Camaro Z28 (or SS) Pontiac Trans-Am Premium Gas?!?!

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  Camaro Z28 (or SS) Pontiac Trans-Am Premium Gas?!?!

What the heck!? I just read that you have to run premium in a trans-am or a Z28 or an SS?? Is this true!? WHAT IS THIS MADNESS! ITS AN 8 CYLINDER!!!! Are there ANY fast cars out there for a reasonable price that DONT run on premium!?

posted by  Shift4

Seriously kid, horsepower isn't free. I have to run my car on supreme as well, it's well worth it. Figure an extra $0.20 per gallon, you'll probably pay an extra $3.00 every time you fill up your car. Big freakin' deal, hell you spend more than that on the magazine that you bought while they were putting gas in your car.

Kwitcherbitchin' or buy a Civic

posted by  Bino

20 cents more for the amazing looks and speed of a Trans Am. Not bad.

Hell, the Probe GT says to only use Premium as well.

posted by  Oomba

That's the price of a high compression engine, the LT-1 and LS-1&LS-6 are fairly high compression...I believe they were at 10:1. Those cars are also hell to work on. You want a fast car you can run regular in? Check out the new Mustang GT, designed to run on 87 octane and can still run as good as 13.5's box stock and some as good as 13.1-13.3's with the traction control bypassed and an aftermarket shifter.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Yeah, I bet that aftermarket shifter definitely buys it a few 'tenths... seriously :banghead:

I'm not looking up any numbers here, but I'm going to call BIG bull*#@ on a box stock Mustang running 13.5's..

OK, I did look up some numbers, fastest test I found was a 13.7 and a lot more people were running 13.9's.

Quit spreading false information.

posted by  Bino

An SS/WS-6 F-Body will hand a Mustang it's a$$ any day of the week.

posted by  Bino

Here’s the scoop, my 350 runs best with prem.
BUT it runs on reg... and in fact you get better gas mileage with reg then prem gas... but you dont get as big of a controlled bang in the cylinder with reg that you do with prem.

The higher the octane the bigger the bang... the lower the octane the higher the gas mileage.

posted by  TheFieroKid

I don't spread false information slim. The 13.7-13.9's is about what you can run without power-shifting the car. Call BS on the 13.5's all day long if you want, but maybe you should pick up an old issue of MM&FF, Paul Sviniki was the first to run 13.5's in a stock GT. Bottom line, if you know how to drive the car you can get better times than what car and driver or other such mags will put up. In closing, please do more research before calling BS on something you don't know much of. :clap:

posted by  Sick88Tbird

I can see a stock new GT going 13.5 (in the very extreme rare case...). But yes, most of the fastest times you will see at your local 1/4 mile out of these things are maybe 13.70s. Which I think we can agree on. But going 13.1 with a short shifter and TC disabled. That's just hard to see. I can see maybe two tenths off, possibly three.

I just wish my 300zxtt was stock just to see how well it'd run against a new stock GT. It would be a very tight race.

300zxtt vs GT
300hp vs. 300hp
3475lbs vs. 3450lbs (Deluxe)
5spd vs. 5spd

Would be a fun race to see, IMO definately a drivers race.

posted by  thunderbird1100

You're right, if you destroy the transmission as quickly as possible... you'll run a little faster time. I stand by my research.

B.S. on anybody except the .001% of people that are willing to trash their new car for a couple tenths.

So, in closing... I still call B.S. until you show me a stock car that has run such a time.

posted by  Bino

A short-throw shifter will save you time

posted by  Oomba

Powershifting, when done properly, will not destroy a tranmission. My buddy's 'stang ran 2 seasons at 12.0's with a bone stock t-5, power-shifting 2nd and 3rd gear. The trans would still be in operation if I didn't send the 3rd gear synchro to an early grave. I know how to drive stick, but I'll be the first to admit, I can't powershift for my life.

As far as the aftermarket shifter on the new 'Stang, it's not the shorter throw, it's the fact that it's mounted to the trans instead of the body. That's right, the shifter in the new '05 GT's is mounted to the body via rubber bushings-instead of directly to the trans...that can make even speed shifting the new 'stang quite a chore. And the traction control...yeah, it's throttle by wire and sucks the life out of any abrupt inputs from the driver.

This was also found to be quite detrimental in the new 'Vettes...they will run in the 12's with the traction control out of the equation.

So, apparently you know much of nothing about the new Mustangs or even the simple operation of a manual transmission. Don't come to the battle without proper supplies.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

I know nothing of the new Mustangs (chick car IMO)... especially that they won't run a 13.1 in any sort of stock form. Yes, I do know of manual transmissions, and I know that anybody that power shifts them is going to blow them... i.e. YOU.

Just think, all these years I had no idea what I was doing... who knew. Fortunately I came to this board so you could teach me. Oh please let me follow in your ways oh wise one.

How is it that I'm supposed to blow my tranny again? It seems you've got that one handily in the bag... by powershifting.

Professional Rallye car drivers powershift their tranny's all race... and then they replace them at the end of the race. It's not a coincidence, it destroys transmissions. But thanks for your arrogant input anyway.

posted by  Bino

Funny, I didn't say that the new 'Stang would run 13.1's in stock trim...thanks for putting words in my mouth to try and validate a point you don't have. "Professional Rallaye car drivers" don't powershift all race long...funny I've watched many use the left leg on the clutch...those that don't have sequential transmissions slick...

Also, let me rephrase that for you...powershifting, when done properly, will not destroy a transmission immediately...2 seasons of racing(on a 12.0 index none the less) as well as daily street duty in a stock t-5 is pretty damn good. I openly admitted that I can't powershift...I can speed shift but that's about as good as it gets for me.

If you openly admit that you know nothing of the new 'Stangs, then how do you know what they can and can't do? That's funny, you're another post-whoring douche-bag arguing about something you have no knowledge of...sounds like a lot of the other kiddies that got the boot from this message board. People like you are the reason that I left in the first place...I only came back because a certain few people pleaded with me to come back and the moderators had done a hell of a job eliminating sensless flame wars and banning idiots(i.e. YOU).

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Well Put.

posted by  Pythias

At least now I know I'm not the only one with a brain in my head...thanks Pythias.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Yeah... I feel like such an idiot. I still don't believe that a stock Mustang with an aftermarket shifter and traction control bypass will ever turn a 13.1. But I've obviously got your blood pressure up a little too high. So this soap box is all yours.

I've been in a lot of fast cars and I will stand firmly that a 13.1 with the above mentioned mods on above mentioned car is an old keyboard racers tale. I challenged your info because now every little kid that likes Mustangs will be telling all his/her friends that they will run a 13.1 with almost no mods... which in the real world is wrong. When you show a mod list and a time slip I'll be the first person to eat all my words, didn't intend to create bad blood/flame war.

posted by  Bino

am , i dont think he said 3.1s didnt u say that? im so confused :confused:

posted by  Walt

Blah, blah, blah....Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords, April 2005-vol. 18, issue 4. In a tech article dubbed "Six Pack To Go" they tested six mods on an '05 GT. At beautiful Englishtown, NJ they ran an '05 GT to the tune of 13.39@101.87 with a 1.996 60' time, the only mod was the traction control bypassed...everything else was stone stock. Even though the traction control was bypassed, the drivers still complained that it felt like it was launching at part throttle and it didn't even break the tires loose during powershifts. In these cars, the throttle closes during shifts, whether you want it to or not, they're drive by wire. After using SCT's latest software, the Xcalibrator, they advanced the time timing and added a little fuel, as well as adjusting the drive by wire commands to allow the throttle to stay open during shifts. With just those mods, they then ran 13.1@105.56 with a 1.975 60' time.

With the addition of 4.30 gears (3.55's are stock), Magnaflow mufflers, QA1 adjustable drag shocks(rear), Steeda underdrive pulleys, and M/T E/T streets produced a 12.45@107.92mph timeslip...this time with 1.68 60' times. Also, keep in mind the weight of the car, including driver was 3,640lbs.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Here's an example of an auto for you. Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords Feb. 2005-vol. 18, issue 2. In a feature article titled "Can Winning Be Automatic?", they tested a stone stock '05 'Stang with an auto trans. The track wasn't prepped, they had a full tank of gas(instead of their usual 1/4 tank) and the air temp was 90 degrees...not a good day for racing. Their best run was a 14.09@97.18mph with a 2.07 60' time. This is right on par with an '04 GT they featured in an April 2004 issue, which was in significantly cooler weather, the track was well prepped, they had a quarter tank and they had iced the intake before running. If they had followed their regular testing methods and had a cooler day, the auto equipped S197 would have easily dipped into the mid-13's. Vehicle weight w/o driver is 3500lbs on an auto equipped GT, on a stick(minus driver) it is 3450lbs.

CHOW DOWN! You want a napkin with that? Hope you're hungry...you've got a lot of words to eat!

posted by  Sick88Tbird

I almost got my napkin out until I re-read the CPU reprogram that was necessary to pull out said times. Granted, I am impressed with the minimal amount of modifications necessary to pull out a 13.1, but a CPU reprogram that involves timing modifications and changing the fuel curves is definitely beyond the scope of traction control bypass and shift linkage.

It is an impressive feat, but still beyond what was originally stated, and therefore validating that my red flag was necessary. So, just for kicks, I'll just nibble on my words a little bit, because it was a fast time.

posted by  Bino

Thats where things can still be debated...the Xcalibrator was necessary to completely eliminate the negative drive-by-wire controls...so technically speaking, the modifications to the timing curves and ignition timing made sense, while they were in the computer. Those are basic mods that anybody with a 5.0 stang will perform...advance the timing, adjustable fuel pressure regulator, done deal...it's just much easier on those technological dinosaurs.

Also, I believe I gave a window of 13.1-13.3's if you read the first post where I posted the times, so technically I proved that they could get in that given window but with even less mods. Considering that they went 13.3's with ONLY the traction control disabled and still had to battle the drive-by-wire gremlins.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Well, it may be very easy to modify the ignition and timing curves since you have to be in the computer to disable the traction control... but it's still a modification to the motor which is beyond the aforementioned traction control bypass. While you did state that the car could run 13.3's with just those modifications (which you have proven), you also stated that they could run a 13.1 with those modifications, which has not yet been proven. If they could not run a 13.1 with those modifications, you should have stated they can run 13.3's with just the traction control bypass. Then there would be no exaggeration.

posted by  Bino

:banghead: And the debate continues. :banghead:

posted by  Pythias

Do you see now where I said 13.1-13.3? So technically speaking I AM correct and did NOT exaggerate.

You're still trying to validate a point you don't have...but I do give you credit for acknowledging the performance value of these cars.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Yes, I saw that, and what you should have said is that they will run a 13.3 with just a traction control bypass and short shifter. Because they apprently don't run a 13.1 with JUST those modifications. My brother ran a 12.99 with a K&N, a Cat-back and a chip. Would I not be exaggerating if I said he ran a 12.79-12.99 with just those modifications?

I do have a valid point, your numbers are exaggerated, and I hate it when people exaggerate.

posted by  Bino

I listed a window because different testing has showed different results, sorry, it's kinda hard to remember every single article that I've been though. Unfortunately I couldn't find the article with the new Steeda shifter. I also couldn't remember the PRECISE time that was run, so that was why I gave a window. For you to say 12.79-12.99 when you know for a fact that his absolute best was a 12.99, then yes it would be an exaggeration...but, if he runs consistent 12.99's, who's to say he can't take out some weight(spare tire/jack) and get lucky off the line on a cool night an go 12.70's.

The fact that the 'Stang will run in my window of 13.1-13.3's with half the mods I listed should be testament enough...if not, then I guess you're too narrow-minded to see anything outside of your little import/chevy world.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

:clap:


:clap: :clap: :clap:

posted by  Pythias

I recall saying I was impressed... which I am. At this point in the argument it's really a toss-up. Perhaps it could have run a 13.1 at sea level with a perfect light, perhaps not. I'm still impressed.

Pythias... how long does it take you to wash that smell off your nose?

posted by  Bino

About as long as it takes for you to spot spewing shit out of your mouth.

posted by  Pythias

OK TOOK IT JUST A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR. I got about 3 responses to my ? and about a page and a half of people arguing over the times of the mustang. As well, Bino, please do NOT group Chevy and imports together. They are most certainly NOT the same thing and I will overlook Chevy's misfortune of producing the Cobalt SS Supercharged - newsflash chevy; no-one supercharges a 4 cylinder - supercharging a 4 cylinder is like putting flowmasters on a kia. :banghead:

posted by  Shift4

There may be some people at BMW that would like to discuss your theories with you, as well as Mercedes... Dodge produced the forced induction Neon... and of course GM. Supercharging is, afterall, just a different form of forced induction. So, as far as running positive pressure through the intake manifold, it's the same as a turbocharger (Supercharger is mechanically driven, turbocharger is exhaust drive)... now there's a lot MORE companies who disagree with you. Very interesting opinion though.

Would somebody please explain what you all are talking about with the whole domestic/import comparison. I could not find a single place where I even mentioned an import car.

posted by  Bino

Well, that's nice because a "perfect light" has nothing to do with quarter mile times in any way at all, now we all think less of you. You speak of your love for imports in your public profile. I know my 'Stangs inside and out, and you openly admitted to not knowing about 'Stangs....from the looks of it, I would be suprised if you knew much of anything about any car; and even less of drag racing.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Well now we may just be on a different page there. To me, a "perfect light" has quite a lot to do with a good 1/4 mile time, as in your reaction time, the quality of your launch, ultimately your 60' time, and basically the beginning of your 1/4 mile performance (Perhaps what I deem a "perfect light" entails more than the average person).

That's great that I have talked about compact performance in the past. I never once mentioned it in this thread, or made any comparison of the vehicles in this thread to any sport-compact of any sort. Which, a less narrow-minded person would be able to recognize as an appreciation for more than one type of performance vehicle, but then I guess that clears everything up right there doesn't it. But, I thank you for fabricating more stuff in this thread.

In closing, I tire of your childish banter and pre-pubescent insults. This pissing match is all yours.

posted by  Bino

Good, you're a damn moron and I don't even know why I wasted my time arguing with you. Anything that takes longer than 14 seconds in the quarter doesn't qualify as a performance car(read: imports). You can be on a different page all you want about the reaction times, but they in no way affect you're quarter mile time. It doesn't measure how quickly you come out of the hole...that's your 60' time. A reaction time is just that...it's the time it takes for your front tires to break the staging beam from the time the tree goes green(leave on green and you're slow). If you ever go to the track, try it...sit at the tree for a good 10 seconds after it goes green, don't move at all...then take off and make your run...the only time you're reaction time will matter is in a "heads-up" race. Even then, it's not calculated into your quarter mile time so it still doesn't affect you're actual 1/4 mile time...you could win while running a slower quarter mile time(i.e.-12.61 to a 12.59, if the guy running the faster time loses, then you know he didn't cut a good light).

You've obviously proven to not know much of anything like I previously stated. You can argue anything you want, but I'm tired of educating the ignorant.

posted by  Sick88Tbird

Your Message