM are working on a fix. I know it sucks to have to wait for something that should have been done right from the beginning, but to paraphrase what my old man says:

Sometimes you have to pee with the weiner you got.

At least you guys have decent weather all year around. If this is happening to anyone in Canada, they might basically have to wait until next year if the fix takes too long to get, cause we are probably gonna have snow on the ground in 2 + 1/2 months

I got a slow weiner. And you're right. But you missed one option that I feel a lot of people will take.

3. To hell with it, my last car was a weak car and this is amazing in comparison.

Originally Posted by Slvr1SSA6

The dyno numbers are NOT the issue with these cars. Yes they are fat with fuel, and yes they are not timed for optimum performance so the hp numbers are a little low. They are tuned this way for reliability (warranty). The issue with these cars being beat by 6 cylinder cars is the FACT that the torque management has these cars so constrained at take off they wont get out of their own way. You won’t see all of that torque management on a dyno sheet. My guess that the ones that are running ?good? for some reason the torque management isn’t set as high.

Torque Mangmt. sux.