V6 0-60 performance - ModernCamaro.com - 5th Generation Camaro Enthusiasts
V6 Engine Discussion 3.6L LLT V6 | Exhaust | Ignition | Induction | Intakes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 19 Old 02-16-2011, 10:04 PM Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
mpiper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21
 
V6 0-60 performance

How many out there have run a 0 - 60 test with a stock V6?

What were your results. What do you think affected the results?

I've run 7.1 to 7.3 consistently, just flooring it from a stop with the Auto in "D"
Running in "S" (Manual mode, but not touching the tap-shift) I get 7.0
Running "S", 1/4 tank, TC off and preloading TC to 1,000 RPM I can get 6.5
These are all on 91-93 Octane E10 (10% ethanol)

My car seems to be a dog 0-20, but pulls hard from that point on.

Anyone else?
mpiper is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 19 Old 02-17-2011, 07:15 AM
Moderator
 
USA1Camaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,229
  
I have seen one article and their 0-60 times were 6.1 seconds with a manual transmission. You seem to be in the ballpark with the 6.5 second run.

How were you timing? I think the car should be getting to 60 mph a little faster. Is the car spinning off the line with TC off?

EDIT: I found some guys claiming some very quick sub 6 second runs. TC was left ON. Sport mode.

Temperature. Barametric pressure, humidity and altitude all play into times. Also how many miles you have on the car?
USA1Camaro is offline  
post #3 of 19 Old 02-17-2011, 09:40 AM
Junior Member
 
67 GTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 34
 
I consistanly get low 5 second runs when in the cooler air at 350' above sea

This is using a Matrix Accelerometer. I've tested it against a 1/4 mile time slip and the meter showed 2 tenths better than I actually ran.

I can assume you could add maybe a tenth on a 60 mph test. I've noticed, as have others, that the meter completes the test at about 58 mph.

A good tool when comparing before and after modifications.



67 GTO is offline  
 
post #4 of 19 Old 02-17-2011, 03:37 PM
Senior Member
 
JoJo Zzang's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 585
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67 GTO View Post
I consistanly get low 5 second runs when in the cooler air at 350' above sea

This is using a Matrix Accelerometer. I've tested it against a 1/4 mile time slip and the meter showed 2 tenths better than I actually ran.

I can assume you could add maybe a tenth on a 60 mph test. I've noticed, as have others, that the meter completes the test at about 58 mph.

A good tool when comparing before and after modifications.



I concur that - fastest I've got stock is 4.9 - perhaps the Colorado Springs air...
JoJo Zzang is offline  
post #5 of 19 Old 02-17-2011, 03:50 PM
Junior Member
 
67 GTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 34
 
One more, Brrrrrrrrr cold that day. This was with a GMPP axle back and a Airaid intake. I've since changed to a Injen CAI and JBA short headers.


Last edited by 67 GTO; 02-18-2011 at 05:23 AM.
67 GTO is offline  
post #6 of 19 Old 02-17-2011, 08:39 PM
Moderator
 
USA1Camaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 5,229
  
Those are some kick butt times !!
USA1Camaro is offline  
post #7 of 19 Old 02-17-2011, 10:14 PM Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
mpiper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21
 
Wow! Those times look great!

I'm using the following:
OBD II connector to read car ECM. Bluetooth transmitter
My Android Phone ( Bluetooth reciever) running a program called "Torque"
The program reads the computer data straight from the computer. I assume it is reading the speedometer data and times from the second the wheels start rolling until the data hits 60 MPH.

The car has 2,100 miles on it. I drove soft for first 500, changed oil, drove soft with occasional runs up to 4,000 rpm. At 1,200 I started driving 50/50 soft/hard with rolling starts. Never did any hard starts until I hit 2,000. I'm 650 feet above sea level, the temperature on the 6.5 run was 66 degrees, and no idea the barometric pressure. How are those used in figuring the times? That's new to me. I've always done straight times.

How does the accelerometer read the vehicle speed?

Last edited by mpiper; 02-18-2011 at 07:23 AM. Reason: Forgot to answer mileage question.
mpiper is offline  
post #8 of 19 Old 02-17-2011, 10:55 PM
MODERATOR
 
54inches's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dirty Bay, Texas
Posts: 8,984
  
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiCEADDiCTBOY View Post
I concur that - fastest I've got stock is 4.9 - perhaps the Colorado Springs air...
Add a second to anything a mile over sea level.

2005 CTSV BLACK LS7 Clutch/Flywheel/Slave, Tick Speed Bleeder, Tilton Clutch MC, RevShift Bushings, Domestic V8 Solutions (shifter, 8.8 Diff conversion, srut tower braces, sub-frame connectors), SLP cats, no cags, xpipe, bullet mufflers, Volante, iPod dock, G-force tune; 379hp 381tq.

Killing 5th gens like it is my job.
54inches is offline  
post #9 of 19 Old 03-09-2011, 07:38 PM Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
mpiper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 21
 
Time for an update.

I've been less than satisfied with my 0-60 times, as recorded by the "Torque" app on my android phone. Several people suggested the app was not providing accurate numbers and that I should get a dash hawk. Some others suggested getting a K.A.T. Matrix Accelerometer. It has NO connection to the car, it just registers acceleration and uses that to time 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

So, after getting over the sticker shock of the DashHawk, I decided to get the Matrix, since it's 1/10th the price. Just made three runs with it. I also had my "Torque" app running at the same time, just for comparison.

Now, since installing the Roto-Fab Intake, I've also never once gotten below 7.0 on Torque. So, I set the car's weight in the Matrix, suction cup it to the radio face and make my runs, listed below:
Matrix Torque
5.08 7.3
4.88 7.1
4.52 7.0

Uhm. . . WTH??? I expected a variance, but that's a bit incredible. While I love the numbers of the Matrix, I really don't believe them. And Torque gave me a calculated 251 RWHP and 220 Lbs/ft torque. So those numbers make sense.

So, what should I believe. Hm, the average? That comes to . . .5.98 And the funny thing is that's the number I wanted to see! But that was VERY Fuzzy Math. Time to read the manual on the Matrix in detail and see if there's more to it than just entering car's weight.

Thoughts?
mpiper is offline  
post #10 of 19 Old 03-10-2011, 02:04 PM
MODERATOR
 
54inches's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dirty Bay, Texas
Posts: 8,984
  
I would believe times at a race track and the dyno. Everything else is subject to LARGE amounts of error.

2005 CTSV BLACK LS7 Clutch/Flywheel/Slave, Tick Speed Bleeder, Tilton Clutch MC, RevShift Bushings, Domestic V8 Solutions (shifter, 8.8 Diff conversion, srut tower braces, sub-frame connectors), SLP cats, no cags, xpipe, bullet mufflers, Volante, iPod dock, G-force tune; 379hp 381tq.

Killing 5th gens like it is my job.
54inches is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the ModernCamaro.com - 5th Generation Camaro Enthusiasts forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome