That's probably the one and only time I won't be able to make it as I'll be taking my son to a concert that night.

I will however be going this Wed and possibly to the T&T this Friday at Sac from 6-10.

 

Take a lesson on how to do searches. You need to select "any date" or it will just look at recent threads.

By the way, 2.56 gears are not junk. Do a little research. Third gear on the A4 is 1.00, but it's 1.53 on the A6. So the A6 with 2.56 rear gears is equivalent to an A4 with 3.92 gears.

I did a quick search (remember to select "any date") and got the following:

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-c...-mile-run.html

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-c...ce-needed.html

The RE11's are really good tires. What kind of 60 foot times were you getting. My best on the stock runflats (with around 24 psi) was 1.92. But they were very inconsistent. The best I've done on drag radials is not a lot better, 1.89 but I can do that almost every time.

Edit: I just noticed you went with 3.42 gears, you should be able to pull some excellent 60 foot times with those gears, first gear is a real stump puller. However, you may need to go to drag radials in order to utilize that first gear.

 

My bad didnt even realize that was an option I hardly use the forum, thanks.
I say they are junk because the car never felt right until the 3.42s were put in, too each their own right but personally dont believe 2.56 should be in a vette.

as for the 60's with stock gears I dont recall it was 2years ago but Im going to guess something like 2.1 considering the final ET. Ya RE11's are great but I'm with you they might not be good enough to help take advantage of the 3.42s in 1st gear, a 1.9 60' is what I'm going for I think with that I could hit 12.6 maybe faster.
Any ideas on what kind of trap speeds to expect?

 

My trap speeds run around 115 to 118 depending on the density altitude (I'm in Phoenix where they range from 500 (really cold day) to 4000 (really hot day). I have a bolt-on LS2 which is pretty close to a stock LS3.

Also, you stated you didn't like the 2.56's. Rearend ratio is just part of the equation. You need to multiply the transmission gear ratio times the rearend gear ratio (tires also play a part, but let's assume you aren't changing those). Again, the A6 is a different animal. It's an underdrive in 3rd gear (1.53) versus a straight through (1.0) like the older 4 speed autos. Heck, even 4th gear is an underdrive (1.15). But most people just think about their old cars. Chevy could have done the same thing by going with different tranny gear ratios, making third gear a 1.0, and then fourth, fifth, and sixth would have all been overdrives. Then they could have put a 3.90 rearend and it would be exactly the same as the current setup with 2.56 gears. But at least then people would have been happy.

Personally I'll stick with the 2.56 with the A6. The reason? I have what is equivalent to the old A4 auto with a 3.90 rearend. But now I also have what is equivalent to the manual 6 speed with the large overdrive in 5th and 6th gear. I can have a hot rod in the first 3 gears, but then I can cruise on the highway in 6th and get 30 mpg. When you go with the 3.42's, you've almost ruined first gear on the street, it shifts to second so quickly. But now you have also ruined 6th gear as a good cruising gear. Instead of running 2000 rpm at 75 mph, you will be turning 2670 rpm.

So in my mind the current gear ratios gives me my cake and I can eat it too. I think Chevy nailed this one. Heck I have a car that has run 12.0 at 118.7 mph in the quarter mile, but has also averaged over 30 mpg going from Phoenix to LA. The only advantage the 3.42's give you is probably a tenth of a second in the quarter mile and that's only if you can hook up in first gear. If 1/4 mile is all the matters, a better choice is to go with a high stall converter and pick up .4 seconds even with the stock gears. 2.56 sounds terrible, but it's not in this case, but old habits are hard to change.

 

I'm not sure that a whole tenth is what a 3.42 vs. 2.56 will produce.

Last Friday, SL33PER and I faced off 5 times at Speedworld. He had slightly more power and pulled me by .03 to .07 from the 330' to the finish, but his 3.42 gear only beat my 2.56 gear 3 out of 5 to the 60' mark. We were both between 1.56 and 1.61 on all 60' times.

 

You're comparing getting an LS3 with DRs, Longtubes and 1.8 rockers running a high 11 to an LS2 with street tires, and intake/exhaust potentially running a high 11?

I'd be SHOCKED if it did.

 

If he borrows my Hoosiers and let's me tune it at the track with my wideband then yeah, I definitely could.

I've already built 3 LS2 cars that have run high 10's with just a little over 400rwhp so getting the OP there with his numbers is very doable.

 

Maybe, but I'd be very surprised if he went 11s with that power on the stock converter in a C6.

 

This is not necessarily directed at you, but something most people don't seem to realize is that it's not about how much power you make but how effectively you get it to the ground. If done properly, a car with horsepower in the mid 300's will very easily outrun cars with significantly more than that.

In the case of the OP's car, I don't believe it's ever been track-tuned which means his AFR is likely on the rich side and his shift points are probably not even remotely close to what they should be. The only place to properly tune a car for the track is actually at the track because dyno numbers mean next to nothing when it comes to timeslips. In fact, I usually tell people that after I'm done tuning their car they'll probably be disappointed if they have it dynoed again because more than likely the numbers will go down.

One recent example of this was a friend of mine who had his 2008 LS3 dynoed and the shop leaned out his AFR to something really high like 12.8. Their rationale was that it made more horsepower that way but when I scanned his car at the track a few days later he had 5-6 degrees of knock the entire way down the track. I richened up his tune to get rid of the knock (to the point where it surely would have shown lower dyno numbers) and the end result at the track was he picked up a full two tenths in his very next pass with no knock whatsoever.

 

I still would be very surprised if it went 11s with it's current setup and not some insane DA or tailwind. I would love to see it happen, I just don't think I will

I understand fully about dyno numbers not meaning a lot on the track. My car won't even put down quite 400rwhp but it'll trap ~122 mph.

 

Guess we will find out on the 18th, car pulls nice on the street it commands iirc 12.4ish just gotta hope it hooks in 1st gear. I'm pretty confident TPS did a real good job on the tune and it certainly feels faster than when it did 13.0. Heads/Cam/headers would prolly be next

 

Almost the same thing I said on a local forum.

"Paper HP doesn't mean $h-- if you can't put it on the ground."

One reply was: The thing that a 400HP car and a 1400HP car have in common is a 12 second timeslip.

 

Christopher are you doing OK?

 

Yep, just getting the car prepped for tomorrow's Test & Tune where I'm gonna teach my son how to drag race my car.

 

good luck^ what a sweet car to learn how to drag race in!

 

Thx, he's comfortable driving the car and I'm gonna detune it as much as possible so I know he'll be fine.

 

You taught him, he will be fine

 

True.





As was mentioned on page one of this thread, there are quite a few of us that have even gone 10s with those 2.56 gears.





In a Corvette C5/C6, one can in fact get into the 10s with under 400rwhp (and even with 2.56 gears ), it's been proven.