Another L99 baseline

[pharmd]

So here is the sad reality...500 miles on the odometer, bone stock, 3/4 tank of gas (93 octane), DA 2900, 2 launch techniques used, stabilitrack off, TC off.

For those who are not familiar with DA...its a calculation between elevation, barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity. It was HOT and HUMID, it was around 90 deg and humidity was around 60% raising to 70% later in the evening.

I did 3 runs in a row straight off the street, then I let the car cool off 1 hour, then ran it 2 more times.

Best ET/mph in BOLD.

1st run
brake stall to 2000rpm
60' 2.191
1/8' 9.312
mph 76.34
1/4' 14.27
mph 100.366

2nd run
flash stall off idle
60' 2.126
1/8' 9.059
mph 78.152
1/4' 13.90
mph 102.34

3rd run
brake stall 2000rpm
60' 2.159
1/8 9.241
mph 76.628
1/4 14.183
mph 100.92

For comparison sake, if I corrected this best ET/mph to ET/MPH @ sea level
from Drag Times.

Stock and Mildly Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines
13.459 @ 105.729 MPH

Which I guess is somewhat in line with the car mags.

Video of Best Run...
http://s139.photobucket.com/albums/q...9_06_19_23.flv

[mlee]

Thanks for the numbers... Interesting that 2k brake stall didn't help any.

Did you use Tap Shift or Sport/Competition mode...?

[9c1ny]

no offense man but those numbers suck, I have a little over 500 miles on my car currently and its much faster than those times................

I need to get mine to the track and click off a 12.9 while I am still stock

[mike@newera]

The L99 is going to benefit more from tuning and performance upgrades, it is definitely more detuned than the LS3 mchanically and by the PCM/TCM. We'll see as time goes on. I was very disappointed with my times and dyno numbers as well. See http://www.neweraperformance.net/def...ct&NID=6690416 for our resluts on our intake dyno numbers, no tricks here. A full thread is coming once we have pics etc. As we go on here with time, you will see some real fast L99's, trust me.

[9c1ny]

Originally Posted by mike@newera

The L99 is going to benefit more from tuning and performance upgrades, it is definitely more detuned than the LS3 mchanically and by the PCM/TCM. We'll see as time goes on. I was very disappointed with my times and dyno numbers as well. See http://www.neweraperformance.net/def...ct&NID=6690416 for our resluts on our intake dyno numbers, no tricks here. A full thread is coming once we have pics etc. As we go on here with time, you will see some real fast L99's, trust me.

Mike, I cant wait for a tune and the CAI, lmk asap!

[UsedTaHaveA68]

Originally Posted by 9c1ny

no offense man but those numbers suck, I have a little over 500 miles on my car currently and its much faster than those times................

I need to get mine to the track and click off a 12.9 while I am still stock

No offense but that response is really rude. And you know what they say on these internet forums...

If you don't have pictures, it didn't happen.

So go ahead and post those time slips.

[7CAMARO7]

I have to say stock for stock the 5th gens were made to SELL and not be necessarily the fastest nor the slowest. I think gm kinda messed up with making more stripped down cars with all out power and mediocre mpg ratings with the 4th gens. The more I read the more I know how small the actual numbers of new car buyers are as big time racers.

Mods will make anything fast though beautiful car!

try stalling higher till right before the tires start to spin. I expect a little more out of your car.

[kdoske]

l99 will rule in all good time

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by pharmd

So here is the sad reality...500 miles on the odometer, bone stock, 3/4 tank of gas (93 octane), DA 2900, 2 launch techniques used, stabilitrack off, TC off.

For those who are not familiar with DA...its a calculation between elevation, barometric pressure, temperature, and humidity. It was HOT and HUMID, it was around 90 deg and humidity was around 60% raising to 70% later in the evening.

I did 3 runs in a row straight off the street, then I let the car cool off 1 hour, then ran it 2 more times.

Best ET/mph in BOLD.

