[SuperSound]

I mean in terms of MT getting bad cars consistently. I'm not sure I buy it's every EB (just like it's not every ZO6). Don't forget C&D recent test.


Edit: In terms of worse situation, I agree having your $80k+ ZO6 go into full limp mode is a worse experience.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[6spdhyperblue]

the TR6060 is in a different universe than that MT82.

Thats why you have to spend $65k for a GT500 to get it.

[Mountain]

The MT-82 in the V6 and EB I4 have the same gear ratios. The version in the V8 has different ratios. Same size/spline input shaft and gear centerlines.

I actually liked myMT-82s (two different cars). You just have to get use to them to work them efficiently and without breaking them.

The Tremecs are just solid transmissions.

[khell86]

In that link you posted, they say they tested all variants with premium fuel, but in the recent H2H with the 2.0L camaro, didnt they test it with 87 octane? If that training document has any truth to it, the EB loses like 30 hp for some insane reason when using 87.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by khell86

In that link you posted, they say they tested all variants with premium fuel, but in the recent H2H with the 2.0L camaro, didnt they test it with 87 octane? If that training document has any truth to it, the EB loses like 30 hp for some insane reason when using 87.

See this thread khell:

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=455361

There was no mention in the actual article. But the test editor is apparently the one who confused everyone by posting a comment about 87 being in it. Looks like the chief editor came back and validated it was ran with premium.

[SS 1LE]

Not really sure what MT is bitching about. They use corrections, but big deal when you are talking about tests spread out well over a year with different drivers and different locations. In all honestly the times aren't far apart at all for the amount of tests. Without knowing 60 foots and surfaces you can't whine about a half second difference in 0-60 times. As for the 1/4 mile times, same thing there, no 60 foots, no way to compare...

BUT, I will say the car is definitely making the same power as the slowest 1/4 mile time has the highest trap speed...

[mjk3888]

Even a moderate change in ambient temperature could affect how well a turbo car performs. More so than N/A cars its very important to compare cars on the same day, same time, same track, same conditions.

[neutral]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

I feel like my MT82 is getting worse. I see myself getting locked out of gear at redline when I try to shift fast when it didn't use to happen when I got the car.. Maybe I just need to slow down. Lol.

My clutch assembly got ****ed up at some point while I was braking hard and rev-matching. There wasn't any problem during the action of it all, and the shifts were clean and matched, but I was coming up to an incline at a tire shop immediately after the braking moment, and all of a sudden the thing just went schitzo (hissing noises while idle, in-gear with clutch depressed, forced shifts being required, low RPM engagement shudders, etc.). Thankfully, Ford repaired it all under warranty after clearing that it wasn't my fault.

Now that I've received a new assembly, the shifter is snagging and catching, which it never used to do. I'm going to have it checked out. You should have yours checked out too, although I'd be present while they test your car if it takes redline runs to generate the symptoms.

Better yet, really consider getting a Barton, Steeda, or MGW shift kit. I tested the Barton SSK on my friend's GT and it was better shifting than any Tremec I've used; it felt as bolt-action precise as a 997 GT3's from what I can recall. Totally worth the $400-450 investment. The stock shift behavior is a plasticky wet noodle by comparison.

[neutral]

Originally Posted by SS 1LE

Not really sure what MT is bitching about. They use corrections, but big deal when you are talking about tests spread out well over a year with different drivers and different locations. In all honestly the times aren't far apart at all for the amount of tests. Without knowing 60 foots and surfaces you can't whine about a half second difference in 0-60 times. As for the 1/4 mile times, same thing there, no 60 foots, no way to compare...

BUT, I will say the car is definitely making the same power as the slowest 1/4 mile time has the highest trap speed...

Absolutely right. The trap speeds are indicative of the car's maintained output. There must be some huge inconsistencies in the launching methods or surfaces.