S8ER95Z

iTrader: (3)

Your flaw is comparing the magazines trap speeds to track trap speeds.

Here is the top list over on Camaro5
1. Pave1 - 12.86 @ 107.70 mph, (L99, A6)
2. speedy6963 - 12.87 @ 109.08, (LS3, M6)
3. nhra stocker - 12.92 @ 109.02, (LS3, M6)
4. 8ty8 ls1 - 12.97 @ 107.61 mph, (L99, A6), (DA -433)
5. NineBall - 13.07 @ 109.07 mph, (LS3, M6)
6. Will69camaro - 13.09 @ 109.70 mph (LS3 M6), (DA +276)
7. 8secpumpgas - 13.11 @ 106.38 mph, (L99, A6)
8. Three-D - 13.25 @ 109.84 mph, (LS3, M6)
9. Matt (tunetime) - 13.25 @ 106. 42 mph, (L99, A6)
10. Foglin - 13.28 @ 106.8 mph, (LS3, M6)
11. Scottywheels - 13.28 @ 106.43 mph, (L99, A6)
12. gtwss - 13.29 @ 108.09 mph, (LS3, M6)
13. AntiVnm - 13.30 @ 106. 12 mph (L99, A6)
14. Amwellls1 - 13.31 @ 107.0 mph, (LS3, M6)
15. Midnight camaro - 13.33 @ 105.52 mph, (L99, A6)
16. DarricSS - 13.37 @ 105.89 mph, (LS3, M6), (DA + 3331)
17. HDDAN - 13.38 @ 105.65 mph, (L99, A6)
18. PwrTrip - 13.41 @ 105.01 mph, (L99, A6)
19. Kaler - 13.44 @ 108.64 mph, (L99, A6)
20. SS/RS - 13.54 @ 107.44 mph (LS3, M6), (DA +1187 ft.)

wickedwarlock

iTrader: (4)

I want to see times with drivers who have seat time with the new car. It's been proven time and time again the magazine times post less than at what the track times are here. Lets see if we can get a few from the maryland area to post some times. What you are saying that those top 4 magazines are posting incorrect times?

I want to see some altitudes and tempature posts. Rofl, one guy trapped 103. Let me guess, you accepted that too?

It reminds of those that say those ls1s trap 108 all the time. which simply isn't true. just as the average is closer to 106.

here's one from texas on this site, 85 degrees.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/2010-cama...camaro-ss.html

edit: P.S make sure you catch the some of the comments from those guys here.

big hammer

what is wrong with you? you are retard?

big hammer

so you want to compare average ls1 speeds to what the new camaro does in perfect conditions? makes sense i guess...

wickedwarlock

iTrader: (4)

So now you're going to call me names because you can't comprehend.

big hammer

that's pretty funny considering you're the one having the hardest time comprehending anything

wickedwarlock

iTrader: (4)

Again, go back and read it again. A new camaro will beat the old camaro hands down. Putting the same mods on either car the outcome isn't any different.

big hammer

well when you compare hypothetical new camaro trap speeds to average ls1 speeds, then yes! now i'm a hero too!

wickedwarlock

iTrader: (4)

ok, let me show you.. Here's what ethan posted!

Here's my comment!
And of course yours.
Has nothing to do with what I said, comparing mods to both cars.

big hammer

i was just pointing out that you were wrong that new camaros aren't trapping 110-112. yeesh kid

wickedwarlock

iTrader: (4)

haha, wrong again. I said, saying that the new camaro traps 108-109 is like saying that the old ls1s trap 108.

magazine times are showing 110+ at 350da at 80 degrees.

magazine times have been proven wrong time and time again to be lower than the norm. The magazine times had many passes on the car, is why i mentioned seat time on a new car.

These cars trap speeds on average are 3mph different.

wickedwarlock

iTrader: (4)

again, I'm saying that they are. I'm not a kid, but thank you for the suggestion.

big hammer

i'll accept that, but then you have to accept when i say ls1's trap 113-115 bone stock, as long as were going on heresay and not facts. so now ls1's are faster than new camaros! yay!

wickedwarlock

iTrader: (4)

sure thing

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4309423.html

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car...sults-car_news

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews..._ss/index.html

big hammer

motortrend and probably most of the others used a g-tec on pre production cars. look at the ACTUAL track times posted. oh yeah you ignored those for some reason. you know, the actual track times for the actual cars?

wickedwarlock

iTrader: (4)

You're speculating now on g-tec. I thought they used gps technology if they didn't use test equipment. I've got magazines here. They are on some track in irvan california. Motortrend and Car and driver even shows test conditions. I see 110.7 and 110.2 on car and driver with 350alt and 76 degrees. Popular mechanics is showing 109 for the auto and 111 for the manual. How am I ignoring them? I said they are not posting tempatures or DA on all of those posts. Than I posted the guy in texas that ran a 109.x in 85 degrees with high humidity. He didn't post DA. I think he posted it during may. I said more seat time on those times you will see improvements on the stock runs posted at that site. They even said they can't wait til it gets cooler to see what the car will do.

big hammer

new camaros are running 105-109. how do i know this? CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE RUNNING. even the record time is basically the same as the record time of an ls1 fbody. and the fbody's record time was also done on a hot day. stock for stock the new camaro has an edge i would say. but a couple of minor bolt ons puts the fbody far ahead.

big hammer

i figured it out! these high trapping new camaros are running this! PAH!!

cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/X-PIPE-OFFROAD-EXHAUST-MUSTANG-HIHP-AWESOMENESS-PAH_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem19b75d3b47QQitemZ11 0450522951QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fruckQ5fPartsQ5fAcces sories

S8ER95Z

iTrader: (3)

There it is!!!!! GPS timing is NOT equal to the track timing equipment. They come up with trap speeds is two completely different ways. The fact that this guy doesn't know that has me wondering why I am even entertaining his 'all knowing' posts.

S8ER95Z

iTrader: (3)

Mine did... in fact I trapped 108.59mph on the very same track where speedy posted his 109.08mph trap. His DA was 986ft while I was -127ft... I am no where near the driver he is which is evident by his 60ft and ET but to say I am 3mph behind a new 2010 SS is a bit of a stretch considering.

Also a big newsflash for you...those magazine times are CORRECTED!!!! They didn't actually trap that high in those horrible conditions.... they were hurt by the heat as much as the next car and those trap speeds are a 'reflection' of what it would have run in 'ideal' conditions.

For holding these magazines as gospel you certainly don't seem to read up on HOW they actually get their results.