Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54

Ran a new camaro....

This is a discussion on Ran a new camaro.... within the Kill Stories forums, part of the Racing Forums category; theres a breaking period of 5000 miles on the new maro isnt??? car is supposed to run a little better ...

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    6

    black
    00 camaro Z/28

    theres a breaking period of 5000 miles on the new maro isnt???
    car is supposed to run a little better after 5k miles or im wrong???

  2. #22
    Member LS2 KLR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    113

    silver w/flames
    99 mustang

    Not to pick on you in particular but through the years I have been a member of various car forums but only on the lsx sites does the "break in" or "factory freak" come up.

    I've never understood how a car breaking in will suddenly pick up another 20+hp. I don't know of any race cars that need x amount of miles before its ready to run. Sure, put a few miles on it to let the rings seal but after that its game time.

    You can pretty much count on when a new chevy comes out with dyno numbers someone is always gonna say, just imagine what it will put up once its broken in.
    99 35th GT: 5.0 stroker, twin 60 turbos, aeromotive return style fuel system, full suspension.
    575/563 @ 12lbs-adding more soon...

    07 Trailblazer SS(wife's): 22s, 3200 stall, cammed and bolt ons, lowered. 405/405

  3. #23
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Nothing further from the truth. We dyno'd alot of engines including some of my own. Took a fresh motor, set it on the stand, and after 20-30 minutes of light loads to seat the rings, check for leaks, check timing and make sure the AFR was safe,,,it was go time. As many pulls as it would take trying different things. It wasn't unusual to have 20 pulls on an engine looking for the optimum setup.
    If they survive that,,,,then it's time to drop it in the car and go racing.

    It's actually the best way to do it in my opinion, you want to find problems before you go through the trouble of putting it in the car, especially after detailing everything.

  4. #24
    Stockitie Stock Stock 95camaroZNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Age
    30
    Posts
    897

    Red
    1999 Trans Am

    they said the cars run best after 8k break in miles, no car mag has run one with more then 300-500 miles on it. They will be dippin 12s stock im sure might be killing terminators stock after break in miles.

  5. #25
    Member 6.0LiterImportEater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    187

    Phantom Black Metallic
    2006 Pontiac GTO

    "Break-in period" is a complete myth!! I used to work in the automotive industry and when every car comes off the line it gets a "end-of-line" test. They redline the motor and hold it for five minutes! Been doing this for years too!

    Only motorcycles still have a "break-in period" since the bike is shipped in parts and has to be put together, including engine. It is recommended 500 miles for a bike but most of us now that holding the rpms at incremental periods of the powerband will set the rings nice and quick. After that its all go!!!!

    Also I'm ashamed to say this but a young punk in my area has a new Camaro, only V6 though. Buddy pulled a ricer fly by when I was driving home from work in the GOAT. He almost wrecked since he wasn't paying attention. We got to a light but I was behind him and he was revving that little six like it was top boss. I just looked at the guy and shook my head....not wasting my gas on a young kid that knew nothing about cars and thinks because his car is new its better ha!

    Oh yea you can tell the V6 from the V8 by sound! V6 has no umpphhh at all! The LS3 sounds ok. A guy had a SS/RS at a gas station and I rapped/bullcrapped with him a bit. Those mufflers really restrict it. I told him to get rid of them pronto!
    Last edited by 6.0LiterImportEater; 07-07-2009 at 11:06 AM.

  6. #26
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    Quote Originally Posted by Durango View Post
    ...and the new Camaro's are about 12.75sec to 13 sec on a good day so what, 1 lenght maybe a little more....
    Though I agree they should be capable of running 12.75 stock with a good driver on a good day, I have not yet heard of anybody running very close to that number yet. Do you have any data on a run that quick in a stock 2010 SS?

    Thanks.

  7. #27
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Ya anyone breaking in their new car just isn't aware of what the car has already been through before it was put on the truck

    I was lucky enough to know someone that worked at the GM Norwood plant in the mid 80's..Before it's demise around 1988 I was able to take a tour of the place and just loved it. Simply amazing,,,,anyway,,,
    Back then the Irocs and GTA T/A's were being pumped out by the dozens. Man let me tell you the test procedures for each car was absolutely brutal.

    TPI camaro's and birds all lined up,,,,guys with clip boards walking to each car,,starting them and just holding them to the floor,,,and I mean for long periods of time,,,then jot something down on the clip board and do it again You had to be carefull where you walked, there was always squealing tires and cars racing around inside and outside the plant.
    Then there was the test patch with irregular bumps everywhere,, (BIG BUMPS),,,,and they would fly accross that at 50-60 mph testing the suspension.....There were other things they did but you get the idea.

    I'm not exagerating when I say they literally beat the crap out of these cars before they had a mile put on them. That shoots the break in procedures right out the window.

  8. #28
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    6

    black
    00 camaro Z/28

    i friend of mine just got his 2010 camaro and is bab it tuntil 1500 miles... think ill have to tell him the truth hehehe muahhaha

    btw new camaros are bad ass... just the looking is worth the money

  9. #29
    Moderator 35th-ANV-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wherever life takes me
    Posts
    12,465

    Red
    02 35th LE Camaro SS

    Quote Originally Posted by lexva_58 View Post
    i friend of mine just got his 2010 camaro and is bab it tuntil 1500 miles... think ill have to tell him the truth hehehe muahhaha

    btw new camaros are bad ass... just the looking is worth the money

  10. #30
    Senior Member Too Fast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    54
    Posts
    5,170

    Black
    2000 WS6 6spd Hooker LT

    Quote Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD View Post
    Though I agree they should be capable of running 12.75 stock with a good driver on a good day, I have not yet heard of anybody running very close to that number yet. Do you have any data on a run that quick in a stock 2010 SS?

    Thanks.
    Road and Track tested an SS, they got a 13.0 @ 111.1. Reported it weighed 3860 lb! And I thought our cars were heavy....

  11. #31
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    Ya, and C&D has gone 12.9 at about the same MPH, so I suspect a good driver at a good track and in good air will run into the 12.7s or so....but we might not see it till fall.

    As for weight....don't even get me started. Most of us thought that the GT500 was supremely porky at 3920 lbs, but attributed much of that over-piglyness to its huge iron block and all the hardware associated with the blower. The SS manages to get to its pork-number with a n/a aluminum motor.

    The weight of today's cars is truly depressing, from a performance standpoint.

  12. #32
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    They don't seem that heavy to me. I'm used to racing and driving cars from the 60's and 70's, some of which weigh much more.

    My 70 formula ,,,,3690 lbs. empty,,,,,3925 lbs. race weight
    my 72 SS chevelle,,,,4,108 lbs. race weight
    My 2000 SS camaro 3750 lbs. race weight
    My 2002 SS camaro 3,820 lbs. race weight
    My 56 nomad,,,4,060 lbs. race weight
    My 79 454 pickup race weight (ya I've raced it) 5,560 lbs. haha

    I had to throw that one in there for giggles.

    I have some lighter cars in the stable but you get the idea.

    Keep in mind these race weights will very give or take 20-25 lbs. depending on the amount of gas used at the time. I always race with at least 1/2 tank or more. And I weigh 200-205 lbs. so you do the math.

    With all that said,,,these new cars just don't look that heavy to me. It definately wouldn't be a consideration for me if I were on the market for a new car.

  13. #33
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    To each their own, but it is absolutely a consideration for me. New cars make my 99 Cobra look light, and my 88 Coupe an absolute featherweight.

    Also, note that your 2000 and 2002 Camaro weights are given as raceweights (I guess all are, but they are the newest). A new SS or GT500 weighs more than that EMPTY.

    What can I say...I'm a weight Nazi.

  14. #34
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD View Post
    To each their own, but it is absolutely a consideration for me. New cars make my 99 Cobra look light, and my 88 Coupe an absolute featherweight.

    Also, note that your 2000 and 2002 Camaro weights are given as raceweights (I guess all are, but they are the newest). A new SS or GT500 weighs more than that EMPTY.

    What can I say...I'm a weight Nazi.
    Ya both camaros I listed as race weights,,,I'm 200 lbs. So that still makes those cars 3550 and 3620,,,still not lightweights as far as I'm concerned.
    At the time they were heavy compared to most anything else out there forsale,,,,and now look at the following they have on here
    Nothing has changed really from my perspective I guess. Camaro's aren't the only thing that has gained weight,,,,they all have..

    I'm not going to let weight be a factor in choosing which car to buy, I personally like the challengers more and would have one over a camaro,,,I don't care that they are slower and heavier,,,that can easily be changed to anyones personal goals,,,but you can't make the camaro look like a challenger, and that's my biggest hangup with the car.

    Don't get me wrong though,,,I put alot of emphasis on weight for other reasons and can understand the concern. It just cracks me up when I read all the people on here say,,,,,"I'm not buying the new camaro,,,did you see how much that thing weighs"??? Now that's just funny to me.

  15. #35
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    Well, the honest person in me says that weight is the number one main reason that I wouldn't have one. Ditto the Challenger (and I do like the looks of the Challenger better than Camaro).

    Oh well...sucks to be me I guess!

  16. #36
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD View Post
    Well, the honest person in me says that weight is the number one main reason that I wouldn't have one. Ditto the Challenger (and I do like the looks of the Challenger better than Camaro).

    Oh well...sucks to be me I guess!
    Man you are missing out on some cool cars

    If I thought in that mannor I'd have to get rid of most of what I own, including the 454 chevelle, both 4th gens, my formula, truck, nomad,,,crap,,,that would only leave me with the ventura and the 69 Z as the only lightweights in the bunch. I wouldn't know what to do with myself,,,

  17. #37
    Junior Member austin_texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    9

    Electric Blue
    68 Camaro

    I've moved to the Dallas metroplex area and have seen a few new camaros but much to my dissapointment these refuse to go faster than like 70. What a waste.

  18. #38
    Senior Member Too Fast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    54
    Posts
    5,170

    Black
    2000 WS6 6spd Hooker LT

    Quote Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD View Post
    Ya, and C&D has gone 12.9 at about the same MPH, so I suspect a good driver at a good track and in good air will run into the 12.7s or so....but we might not see it till fall.

    As for weight....don't even get me started. Most of us thought that the GT500 was supremely porky at 3920 lbs, but attributed much of that over-piglyness to its huge iron block and all the hardware associated with the blower. The SS manages to get to its pork-number with a n/a aluminum motor.

    The weight of today's cars is truly depressing, from a performance standpoint.
    Well, let's see. If GM could've made the Camaro under 3500 lbs, maybe 3450, [I]adn[I] kept the HP level the same, just imagine the acceleration and the gas MPG improvement. But then again, if they took the weight out, a lot of people would then complain about the lack of structural rigidity. Or, GM would have to use expensive material to keep the body rigid, driving up the cost. However, how much did the 3rd gens weigh? 3200? Then with a 420 HP engine the body would flex too much....

  19. #39
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Too Fast View Post
    Well, let's see. If GM could've made the Camaro under 3500 lbs, maybe 3450, [I]adn[I] kept the HP level the same, just imagine the acceleration and the gas MPG improvement. But then again, if they took the weight out, a lot of people would then complain about the lack of structural rigidity. Or, GM would have to use expensive material to keep the body rigid, driving up the cost. However, how much did the 3rd gens weigh? 3200? Then with a 420 HP engine the body would flex too much....
    My third gen,,,88 350 TPI to be exact was a solid roof car,,,and weighed exactly 3440 lbs. Only about 100 lbs lighter than my wifes T-top 2000 SS camaro,,,not alot of difference really.

    The days of 3200 lbs V8 4 seater cars are pretty much over. With all the gadgets and doo dads, bells and whistles, that everyone absulutely has to have,,,,all these cars are going to weigh a fair amount nowadays.
    You simply can't order a stripped down car anymore without A/C and power crap.
    You just have to live with 3500 lbs + cars and find your own ways to take weight out.

  20. #40
    Impounded
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    park bench
    Posts
    1,399
    gmcheviac

    I've seen one other than an orange one in Houston, a maroon with white stripe top of the line SS, didn't look like it had the RS package. This was around grand parkway if you know where that is. Automatic too

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 1967 Chevrolet Camaro - Classic Camaro With A Big-Inch Punch
    By Ed Blown Vert in forum Camaro / SS
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-06-2012, 05:10 PM
  2. 1999 trans am, 1995 z28 camaro, 1979 z28 camaro for sell!!!!
    By poneykiller2k4 in forum Vehicles For Sale / Trade
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-11-2007, 06:12 PM
  3. FS 97-02 Camaro Taillights/Ebony TTop shades/Camaro 35th model car
    By nhra-trans-am in forum Parts For Sale / Trade
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-01-2007, 12:34 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-10-2007, 04:03 PM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-12-2007, 12:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •