Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro forum, news, rumors, discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-13-2013, 08:01 PM   #51
DrkPhx

 
DrkPhx's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Triple Black ZL1 / 2006 TB SS
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: St Michael, MN
Posts: 914
Weight reduction is a great thing; I just don't think GM will hit their goal in such a short time period. If they do that's great; but no doubt it will drive up the cost of vehicles. I also wonder how they can reduce so much weight without compromising safety. Let's hope they can do it all; a lightweight, high-performance car that gets great gas mileage with a 5-star safety rating.
DrkPhx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 08:04 PM   #52
trademaster
 
Drives: 06 Maserati gran sport, 12 z06
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Detroit/NYC
Posts: 524
CAFE standards were not created to reduce pollution. Remember that when debating this stuff folks.

Weight reduction is a great way to increase performance and efficiency if they do it right. Removing weight in the right places can lower the center of gravity and removing weight in general will help in nearly all aspects of performance. I doubt they'll be able to cut fleet weights by 15% by then, but it's not like it is the end of the world if they don't quite meet the stated goal.
trademaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 08:06 PM   #53
mlee
H-Town Camaro Club
 
mlee's Avatar
 
Drives: Number Twenty-Three
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Conroe, TX
Posts: 24,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
It's not weight reduction that is a bad thing per se. It's a good thing. To summarize my last post, they are saving weight by doing things that cost a lot of money instead of finding ways to get rid of useless features that add weight and cost but are being FORCED onto the cars.

We don't need 5MPH bumpers. Learn to drive instead.
We don't need Backup sensors and cameras, learn to drive instead.

Which is more useful?
a) A backup camera.
b) A spare tire and jack.

Yet, one is required and the other is not.
Backup camera as is way more useful and a lot lighter than a spare tire & jack. Neither one of them have to be used and if I had to have one it would be the lighter of the two.

It's great to see GM is getting ahead of the game and investing in new technology to lighten things up. Exactly what we asked for.
__________________
.
mlee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 08:14 PM   #54
The_Stache
SoCal Race Team #13
 
The_Stache's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 1SS:RS:LS3:SW
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 1,717
This is a positive sign that the "thinking" is going in the right direction, and that GM wants to do business in a profitable way. This type of thinking (among other aspects) is what will get future buyers.

Its easy to say, go cut 400lbs off... actually doing it is going to be a challenge, and one thats not insurmountable.

For example, go pick up a rear view mirror from a 70's/80's car, and then pick up one from a 2005+ model... theres a huge weight increase... in 1 part thats not even structural.

GM just needs to trim weight on everything, not removal of mass but actual engineering to do the same job with less/lighter materials.
__________________
A.K.A - Diarmadhi (old handle) - So much to do.. So little money
Owner : Fast-Stache Industries LLC
The_Stache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 08:17 PM   #55
OldScoolCamaro


 
Drives: Camaro's, always have, always will.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Home of the brave
Posts: 4,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
The same is true for the "Shut up, because it's gonna be AWESOME!" but in 12 months the "Hey!!!! THIS SUCKS! What idiot said they should do this?!?!?!" crowd.
...now that statement sounds like something coming from the oval office that we have been putting up with for how many years now, and it's the most most recent gaff that the press secretary is trying to spin.....a play on words, not to you Captain <place that post in context to the current events>...ooops, no politics...sorry....
__________________
In Scott We Trust...all others must show proof.
OldScoolCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:02 PM   #56
kevint
 
Drives: 2013 1SS
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 288
A 15% weight reduction isn't a lofty goal. It can be done now, but nobody will want to pay for it when the technology (we already have) is implemented.
kevint is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:14 PM   #57
OldScoolCamaro


 
Drives: Camaro's, always have, always will.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Home of the brave
Posts: 4,859
...what we get, and what we want, usually are two different things....
__________________
In Scott We Trust...all others must show proof.
OldScoolCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:32 PM   #58
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by trademaster View Post
CAFE standards were not created to reduce pollution. Remember that when debating this stuff folks.
Please DO NOT keep this in mind because it is actually incorrect.

CAFE was enacted after the 1975 Oil Embargo as a way to force people to reduce consumption of imported oil.

In 1975, the US imported about 15 Million barrels per day. CAFE was put into effect and completely failed in the stated objective. imports were up to about 18 million per day by 1978.

Consumption took a reduction back down to about 14 billion barrels a day by 1980 when the "Malaise" recession took hold. Over the next few years, the economy was booming again and consumption returned to the former levels and then continued to rise.

By 2025 the consumption rate is predicted to be 30 billion barrels per day (twice that of the consumption in the day when CAFE was imposed to reduce consumption).

So, CAFE has failed at the stated purpose, and while cars have gotten more efficient and use less gas, it still has not done anything to reduce dependency on foreign oil. It has done the opposite, by making people drive MORE now because it costs less to do so.

It has also resulted in compromised vehicle designs that need to make up for their inherent lack of safety with the addition of expensive pyrotechnic safety devices and the like, adding to the sticker price of the average car.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:34 PM   #59
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlee View Post
Backup camera as is way more useful and a lot lighter than a spare tire & jack. Neither one of them have to be used and if I had to have one it would be the lighter of the two.
So you actually are making my point for me.

I want to have a CHOICE too. Not being forced to add heavy things to my car that are of no use to me.

Thank you.
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:41 PM   #60
Angrybird 12
Retired, Cancer Survivor
 
Angrybird 12's Avatar
 
Drives: 12 CAMARO 1LT, 08 Vue, 14 Spark
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: J. C. Tennessee
Posts: 17,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
So you actually are making my point for me.

I want to have a CHOICE too. Not being forced to add heavy things to my car that are of no use to me.

Thank you.
You started losing choice in what you could get on cars in 1966 when the government required front seat belts in cars. It's been down hill ever since.
__________________
Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE...CAMARO!

Previous Camaros: 1974, 1979 and 2010.
Angrybird 12 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:41 PM   #61
OldScoolCamaro


 
Drives: Camaro's, always have, always will.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Home of the brave
Posts: 4,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
So you actually are making my point for me.

I want to have a CHOICE too. Not being forced to add heavy things to my car that are of no use to me.

Thank you.
Captain...we love ya man! If not for you, mundane would be the standard....
__________________
In Scott We Trust...all others must show proof.
OldScoolCamaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:44 PM   #62
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 10,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro View Post
Captain...we love ya man! If not for you, mundane would be the standard....
For God's sake, don't encourage him!...He's prolific enough all on his own...lol...
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 11:29 PM   #63
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
For God's sake, don't encourage him!...He's prolific enough all on his own...lol...
I think you mean "profound".
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 02:33 AM   #64
Stock6.0GTO
Under an ISX or DD15
 
Drives: GTO
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Modesto
Posts: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard1183 View Post
That'd be ideal, if only it looked as good as the 5th gen
if only the visibility wasn't so horrible :( other than that i love the way they look! well other than the weight lol
__________________
2006 Pontiac GTO M6 1 of 475
Not driving your car to keep miles off of it, is like not having sex with your girlfriend so her next boyfriend will appreciate it more.
Stock6.0GTO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 02:42 AM   #65
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlee View Post
Backup camera as is way more useful and a lot lighter than a spare tire & jack. Neither one of them have to be used and if I had to have one it would be the lighter of the two.
I may not have to use it (and never will, as I'm capable of driving all by my self), but I'll still have to pay for it. How does that make sense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Stache View Post
For example, go pick up a rear view mirror from a 70's/80's car, and then pick up one from a 2005+ model... theres a huge weight increase... in 1 part thats not even structural.
I know how light those mirrors are. I picked one up just last summer after it fell off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro View Post
...what we get, and what we want, usually are two different things....
You've hit on a defining characteristic of the regulatory state. And in the case of our specific one, what we get is generally more in line with what we deserve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
In 1975, the US imported about 15 Million barrels per day. CAFE was put into effect and completely failed in the stated objective. imports were up to about 18 million per day by 1978.
Those numbers sound more like total oil consumption, not imports. I'd have to do more research on exact numbers, but I think that around the late 70s, roughly 30% or so of the total use was from imports. 30 years later, it was more like 70% of the total was imports.

Today, the percent of use that is imported is rapidly going down, largely due to shale production, with a significant and growing percentage of the imports coming from Tar Sands from our friendly neighbor to the north. (Which is the reason WTI oil is around $20 a barrel cheaper than Brent). And the government and EPA are fighting both of these new sources of oil as hard as they can....which would suggest that despite claims that reducing imports is the purpose of CAFE, the actual motives are different.

Interesting addition to the point about CAFE driving the SUV craze. I've always held that opinion as well....And it makes you to wonder what affect it would have had on fuel consumption of people had still been able to find full size sedans that got low to mid 20s on the highway instead of SUVs that got upper teens at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrybird 12 View Post
You started losing choice in what you could get on cars in 1966 when the government required front seat belts in cars. It's been down hill ever since.
It really got rolling with Ralph Nader's crusade against GM, which just happened to coincide with his quiet buying up of Ford stock. I'm sure the two were unrelated, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
For God's sake, don't encourage him!...He's prolific enough all on his own...lol...
No, I want more. Keep it coming, Captain!!!
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 08:15 AM   #66
trademaster
 
Drives: 06 Maserati gran sport, 12 z06
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Detroit/NYC
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
Please DO NOT keep this in mind because it is actually incorrect.
Ehhh, it's actually 100% factual. I hope you read my whole post because you just might learn something if you pay attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
CAFE was enacted after the 1975 Oil Embargo as a way to force people to reduce consumption of imported oil.
No. CAFE was passed by Congress in 1975 after the 1973 embargo by OAPEC, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. The embargo was an oil starvation tactic by the aforementioned countries in response to the United States' military-industrial support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. In fact, numerous European (and Asian) countries denounced the actions of the United States because they did not want to suffer the economic backlash from the major oil producers in the region. CAFE was and still is intended to reduce the growth rate of oil demand to dampen the US economy from crashes based on natural or unnatural fluctuations in oil supply. The intention was to remove as much external petroleum-based manipulation of the US economy as possible. I'll revisit the emphasis on growth rate a little later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
In 1975, the US imported about 15 Million barrels per day. CAFE was put into effect and completely failed in the stated objective. imports were up to about 18 million per day by 1978.
Neither of those figures are evenly remotely accurate. Those are total consumption figures and as variables exogenous to relavent consumption models, like population growth and increase in demand for automobiles, saw record growth in the short-term preceding those figures they are meaningless without comparing their growth relative to said variables. You also don't seem to know something extremely important -- CAFE standards, though enacted by Congress in 1975, did not take effect until 1978

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
Consumption took a reduction back down to about 14 billion barrels a day by 1980 when the "Malaise" recession took hold. Over the next few years, the economy was booming again and consumption returned to the former levels and then continued to rise.

By 2025 the consumption rate is predicted to be 30 billion barrels per day (twice that of the consumption in the day when CAFE was imposed to reduce consumption).
First of all, again your numbers are way wrong. Global oil consumption is only projected to be in the 120 million bbl/day range by 2025. Not a small figure, but your numbers are literally impossible. Are you suggesting that US oil consumption would be lower had CAFE never been introduced? CAFE was intended to minimize the growth rate of oil demand effectively reducing market volatility, nobody expected it to actually stop or reverse growth, and based on any reasonable models it has contributed greatly to that goal.


Let me break down the numbers for you very clearly. Below are the figures for annual US oil consumption in million bbl/day from 1960-2010. These are figures from my firm's database so I can't link you to them directly, but feel free to check any of the consumption figures; they are accurate. I calculated the annual increase with a simple calculation in R, but again feel free to check them for yourself.

Yr Consumption Increase from previous year
1960 9.80 2.843%
1961 9.98 1.825%
1962 10.40 4.250%
1963 10.74 3.302%
1964 11.02 2.597%
1965 11.51 4.445%
1966 12.08 4.968%
1967 12.56 3.939%
1968 13.39 6.628%
1969 14.14 5.555%
1970 14.70 3.964%
1971 15.21 3.506%
1972 16.37 7.589%
1973 17.31 5.748%
1974 16.65 -3.784%
1975 16.32 -1.986%
1976 17.46 6.979%
1977 18.43 5.557%
1978 18.85 2.253% <<<< First CAFE regulations
1979 18.51 -1.773%
1980 17.06 -7.869%
1981 16.06 -5.852%
1982 15.30 -4.745%
1983 15.23 -0.422%
1984 15.73 3.247%
1985 15.73 0.005%
1986 16.28 3.524%
1987 16.67 2.361%
1988 17.28 3.710%
1989 17.33 0.242%
1990 16.99 -1.943%
1991 16.71 -1.617%
1992 17.03 1.909%
1993 17.24 1.197%
1994 17.72 2.793%
1995 17.72 0.036%
1996 18.31 3.297%
1997 18.62 1.701%
1998 18.92 1.594%
1999 19.52 3.183%
2000 19.70 0.931%
2001 19.65 -0.266%
2002 19.76 0.573%
2003 20.03 1.377%
2004 20.73 3.482%
2005 20.80 0.342%
2006 20.69 -0.552%
2007 20.68 -0.034%
2008 19.50 -5.718%
2009 18.77 -3.726%
2010 ** 18.93 0.839%


So, even including the external decrease in supply and resultant demand shift from the OAPEC embargo in '73-'75, the average annual growth rate of oil consumption from 1960-1978 before CAFE regulations began was 3.774%. That was the AVERAGE growth rate of consumption year-over-year. After CAFE regulations began in 1978, average growth rate of consumption has been 0.124%. Average growth of consumption after CAFE regulations has been less than 1/30th of the average growth rate before CAFE.

Since CAFE regulations began we have not seen one single year that has topped the AVERAGE growth rate of consumption before CAFE. Even if we used only the statistical outliers, the highest single annual growth rates since the first CAFE standards took effect, we would still be significantly lower than the average before CAFE standards. Population has grown, # of vehicles has grown, miles driven has increased massively, but consumption of oil is damn near equal to what it was the year CAFE first came into effect. That is success, my friend. So please tell me again how CAFE hasn't worked at all.

Last edited by trademaster; 03-14-2013 at 08:28 AM.
trademaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 10:08 AM   #67
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,290
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Well, by 2025 I believe the country will have released itself heavily from foreign oil by using its cleaner burning natural gas. Trucking fleets are moving towards LNG and its only a matter of time before vehicles move towards it as well. You don't lose any power from gas to LNG, burns cleaner, it's cheaper and we have so much of it we can't store it any longer.
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 10:23 AM   #68
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 9,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by trademaster View Post
Ehhh, it's actually 100% factual. I hope you read my whole post because you just might learn something if you pay attention...
I read a good deal of it...learned some stuff. Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard1183 View Post
Well, by 2025 I believe the country will have released itself heavily from foreign oil by using its cleaner burning natural gas. Trucking fleets are moving towards LNG and its only a matter of time before vehicles move towards it as well. You don't lose any power from gas to LNG, burns cleaner, it's cheaper and we have so much of it we can't store it any longer.
I agree with you, although I thought Natural gas didnt' contain the same amount of energy as gasoline, so more of it is needed to get the same power...thus less fuel economy. No matter...it will become more the norm over the years, especially as you say, for fleet trucks.



ANYWAYS

You know what sucks? That this thread has become political.
__________________
IPF Tune, Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 10:24 AM   #69
Stock6.0GTO
Under an ISX or DD15
 
Drives: GTO
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Modesto
Posts: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard1183 View Post
Well, by 2025 I believe the country will have released itself heavily from foreign oil by using its cleaner burning natural gas. Trucking fleets are moving towards LNG and its only a matter of time before vehicles move towards it as well. You don't lose any power from gas to LNG, burns cleaner, it's cheaper and we have so much of it we can't store it any longer.
which trucking fleets?? I work for one and have heard no such thing, I hope they'd tell me since I repair the tractors lol
__________________
2006 Pontiac GTO M6 1 of 475
Not driving your car to keep miles off of it, is like not having sex with your girlfriend so her next boyfriend will appreciate it more.
Stock6.0GTO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 10:26 AM   #70
Stock6.0GTO
Under an ISX or DD15
 
Drives: GTO
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Modesto
Posts: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
I agree with you, although I thought Natural gas didnt' contain the same amount of energy as gasoline, so more of it is needed to get the same power...thus less fuel economy. No matter...it will become more the norm over the years, especially as you say, for fleet trucks.
kinda like e85? it's cheaper but requires more to burn to get the same mileage
__________________
2006 Pontiac GTO M6 1 of 475
Not driving your car to keep miles off of it, is like not having sex with your girlfriend so her next boyfriend will appreciate it more.
Stock6.0GTO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 10:42 AM   #71
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,290
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Nothing View Post
which trucking fleets?? I work for one and have heard no such thing, I hope they'd tell me since I repair the tractors lol
Well I haven't researched them but FedEx being one. I know we're getting off topic here so research CLNE and you'll see their investment in NG highway fueling stations built and 2013 stations plan. GE is developing at home fueling stations for LNG as well. It's on the way, now I'm not sure about it working well in high performance.

As for same energy, one trucker mentioned conversion to LNG from gas and said he's lost no power and pays around $1.40 a gallon. Caterpillar is working on development of NG engines and I believe Westport?
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 11:26 AM   #72
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 GMC Envoy SLE/2007 Ford F-150
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,687
Send a message via AIM to FenwickHockey65
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
ANYWAYS

You know what sucks? That this thread has become political.
Wonder whose fault that is...
__________________
FenwickHockey65's GM Thread!

2003 GMC Envoy SLE - Airaid Cold Air Intake, Gibson Performance Catback Exhaust
2007 Ford F-150 (State-issued)
FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 11:36 AM   #73
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,787
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65 View Post
Wonder whose fault that is...
I half-wanted to remove all the political posts in here, but because there are so many - I'd be more justified in deleting the thread outright....however, I can't (and don't want to) do that. So - no infractions will be issued, either.

However - from this post on, all politically-fired posts will be removed, regardless of what was said above this post. It's only a few people who are instigating this...you know who you are: please stop. Let this thread right itself on the "GM CEO wants cars to get 15% lighter in 3 years" track.

Thank you.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 12:01 PM   #74
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 10,255
I re-read the first post...what is this "body-in-white" thing?...lol
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 12:22 PM   #75
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: `12 LFX/`11 EB F-150/`13 Sonic RS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 5,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
I re-read the first post...what is this "body-in-white" thing?...lol
http://www.chevroletperformance.com/_res/pdf/BIW.pdf
__________________
EFR Twin Turbo LFX-GPI Tune-ZL1 fuel pump-10:1 CR forged pistons-3.45 gear-Meth Injection-BMR Trailing Arms, Bushings & Sway Bars-CircleD 4000 Stall-GPI Fuel Enrichment System
647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ @18.5 psi on 93 Octane (locked converter)
1/8 mile -- 7.158 @ 102.10 (20psi); old build
Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.