Jump to content

2006_superado

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    997

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by 2006_superado

  1. New Camero (formally Known As "camaro")

    in The Automotive Industry

    Posted

    The rumor is WRONG! My Father works at a Chevy Dealer and I have already put down a deposit on a new Camaro SS. The Camaro goes into production February 16, 2009 and is projected to be in the dealers by mid spring. I can't wait!

     

    LS3 422 HP

    6 Speed

    Front and Rear 4 piston Brembo Brakes

    20" Rims

    Lemans Blue with Hockey Stripes

    ALL OF THIS FOR UNDER $30K (predicted to run Low 13's out of the box)

    Let's see the Challenger beat that!

    under $30K?.... can anyone walk in there and get that kinda deal if they put a deposit down or is it only not marked up because your dad works there?. also if you don't mind what is the minimum deposit you could put to secure one?.

  2. Anyone Tried This For More Mpg?

    in General SS

    Posted

    i have the mini drop in ones in all my race snowmobiles and i think they helped with throttle response and my trail sled picked up 1 mpg so i would say it works

    have you tried it on your SSS?... and if so did you do it in a equal test to compare if it actualy did anything?.

  4. New Camero (formally Known As "camaro")

    in The Automotive Industry

    Posted · Edited by 2006_SUPERADO (see edit history)

    uh the z car had suspension upgrade and the 302 pushed around 400hp more than the big block and if im not mistaken it had the 4 speed muncie in it

    yes the Z/28 had suspension upgrades, i'm a little confused by your next statment (above in bold), are you saying it had 775hp 400 more then the ss396 with l78 375hp or that it had 400 hp total?... either way it's not exactly right, the 302 dz was underated and maybe pushed out 400hp at a high rpm but could'nt match the torque of the 396SS L78 and both of them came with the m22 4-spd. these old z/28's were'nt the best street cars because of the race inspired engine which was limited to 305 ci max displacement because of trans am rules. so i would'nt say the Z/28 was top dog but it was right at the top with a properly equipped SS, and what you gave up on the SS in track upgrades you could make up for with all the amenitys a SS came with i think they were equally great in there own way.. the only reason the Z/28 demands so much more then the SS is because of simple supply and demand the Z/28 is much rarer then the SS.

     

    Correct you are.. they changed and made the SS better then the z28 for whatever reason but back in the day.. the z28 was the dog.

    please read above.. and below you will both find that there performance was almost identical (with more of an edge going to the SS depending on period testing).

    i think the only reason that the Z/28 was a tick faster then the SS in one of the comparo's is because of weight transfer and lower torque obviously making it easy to launch then the SS but if you added slicks to both cars the SS would've at least matched if not beaten the Z/28 imo of course theres no way to go back in time and prove this but you would all have to agree it is well within reason.

     

    the first two articals are from howstuffworks.com...

     

    Announced in early 1967, some six months after the Camaro itself, the Z-28 was conceived by Chevrolet engineer and product-promotion specialist Vincent W. Piggins. The impetus, as Piggins later explained, was "to develop a performance image for the Camaro that would be superior to Mustang's. Along comes [sports Car Club of America] in creating the Trans-Am sedan racing class for professional drivers in 1966 ... I suggested a vehicle that would fit this class and, I believe ... it gave them the heart to push ahead.... "

     

    Initially, the Trans-Am involved Group II production cars with wheelbases of 116 inches or less and engines of no more than 305 cubic inches. Certification required at least 1,000 be built per model year. Chevy met this by entering the standard V-8 Camaro as a Group I sports car (over 305 cid) and the Z-28 option under Group II.

     

    Rule-bending aside, the Z-28 was a racer's delight: heavy-duty suspension, power front-disc brakes, metallic-lined rear-drum brakes, 15 x 6 Corvette wheels mounting 7.75 x 15 tires, special hood with functional air intakes, close- or wide-ratio four-speed gearbox, and a new 302 V-8. The last came from slotting the crankshaft from the older 283 engine into the then-current 327 block, yielding 302.4 cid -- just under the limit. Outputs were conservatively stated as 290 horsepower and as many pounds/feet of torque, but actual bhp was nearer 400, thanks to a huge four-barrel Holley carb, oversize intake manifold, big ports and valves, wild 346-degree-duration cam, and cast-iron headers.

     

    Chevrolet called the Z-28 "the closest thing to a 'Vette, yet," and not without reason. Car and Driver clocked one at a blazing 6.7 seconds 0-60 mph, versus 7.8 seconds for the typical four-speed SS350 and slightly under 11 seconds for an automatic 210-bhp 327. Handling was racer-sharp; braking as good as it could be with contemporary technology.

