I agree on the 3800 Series II in the 96 Camaro.

Those cars are good for about a low 16 in a 5 speed so the an auto Camaro will be mid 16s.

Same goes for the Cobalt. A 16 flat is possible for both cars.

 

lol ok how about please use the most up to date digital recording device.
you all know what i meant. soda/pop, tomatoe tomato

 

Oh my God, your kidding me.... a v6 good for a flat 16sec 1/4 mile? or more?!?!?! You show me a v6 camaro that does that and I'll show you a gas guzzling piece of slow ass garbage. My old 2000 Tiburon with some bolt ons and a 2.0L n/a motor would run a 15.6 once in awhile and a 15.7 always. your saying there is a v6 motor that sucks that bad out there?

Why do people make fun of hyundais attempt at a v6 lol? I agree its slow, but its not that slow.

 

if you get tired of the noob slow car threads why do you look through and read them i have mutiple cars that will **** your car up i was just wondering wat other people thought about this race because i really dont know who would win

 

http://www.dragtimes.com/Chevrolet--...?resultpage=26

Here are about 10 that do so enjoy it.

 

I'd say race from a roll. 30-90 would be good...I think you'll pull the edge by 75/80 but barely.

 

3.8 Auto Camaro is a high 15 @ 85ish and the 5spd is a mid-low 15 @ 89ish. The convertables are a little slower.

 

The last V6/auto 4th gen F-body I saw run was a 3800;

It ran a 15.4 - 100% bone stock.

To the best of my knowledge a bone stock L61 is a 16 second car... at best.

The 3.4L is a little more gutless, but quite frankly (and seriously, I mean no offense to the OP), my money is on the Camaro, unless the guy has the reaction time of a blind 90 year old man.

For the record, in bone stock trim (at sea level) the LT1 4th gen f-bodies are low 14's.

1996 was a transitional year - early base F-bodies had the 3.4L, and later cars received the 3800;
I was pretty sure that the 3.4L had a higher hp rating in the F-body than 160 - but am even more sure the 3800 in the f-body had a 200hp rating.

frankly I'd rather catch up on my sleep that go out of my way to see such a race... just saying.

 

well, there's your gas guzzling slow ass pieces of garbage

thats terrible...

 

well just to let everyone know we raced from a dig and he got me at first but by time i was in 3rd i pulled on him and we probly raced a little over a 1/4 and i was probly 4 or 5 cars on him..i know my car is slow but his is a turd...and BTW it is 160hp for the 3.4 a 3.6 has 200hp which would take me by more than a few cars im sure

 

So you physically saw a 3.4L V6 in a 96 Camaro?

Had to be a 95 or a swapped car.

 

The 3.4 F-bodies really do suck. The 3.8's aren't THAT bad, for what they were.

 

probly was a swap..car was wrecked in the front end but idk if anything was done with the motor but im guessing there was..the person he bought it off of owns a junkyard so probaby

 

no - different ecm and everything.

1996 was a transitional year - the '96 literature shows the 3.4L as the base engine, but part way into the model year the 3.4L was phased out by the 3.8L



imho, quarter mile is really all that should count - because after that point the only factors involved are torque curve, and gearing;
there's a reason why 1/4mile is the standard.

that being said, I'd guess congrats are in order.

 

3.8 are 200hp at motor

 

No one would swap a 3.4 into a 3.8 car and the motors are completely different.

3.4s are based off of the old 60 degree 2.8 V6 while 3.8s are 90 degree V6s similar in design to chevys sbc motors. So that would mean also changing out the k member and motor mounts and good luck getting it through emissions

 

well i promise you it is a 1996 and it has a 3.4...i just bought and put a 3.8 in a different camaro so i know there is a difference in the motor but my cousins car is a 1996 and has a 3.4 v6 im 100% positive...there is a ton of these cars and the guy he bought it off of owns a huge junkyard so it could be possible i guess

 

Don't you have to prove you suck **** before you can own a Tiburon?

I'd have to see that to believe it. I'm a 4th gen fanatic and have never seen a 1996 3.4. it's not like your 3.8 blows so you can quickly swap in a 3.4. Post up the VIN. 10th digit is the year.

 

It's like watching a Made for TV drama about life as a gang-banger on the Oxygen channel.

 

no....film and digital video aren' t the same as "soda" & "pop"

Thats like saying neon & srt-4.....wait no it's not












I'm joking with you brotha

 

Most movies are still shot on film, and many "digital" cameras record onto a mini-dv TAPE. So idk what you mean that film has been phased out, but thats far from the truth.

 

yes I understand that... if your speaking on a grand scale of things.

FYI: Movies are shot using cinematography cameras "digital" ones mostly. Film "35mm,18mm,8mm" is still used by budget continence, a hand select directors & cinematographers looking for an old school look.

Also digital cameras are passed shooting on "mini-dv" thats been out dated by these for a long time....http://www.vsa1.com/Product/PHU120K

Now if your speaking of "home" digital cameras then yeah mini-dv is still around, but even still there is a budget line of drives for home digital cameras


nice try though




FYI: I WAS JOKING WITH HIM SUPERMAN

 

I think you may be thinking of Analog recording tape. BASF has quit and 3M has significatly cut production on that... sad, I loved to record in an analog studio...