A little info many wanted to know, posted on www.media.gm.com

Zero-to-60 mph 5.3 seconds (manual)
5.4 seconds (automatic)
Quarter-mile 13.8 seconds @ 105 mph (manual)
13.8 seconds @ 102 mph (automatic)

Not bad for a 3900 pound Pontiac. But you'll be lucky to hit 14.0 second 1/4 miles with a set of golfclubs and a case of beer in the trunk. :P

Now if they can only make the GTO a little smaller and lighter. :woot:

I think you can get either a case of beer OR golf clubs but not both.....

:laughbounce: :laughbounce: :laughbounce: :laughbounce:

Let the weight reduction begin!

Does that mean I should start exercising? :drunk:

Same times for autos and sticks. I doubt it. Something fishy there.

GM only WISHES that their 4sp Auto would stay that close to the 6 Speed Manual. The auto will NEVER hold that close to the 6 speed.

What a Joke! :laughbounce:

how close is the ls1 z 6spd to the auto???

Not bad for a 3900 pound Pontiac.

As far as I know it's still 3725 pounds not 3900! Unless you are including a 175 pound driver. ;)

GM only WISHES that their 4sp Auto would stay that close to the 6 Speed Manual. The auto will NEVER hold that close to the 6 speed.

I don't have the F body A4 vs. M6 numbers but I wouldn't doubt if the numbers were that close. Today's slushboxes are not as bad as everyone believes. Anyone have some numbers?

Originally posted by Rocket@Nov 3 2003, 08:39 PM
GM only WISHES that their 4sp Auto would stay that close to the 6 Speed Manual. The auto will NEVER hold that close to the 6 speed.

What a Joke! :laughbounce:
As taken from 2004 Pontiac GTO Press Realease:

Improved launch: To better complement the LS1's increased horsepower and improve launch feel, the Hydra-Matic 4L60-E four-speed automatic is fitted with a more aggressive torque converter; the sixspeed manual transmission is the same as the Corvette Z06, with gearing that enhances launch feel.

An automatic properly set up with a high stall (more aggressive) torque converter can take up .5 off of the quarter mile time of the LS1 F-body. Why wouldn't it do the same for this car? The above statement makes the close times real believable for me.
Be careful about stating what GM might wish. The joke may end up being on you! :)

Take care,
Suprfun
(aka “automatic lover”) :D With flame suit on!

my 2000 auto is just as fast as my friends 6spd 02 z in the 1/4 also dynoed within 6/hp?? // love autos ps just ask any turbo regal owner//

Originally posted by Rocket@Nov 4 2003, 12:39 AM
GM only WISHES that their 4sp Auto would stay that close to the 6 Speed Manual. The auto will NEVER hold that close to the 6 speed.

What a Joke! :laughbounce:
I guess the big question is was traction control on to get that M6 number. If it was, then there is no doubt any good driver will be able to cut time off this number with the M6, where the A4 is gonna pretty much be point and shoot without much improvement time (although much better for bracketing of course).

If an engine has a lot of torque, and this one does.
The difference between an auto and a manual's performance is minimal.
Also there may be 1 less shift with the auto vs. the manual.
This is why dagracers used to used 2 speed powerglides.

I currently have 3 of the older versions of these auto trannies.......They sure shift nice, BUT they have Little to NO performance attitude. I know they were not really designed to be performance-oriented, but still.

Anyway I'm just saying that GM better have made some HUGE improvements in this trans, because the older ones were realy slugs.
I'm not 100% sure, but if this is the same trans that the 96 Impalla SS's got, then I am really skeptical. If you look at the Impalla SS website, they say that they usually "Blow" at about 60,000 miles. With our added power, they'll never hold up. BUT I am NOT saying that I am THE Tranny Expert here, I am just saying what the past has shown, so no flames please.

As far as I know it's still 3725 pounds not 3900! Unless you are including a 175 pound driver.
Exactly

I currently have 3 of the older versions of these auto trannies.......They sure shift nice, BUT they have Little to NO performance attitude.

Transgo type shift kits can help the performance of an auto along with an appropriate torque converter. Note that car companies have to use milder "settings" to balance warranty, manufacturing cost, and profit margin.

If you look at the Impalla SS website, they say that they usually "Blow" at about 60,000 miles. With our added power, they'll never hold up.
I'm curious about this comment. Is this not the same powertrain that Holden has already been using in the Monaro? What is the perception of those owners?

As an Impala SS lover and previous owner, I have a take on this. 60k is by no means a magical number for average lifespan of that generation 4L60E. I know there were a bunch of exceptions, including me (who went through no less than 4 in under 60k), but I would bet there are far more that exceeded 100k and even 150k than you suspect.

That said, in my opinioin the biggest strike against the trans was the rear gearing. Just general driving caused an excessive amount of shifting on 2-lane roads. You could hardly give it any throttle and the trans would start hunting down through unlocking the converter and lower gears because the engine speed was SO slow that the car was sluggish. Had they put steeper gears in it, they would have no doubt easily extended the trans life.

Ironically, I just argued agains the steeper rear gears in another thread not 5 minutes ago... :afro:

Originally posted by scottknight@Nov 4 2003, 09:50 PM
Ironically, I just argued against the steeper rear gears in another thread not 5 minutes ago... :afro:
Then you have become as shizophrenic as the rest of us!!

:laughbounce: :laughbounce: :laughbounce: :laughbounce:

Luckily I'm at least 1 year out from buying, so hopefully some good quality numbers will be back by then. I want the auto because I made a deal with the wife. Hopefully, the GTO pans out. It's the perfect car for me. Enough power to keep me happy, handles well enough to keep me happy, has an auto to keep the wife happy, and has 4 seats to keep the wife, kid, and kid down the road happy. My only concern is quality. Hopefully I'm not let down.

Jason

It's the perfect car for me. Enough power to keep me happy, handles well enough to keep me happy, has an auto to keep the wife happy, and has 4 seats to keep the wife, kid, and kid down the road happy. My only concern is quality.
I'm in exactly the same boat as you, however lately I've been kinda concerned about the gas tank location for 2 reasons: the lack of a trunk, and the fact that it raises the center of gravity. I'm kinda wondering if you'll be able to feel the gas sloshing around when you turn sharp with a half tank. Any thoughts?
:tellitubbies:

i would think that it would have some kind of liner or baffle inside ?? also wonder how those older cars are when someone does a after market racing tank in the trunk like for those pro power tour cars that are so popular now???

I really hope that I am not drenched in 93 Octane if I would happen to get rear-ended by a SUV!

Thats very scary if you really think about it. I have looked in my rearview mirror thinking---"OH NO" wayyyy to many times. But now knowing that there is possibly 18 gallons of 93 Octane ready to splash on my in the Firey crash! :pain:

It was moved to prevent that from happening. However being a government regulation created by a bunch of politicans who knows if it is really effective. After all there are no more Pintos to test it on.

:laughbounce: :laughbounce: :laughbounce: :laughbounce: