2010 stock A6 camaro tuned to......

**third_shift|studios** · 06-22-2009, 06:06 AM

339 RWHP / 360 RWTQ

http://forum.grrrr8.net/showthread.php?p=108383

**67CamaroRSSS** · 06-22-2009, 08:27 AM

A6 cars start at 400 hp due to the cylinder deactivation setup. With a 15% driveline loss 339 is about par for the course.

**third_shift|studios** · 06-22-2009, 10:06 AM

i thought they got rid of that junk on the LS3?

**allbaugh_04** · 06-22-2009, 10:11 AM

I don't see the problem here...

**shady milkman** · 06-22-2009, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by third_shift|studios

i thought they got rid of that junk on the LS3?

m6s are LS3s..the autos are not..

**SiggyZ** · 06-22-2009, 10:27 AM

Here's a question for the ages. Why didn't they put the LS3 in both automatics and manuals?

**shady milkman** · 06-22-2009, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by SiggyZ

Here's a question for the ages. Why didn't they put the LS3 in both automatics and manuals?

they couldnt get the DOD to work with the manuals...and also the DOD requires special valvetrain ..also not to mention the LXX (cant remember the number designation0 is basically a ls3 with the special valvetrain.

rethinking tho..the corvette has the ls3..both a6 and m6 ...but no DOD..so i would suspect that DOD played a huge role in that

**67CamaroRSSS** · 06-22-2009, 12:59 PM

IIRC, DoD = L99

**SiggyZ** · 06-22-2009, 01:36 PM

Say no to DOD then.

Originally Posted by shady milkman

they couldnt get the DOD to work with the manuals...and also the DOD requires special valvetrain ..also not to mention the LXX (cant remember the number designation0 is basically a ls3 with the special valvetrain.

rethinking tho..the corvette has the ls3..both a6 and m6 ...but no DOD..so i would suspect that DOD played a huge role in that

**third_shift|studios** · 06-22-2009, 04:21 PM

that's a huge 10-4. Its a waste of an effort on a muscle car. I can understand it on the G8 or trucks, but wtf?

**third_shift|studios** · 06-22-2009, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by allbaugh_04

I don't see the problem here...

a 90hp loss is acceptable to you?

**Firebirdjones** · 06-22-2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by third_shift|studios

a 90hp loss is acceptable to you?

Where do you get 90??? It had 318 stock,,,and 339 after a tune. It's only rated at 400 hp.
When I do the math I get 82 hp at the most when stock. Can't compare after the tune because the flywheel numbers have changed too, that is if the stock HP rating is even accurate at all....so comparing a drivetrain loss is somewhat moot unless you yank the motor for a flywheel pull.

Considerable drop but you have to consider it's being pushed through a new 6 speed auto too. Not sure how much power those zap, but I'm willing to bet, quite a bit. I'm not even sure if the general rule of 15% loss would even apply here.

Doesn't really surprise me at all.

My chevelle made 638 hp at the flywheel, but pushing through a 400 turbo with a loose converter and all the accessories it would probably barely top the 500 mark at the wheels I bet.

It's just a number,,,,,,used for tuning.

**Firebirdjones** · 06-22-2009, 04:45 PM

To reinerate a little further,,,Car Craft (I believe it was) got a hold of a brand new crate LS1 motor and stuck it on a dyno. It easily made 400 HP at the flywheel with stock manifolds, before they performed any tricks. Now we are all aware GM rated this motor anywhere from 305 to 320 HP, but that really doesn't mean anything.

When you consider all the stock LS1's that have since been on a chassis dyno over the years pulling anywhere from 290 HP to 330 HP it puts things in perspective, and actually looks similar to this new camaro.

**third_shift|studios** · 06-22-2009, 05:58 PM

I'm sorry, i was ignorant of 2 things: that the M6 and A6 have two diffent engines, and that the A6 L99 is only 400 hp. I guess a lost of 61hp at that point is acceptable

**allbaugh_04** · 06-22-2009, 07:52 PM

Well that's what i was trying to say

**third_shift|studios** · 06-22-2009, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by allbaugh_04

Well that's what i was trying to say

ya, but nobody listens to you so

**allbaugh_04** · 06-23-2009, 03:14 AM

apparently not

**Johns00Z28** · 06-23-2009, 03:51 AM

Even w/ that much less hp...from what I saw the automatics were only 2 tenths slower in the quarter mile than the manuals. I also was unaware of the different motors.

**jaxredg8** · 06-23-2009, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by third_shift|studios

that's a huge 10-4. Its a waste of an effort on a muscle car. I can understand it on the G8 or trucks, but wtf?

Hey, easy!! LOL I tuned mine off and it with the AFM off, makes tuning much easier for actual seat of the pants feel. And 339 is a great number bone stock. My G8 was rated 361 at the motor and baselined 301 so the numbers seem about right. Congrats on the car!