1st run
brake stall to 2000rpm
60' 2.191
1/8' 9.312
mph 76.34
1/4' 14.27
mph 100.366

2nd run
flash stall off idle
60' 2.126
1/8' 9.059
mph 78.152
1/4' 13.90
mph 102.34

3rd run
brake stall 2000rpm
60' 2.159
1/8 9.241
mph 76.628
1/4 14.183
mph 100.92

For comparison sake, if I corrected this best ET/mph to ET/MPH @ sea level
from Drag Times.

Stock and Mildly Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines
13.459 @ 105.729 MPH

Which I guess is somewhat in line with the car mags.

Video of Best Run...
http://s139.photobucket.com/albums/q...9_06_19_23.flv

I guess that sucks, but then again, this isn't the negative DA runs that people only like to post.

I bet the 05-09 GT's were running 14.0-14.5's @ ~97-99 mph.

[TAG UR IT]

Ouch....for 400hp in the new Camaro, these times should all be at LEAST flat 13's....and SHOULD dip into the 12's.

I need to get my Camaro so I can see just how this will compare to my 4th Gen. That's going to be the only way.

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by 9c1ny

no offense man but those numbers suck, I have a little over 500 miles on my car currently and its much faster than those times................

I need to get mine to the track and click off a 12.9 while I am still stock

Bottom line, I'm not happy with the times either, but I honestly think your over estimating what your car will do. "feeling" fast on the street is totally different than running a fast time at the track.

Guys be careful about what you hear and who you believe, alot of folks will come on here and quote fast times...and they may actually have a timeslip and video, but they may lie about mods, run nitrous when they aren't est.

The weather was terrible, extremely hot AND VERY humid, I didin't go there expecting great times, combine that with 3/4 tank of gas, and only 500 miles, it was a receipe for bad times. I hoped to have a better baseline run, so I could "start out" a little faster, but it is what it is.

I totally agree with the poster that said GM made these cars to sell not to perform...yeah, they perform OK, but they knew they needed to make $$ and they created a car they thought would move out of showrooms moreso than move down the 1/4 mile.

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

Ouch....for 400hp in the new Camaro, these times should all be at LEAST flat 13's....and SHOULD dip into the 12's.

I need to get my Camaro so I can see just how this will compare to my 4th Gen. That's going to be the only way.

I will be fairly surprised if you see any A6's running flat 13's bone stock on stock tires period. There may be a few up in NE run bottom 13's, there may be some in other areas dip into 12's with DR, but bone stock these A6's are weak...that exhaust is SUPER restrictive (way more so than the manual), and the tune SUCKS!

I'll be getting dyno numbers soon so make a comparison. Then its ON!

[SGOS252382]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

Ouch....for 400hp in the new Camaro, these times should all be at LEAST flat 13's....and SHOULD dip into the 12's.

I need to get my Camaro so I can see just how this will compare to my 4th Gen. That's going to be the only way.

Not with a DA of 3000 ft. (90 degree with high humidity).

His times really aren't that bad with a DA that high. His corrected time was 13.4 @ 106 mph. That's not bad. My best time in my 06 A4 GTO was 13.3 @ 105 mph on a perfect 68 degree day with low humidity.

[pharmd]

Originally Posted by SGOS252382

Not with a DA of 3000 ft. (90 degree with high humidity).

His times really aren't that bad with a DA that high. His corrected time was 13.4 @ 106 mph. That's not bad. My best time in my 06 A4 GTO was 13.3 @ 105 mph on a perfect 68 degree day with low humidity.

I think once this thing gets some miles on it, and I get some "good" weather, throw on some DR, I could be real close to 12's. A corrected 13.4 would improve some just due to getting more miles on it, then with DR my 60' would come down...so if I 60'd 1.9 ....I'm saying 13.2 or better would be a shoe in, which is exactly where its suppose to run.

Matt (@ Tune Time) ran 13.2 @ 106.21 in 698 DA weather which corrects to a 13.17 @ 106.6 at sea level, which my corrected mph would be the same so generally speaking you'd say they are making very similar power (based on mph). Track prep, more miles on his car, DR could be reason for quicker ET.