2006 Monte Carlo SS Performance
#1
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (13)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
From: Parkton, Md.
2006 Monte Carlo SS Performance
Does anybody have 1/4 mile times for the Monte? I test drove one the other day, and it felt a little slower than a stock 2002 Z-28 that I drove last month. I just need a little more money (Don`t we all) to make the purchase, my wife loves the car and that helps alot.
#2
i dunno what the times are, but i just ran my buddys from a roll... and i only pulled a 1/2 car on him or so... i thought i'd be alot faster than that... my mods are as follows:
98 formula
stock ls1 intake
bbk throttle body (home ported)
maf ends
qtp bellow (not that is does ne thing)
K & N FIPK
SLP Loudmouth catback
so i'm very interested to know what they run... i heard one guy say around 13.6x times were run, but traction is a problem (v8 + FWD)
98 formula
stock ls1 intake
bbk throttle body (home ported)
maf ends
qtp bellow (not that is does ne thing)
K & N FIPK
SLP Loudmouth catback
so i'm very interested to know what they run... i heard one guy say around 13.6x times were run, but traction is a problem (v8 + FWD)
Last edited by 98_Formula; 03-20-2006 at 10:54 PM.
#3
Thread Starter
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (13)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
From: Parkton, Md.
2006 Monte Carlo 1/4 times
They just had a road test of the Monte on Motorweek, I believe they said the car ran a 14.4 101mph, zero to sixty was 6.0sec. It will be interesting to see what everyone runs when more of them hit the tracks. Besides the track times, this is one nice car to drive!
#7
Granted, it seems like the times I heard are mostly GXP, with Tapshift, but the times I've seen are generally just below 14s in the 1/4. Usually, around 13.8. BTW, I've personally ran two different Hemi's and all I can say is they seem to be WAY over rated.
Trending Topics
#8
hhmm, yea i keep running my buddies from a roll, from a 30 roll i got a good 1/2 -1 car on him, but from a 50 roll, with him a little in front to start, i didnt pull on him til about 90ish, he also has a 04 GTO and he htinks the monte is faster
#9
The ET isn't that good, but the MPH indicates it's making good power. In an F-body, 101 would be about 13.5's or so. It's about traction for 0-60 and ET's, power for the MPH. So it looks ok to me, just has to learn how to get it too hook up.
#10
Originally Posted by 98_Formula
hhmm, yea i keep running my buddies from a roll, from a 30 roll i got a good 1/2 -1 car on him, but from a 50 roll, with him a little in front to start, i didnt pull on him til about 90ish, he also has a 04 GTO and he htinks the monte is faster
#11
Originally Posted by spy2520
hehe i think so too, in my experience GTOS are slow as mollasses. whoever feels salty about that comment come see me...
#12
Originally Posted by Giddswat
They just had a road test of the Monte on Motorweek, I believe they said the car ran a 14.4 101mph, zero to sixty was 6.0sec. It will be interesting to see what everyone runs when more of them hit the tracks. Besides the track times, this is one nice car to drive!
Car and Driver listed the 03/04 cobra as 13.1 1/4 and the LS2 GTO as 13.6 1/4.
They don't own the cars they test so they aren't going to really beat on it to see what it does.
Seems the only cars they they ever give good ratings on or really test to their ability are the exotics like ferrari, lambo, maserati, etc.
#13
I know "kissmyss03" (or whatever his name is) managed a 13.8 or 13.9 with a custom CAI, res delete and new mufflers. Yes, there has been 1 13.6xx by a stock GXP and a couple 13.7s. GXP's seem to be able to get under the 14.0 mark a bit easier, either due to the tapshift option (hold 2nd easier) or the wider tires (or better drivers? IDK)
I haven't gotten to the track yet in my Imp, but might get to the local 1/8 mi track tomorrow. We'll see
I haven't gotten to the track yet in my Imp, but might get to the local 1/8 mi track tomorrow. We'll see
#15
Originally Posted by Richiec77
I thought there is a difference in the Suspension on the GXP. That would make the biggest difference. I wonder if travel limiters may help on the track.
#16
Bags aer pretty cheap. They are usually cheaper then shocks. You could install them and then inflate at the track to keep it from transfering rear-ward so much.
I'd hate to say it, but I might need to browse the ricer forums to see what the front drivers do to help with traction.
I'd hate to say it, but I might need to browse the ricer forums to see what the front drivers do to help with traction.
#17
Originally Posted by Richiec77
Bags aer pretty cheap. They are usually cheaper then shocks. You could install them and then inflate at the track to keep it from transfering rear-ward so much.
I'd hate to say it, but I might need to browse the ricer forums to see what the front drivers do to help with traction.
I'd hate to say it, but I might need to browse the ricer forums to see what the front drivers do to help with traction.
#18
Originally Posted by Richiec77
Bags aer pretty cheap. They are usually cheaper then shocks. You could install them and then inflate at the track to keep it from transfering rear-ward so much.
I'd hate to say it, but I might need to browse the ricer forums to see what the front drivers do to help with traction.
I'd hate to say it, but I might need to browse the ricer forums to see what the front drivers do to help with traction.
#19
Originally Posted by Justin00SS
Engine mounts help ALOT. I have a friend with an SRT-4. Engine mounts are all the rage on the neon forums.