     

    Keep reading to learn about the styling and sales of the 1967-1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z-28.

     

     

    ________________________________________________________________________________

    ___

     

    Chevy worked to improve the behavior of the big-block Camaro's rear suspension. But the 396 had so much torque and put so many pounds over the nose -- 59.3 percent of an SS 396's weight was on the front axle -- that the lightly loaded rear axle struggled to get the power down in hole shots. "At the mere suggestion of work, the axle leaps and hops, judders and bucks..." said Road Test. "The rear suspension is (the) weak linkage between axle and car, and it drags the 396 Camaro down to the level of just another Camaro."

     

    Savvy street racers attacked the problem with aftermarket traction kits, which cut ETs significantly. And as time would prove, no '69 was "just another Camaro."

     

    The 1969 Chevrolet Camaro SS 396

    Specifications

    Wheelbase, inches: 108.1

    Weight, lbs: 3,790

    Number built: 13,970

    Base price: $3,100

     

    Top Available Engine

    Type: ohv V-8

    Displacement, cid: 396

    Fuel system: 1 x 4bbl.

    Compression ratio: 11.0:1

    Horsepower @ rpm: 375 @ 5600

    Torque @ rpm: 415 @ 4600

     

    Representative Performance

    0-60 mph, sec: 6.8

    1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.7 @ 98.7

    ________________________________________________________________________________

    ___

     

    and if what musclecarclub.com says is right then the SS was even faster at times?...

     

    1967 model info,

     

    Performance:

    (Z-28) 302/290bhp: 0-60 in 6.9 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.85 sec @ 101mph.

    (SS350) 350/295: 1/4 mile in 15.4 seconds @ 90 mph.

    (SS396) 396/325bhp: 0-60 in 6.0 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.5 sec @ 99mph.

     

    1968 only list the SS so it's N/A.

     

    1969 model info,

     

    Performance:

    (Z-28) 302/290bhp: 0-60 in 7.4 sec, 1/4 mile in 15.12 sec @ 94.8mph.

    (SS396) 396/375bhp: 0-60 in 6.8 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.7 sec @ 98.7mph.

    (COPO 9561) 427/425bhp: 0-60 in 5.4 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.5 sec @ 102mph.

    (COPO 9560) 427/430bhp: 0-60 in 5.3 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.16 sec @ 110 mph.

  8. Anyone Tried This For More Mpg?

    in General SS

    Posted · Edited by 2006_SUPERADO (see edit history)

    i tell you guys what since i don't think anyone wants to waste there money on crap, how about if we all chip in like $5-$10 and buy one we could have a mini raffle and the guy that wins it has to dyno test it and do a controled test of exactly equal distance both city and highway both with and with out it and then we'll know if it works or not... i think anything is worth a little investigation before just dismissing it, i don't think the human race would have got very far if we just dismissed every idea without proof. of course we would have to discuss the details if anyone was interested?.

     

    and even if it were to make 4-5hp and gain 0.5-1.0mpg i think everyone on here would want one for the price?...

     

    remember it's just an idea, and it would be interesting at the very least.

  9. Beer

    in Off-Topic/General

    Posted · Edited by 2006_SUPERADO (see edit history)

    as long as your not both on the same end then i think it's all good, but i'd probably crack up though :jester: it just freaks me out bad when there both on the same side in the same area and there parts are touching each other as well! thats just plain sick! :puke: :puke: :puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

  14. Earthquake

    in Off-Topic/General

    Posted

    Felt it up here in the high desert, I thought I was having some kind of dizzy spell or something. We are used to quakes up here in Ridgecrest, we get them all the time. If it aint at least a 5 we dont even notice.

    :withstupid: i realy never even notice if it's under 5

    it was'nt to bad here more of rolling shake then a rattling one imo?... nothing broke or fell down i did'nt even leave my house, when it's a real bad one you can tell and this did'nt feel like a threat. but i grew up in cali so i'm pretty used to the quakes.

  19. Anyone Think This Would Fit?

    in Engine Tech And Modification

    Posted

    not so true anymore its called BOOST!

    even with boost (sc or trbo) or n.o.s. your going to hit a wall at some point... for example, everthing else being equal you could get a 350 to keep up with a 454 with a power adder but in the end if you add the same power adder to the 454 theres no way it could match it... the bigger the motor the more you can get out of it.

     

    there is NO replacement for DISPLACEMENT :smash:

×
×
  • Create New...