Holy S***! Even with a more conservative gear ratio, the 2014 blew the 2010 away! The transmission gearing did not change did it?

 

6L80, same gear ratios as the previous model. Not sure about other "enhancements".

 

Impressive!

 

Those are good numbers

 

Wow thats great. I can't imagine what E85 will do with the 6.2 I'm getting and 3.42 rear gears.

 

Quite impressive

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

7.5 to 60 with 3.08's??!!! Wow, I haven't ordered a single one with 3.08's

 

those are very good numbers

 

Where is Andretti to complain about the 0-60 mph time???

 

Awesome.

On the other hand, I think this proves that sense of power is more important to many people than actual power. How many people bought a 2010 Silverado 5.3 with the 3.42s because "it's got a V8", when in reality most 4-banger family cars from the same year are faster?

 

0-60 in 6.96 on E85. Probably chirped the tires pretty good on that run.

 

I do a lot of research on 60's supercars, and I find it fascinating how well correlated 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are across the decades. This is in spite of various wonders of our age like the (allegedly twice-as-nice as three speed) six speed automatic.

Compare our Buck Rogers '14 Silvy with the dinosaur era '66 427 Caprice. It's a good case because this is a car with 2.73 rear gears, so wheelspin was absent - like our current wonder with all the kings computers in torque management and traction control.

Despite the advantage gained by the fat sticky tires and ultra steep gearing of the six speed, it doesn't make a difference in compensating for extra weight. The lbs/hp is surprisingly close if you allow 300net from the 390 gross 427. With a test weight of 4553lbs that yields 15.17lbs/hp. It's mighty close to the 355hp/5600rpm Chilvyrado's 15.7lbs/hp.

Almost the same 0-60mph and 1/4 mile times. 15.7@90mph and 7.6 to sixty for the Chevrolet. The Silvy's 0-90mph is exactly the same - it just arrives at the 1/4 mile mark 0.24 seconds later at 91mph. Not surprising The caveman Caprice beat our modern wonder - but just barely - with its slight Hp/weight advantage.

More speeds more speed? Nope. Still don't agree?

The coupe de grace is illustrated in the most extreme case of the '63 Powerglide 409. Spoiler alert: with a 2spd, 50 less rated HP and skinnier tires, it towel whips the 66 Caprice...

0-60 in 6.6? In 1963? With one geared ratio? Yep. Well sure, you might think, but in the 1/4 mile it's going to fall way behind because of no 'passing' gear and the bigger jump in RPM. Um...well. Wrong again. The supposed slushbox Powerglide in the 409 scorches through with a 15.2 e.t. at 90mph. In terms of trap speed in relation to elapsed time, the 409 could be thought to lay down what power it has even *more* efficiently!

Why? Consider 340 'gross' hp x .77 (same factor as used in the 427 example) gives us only 262 'net' hp. With a 4120lbs test weight, the real fine 409 has the same exemplary lbs/hp ratio as...

Our spankin new Silvylet. 15.7lbs. And it's nearly a second behind with three times the speeds!

A 15.1 second e.t would easily qualify for the definition of 'supercar' when it was coined in the May '65 issue of CAR LIFE. This Chevy competed with the '63 Dodge and Plymouth's similar 426 street wedge: Super Stock drag engines transformed into docile beasts for useable consumer performance. They shared agreeable traits like quick warm-up, decreased maintenance and yes, even better gas mileage. This is the signature trademark of the 1960's supercar. The brightest luminaries of supercar-dom like Roger Huntington, Marty Schorr and Joe Oldham agree on that. They would also all agree that the '64 GTO is the undisputed first supercar.

Yes, the Silvy makes it quick to 60mph, tows 8000lbs, hauls 3/4s of a ton and can carry a family. The sixties Chevrolets can also tow about half of that and come without the hauling part - but also carry a family. Carrying people is what all of these Chevys in question are used for mostly. We're justly proud in our age of wonder, that the Heavy Chevy Silvylet rates 16mpg city. Yet CAR LIFE says a judicious driver could make 16mpg in the Powerglide 409. The '63 409 was also pushed to 124mph in the actual test, while our Silvy cuts off at 110mph. If the cutoff is bypassed, it could probably match the 409 in top speed, although the top two gears would be useless in getting there.

We focus on speed in fan circles, but I think it's important to remember that most of our technology is just devoted to increased safety and better fuel economy/emissions *while retaining* strong performance.

 

I do a lot of research on 60's supercars, and I find it fascinating how well correlated 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are across the decades. This is in spite of various wonders of our age like the (allegedly twice-as-nice as three speed) six speed automatic.

Compare our Buck Rogers '14 Silvy with the dinosaur era '66 427 Caprice. It's a good case because this is a car with 2.73 rear gears, so wheelspin was absent - like our current wonder with all the kings computers in torque management and traction control.

Despite the advantage gained by the fat sticky tires and ultra steep gearing of the six speed, it doesn't make a difference in compensating for extra weight. The lbs/hp is surprisingly close if you allow 300net from the 390 gross 427. With a test weight of 4553lbs that yields 15.17lbs/hp. It's mighty close to the 355hp/5600rpm Chilvyrado's 15.7lbs/hp.

Almost the same 0-60mph and 1/4 mile times. 15.7@90mph and 7.6 to sixty for the Chevrolet. The Silvy's 0-90mph is exactly the same - it just arrives at the 1/4 mile mark 0.24 seconds later at 91mph. Not surprising The caveman Caprice beat our modern wonder - but just barely - with its slight Hp/weight advantage.

More speeds more speed? Nope. Still don't agree?

The coupe de grace is illustrated in the most extreme case of the '63 Powerglide 409. Spoiler alert: with a 2spd, 50 less rated HP and skinnier tires, it towel whips the 66 Caprice...

0-60 in 6.6? In 1963? With one geared ratio? Yep. Well sure, you might think, but in the 1/4 mile it's going to fall way behind because of no 'passing' gear and the bigger jump in RPM. Um...well. Wrong again. The supposed slushbox Powerglide in the 409 scorches through with a 15.1 e.t. at 90mph. In terms of trap speed in relation to elapsed time, the 409 could be thought to lay down what power it has even *more* efficiently!

Why? Consider 340 'gross' hp x .77 (same factor as used in the 427 example) gives us only 262 'net' hp. With a 4120lbs test weight, the real fine 409 has the same exemplary lbs/hp ratio as...

Our spankin new Silvylet. 15.7lbs. And it's nearly a second behind with three times the speeds!

A 15.1 second e.t would easily qualify for the definition of 'supercar' when it was coined in the May '65 issue of CAR LIFE. This Chevy competed with the '63 Dodge and Plymouth's similar 426 street wedge: Super Stock drag engines transformed into docile beasts for useable consumer performance. They shared agreeable traits like quick warm-up, decreased maintenance and yes, even better gas mileage. This is the signature trademark of the 1960's supercar. The brightest luminaries of supercar-dom like Roger Huntington, Marty Schorr and Joe Oldham agree on that. They would also all agree that it was the '64 GTO that deserves its title as the undisputed first supercar.

Yes, the Silvy makes it quick to 60mph, tows 8000lbs, hauls 3/4s of a ton and can carry a family. The sixties Chevrolets can also tow about half of that and come without the hauling part - but also carry a family. Carrying people is what all of these Chevys in question are used for mostly. We're justly proud of that in our age of wonder, that the Heavy Chevy Silvylet rates 16mpg city, but then again CAR LIFE says a judicious driver could make 16mpg in the Powerglide 409. The '63 409 was also pushed to 124mph in the actual test, while our Silvy cuts off at 110mph. If the cutoff is bypassed, it could probably match the 409 in top speed, although the top two gears would be useless in getting there.

We focus on speed in fan circles I think it's important to remember that most of our technology is just devoted to increased safety and better fuel economy/emissions *while retaining* strong performance.

Great post, you hit the nail on the head in that emissions and weight have more to do with
Performance than the number of gears. Of course, the more gears the more time the engine runs at its peak potential thereby improving both mileage and lowering emissions. This is especially true for highway use which is where we will continue to see better mph with more gears as opposed to the city where weight reduction will be king.

 

Let me play the devil's advocate for a bit King... You are comparing a 7.0 Liter engine with a 5.3 one, in a vehicle that weighs in 1/2-ton less, has better aerodynamics, and arguably less drive train loss than the truck since it does not have a transfer case. Even though if you ask me what my favorite car is, I'd have to tell you a '65 Impala, I'm all for the Buck Rogers technology with their safety, reliability, efficiency, content, and ease of ownership. If I had some more space in my garage, a project '65 Impala with a LSx engine would be sitting there though...

 

I'm just going by lbs/HP and the Caprice is close at 15.17 with the 409 PG exactly the same 15.7lbs/hp as the Silvy.

The six speed isn't converting the same lbs/hp into more acceleration.

Far greater torque multiplication and closer spaced ratios aren't allowing the Silvy to 'use what power it has' more effectively. Yes, it gets better gas mileage - especially on MPG/lb basis. That is the purpose of the six speed - along with 'driveability.'

 

While I can certainly appreciate the benefits of a powerglide (light weight, very consistent with one shift and controllable out of the whole with relative tall low gear)and turbo 400s (can be built tough as nails, still pretty consistent and an extra gear for the 1/4) in bracket drag racing, I think you are over simplifying this comparison.

While the power to weight ratios are pretty close, I would imagine the unsprung weight of the Silverado is much higher. Also the actual final drive of the Silverado would almost certainly be higher due to the much taller tires. And then the transfer case would also need to be factored.

I think considering all this is a testament to the performance of the modern 6 speed.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

the new 6.2 is going to be nuts.

 

Again, I'm not saying the 6spd is 'inferior technology' I'm saying that *in terms of applying power to the pavement* the PG took the same LBS/HP ratio and went much faster.

And the Silvy would have to have tires 2.08 times larger in diameter than the 409 to match the 1st gear overall torque mulitplication of a 4:1 1st vs. a 1.76:1 1st gear.

3.36 x 1.76 = 5.91 breakaway 409

3.08 x 4 = 12.32 breakaway Silvy

So if the 409 had 28" tall tires tires, the Silvy would have to have 58" tall tires to have the same torque multiplication.

"Final Drive" doesn't matter since it would only use the first three gears anyway.

 

In a pure power to weight ratio comparison then yes, it would appear the PG puts the power down better. But there are much more factors that come to play when you are using 1/4 mile times as your basis.

Like I said the Silverado would easily have much more unsprung weight with its bigger heavier wheels, tires, axles etc. Some people claim 1 lbs of unsprung weight is the equivalent of 10 lbs of sprung weight. I don't know. Either way I have always heard if you can lose 100 lbs then you will gain a tenth of a second in the quarter.

The next thing would be traction. The Silverado will have a very poor weight distribution with most of its weight in the front end. Also, I'm sure all season or all terrain tires wouldn't give near the grip on dry pavement as a bias ply tire, especially in a straight line.

And then a truck with bigger heavier drive lines, rear ends, axles and a transfer case will naturally suffer more parasitic power losses than a car.

And you have aerodynamics to think about too.

You got me on the final drive. I never thought about the modern six speed finishing the race in 3rd or even 4th gear (I'm a drag racer, I am used to the car being in high gear for at least half the track). While I don't known the gear ratios of the six speeds, I am sure they are probably shorter than the PG in 3rd and probably 4th.

But regardless, I think the modern six speeds have helped all aspects of performance in the trucks. Some searches of magazine test can confirm that the six speed transmissions picked up the 0-60 times of similar trucks that previously had 4 speeds. While I have no way of proving it, my new '13 Silverado feels quicker than the '06 Sierra it replaced. Of course the Silverado has 20 more HP but the Sierra was a 4A with 3.73s and the Silverado is a 6A with 3.08s. They weigh nearly the same (Silverado is 3 lbs lighter).

Anyways, I think that these types of comparisons (truck to truck) really show the benefit of the 6 speeds.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

Chevytrucks 92 was saying that the axle ratio is effectively lower numerically because of *taller* tires, and I'm pointing out that you'd have to have monster truck tires to even out the torque multiplication factor - since lower tires effectively increase the axle ratio numerically.

Again, the point is not that the 6 speed does nothing; the point is, it is does not 'use what power it has' any more effectively to increase acceleration. It gets better gas mileage - that is its function, not going faster.

I expand on this with more examples from the period - especially delving into the manual vs. auto question here...

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/...9/two-speeds-good-six-speeds-bad-63-powerglide-409-faster-than-14-silvy-122385/

 

so how was my 09 5.3 6 speed 4 door faster than my 04 5.3 RCSB 4 speed?

 

someone needs to tell peterbilt they need 2 speeds, not 18 speeds!

 

So I’ve had a number of skeptics question my dictum regarding acceleration that “two speeds GOOD, six speeds BAD.” Maybe the less facetious and more sober bumper sticker would read "Two speeds GOOD, six speeds...no better."

I’ve pointed out in a number of responses: yes, the six speed gets better gas mileage and yes, the six speed is more flexible to drive. No huge jumps in rpms and the ability to kickdown at very small throttle openings. Better gas mileage and flexibility *is what the six/seven/eight/nine/ten tranny is for*…NOT better acceleration.

The original nugget of the blog post was prompted by a thread in the Truck Talk Section of GMI regarding the Lingenfelter acceleration test of a stock ’14 Silverado. In this thread I’ve been challenged on the “apples to oranges” nature of the comparison because the Silvy weighs considerably more – even though lbs/hp is the same as a 50 year old 409 Powerglide Chevrolet.
So in the interest of science, let me again puncture this myth that more speeds = more speed.

Let’s take the example of two cars with similar 0-60 and quarter mile times, divided by 43 long years of automotive progress. And three, count ‘em, three whole gears!
In one corner you have a marvel of our age: the 2013 Toyota Camry. Now here’s a car that weighs very little -3407lbs at the curb. I’m going to be generous and assign a test weight of 3657lbs. It has 268 net hp for only 13.64lbs/hp. This would put it well within the supercar class in the 1960’s, and it’s no surprise that the Toyo makes ‘60’s supercar like acceleration numbers…
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/toyota-camry-se-v6-road-test-review

0-60mph in 5.8 seconds – scorchin’! ¼ mile in 14.3 at 101mph! Now that’s progress, mister!

Now let’s compare it to an olden days car from 1970 – an Olds W-30 442. It was rated at 370hp, but a similar “W-34” engine in the Toronado was rated at 400hp, so we’ll go with the higher ‘gross’ number and use our .77 multiplier and give it 308 ‘net’ HP. It has a 4195lb test weight in CAR LIFE for a 13.62lbs/hp – basically matching the Camry.
http://www.mustangtek.com/Library3/CL_70-03/CL_70-03_039.jpg

0-60mph in 5.7 seconds. ¼ mile 14.36 at 100. Essentially identical to the Camry. Identical.

Another thing to note is the ‘linear’ or predictable nature of the relationship between 0-60mph and ¼ mile elapsed times. Many blogger/writers have argued with me in the past years that the zillion speed tranny means we’re living in a new era where 0-60 and ¼ mile times would diverge with the past because the more speeds you use in getting to 60mph, the faster you’ll get there and that you will likely have quicker 0-60 with respect to the ¼ mile times in the newer cars verses the olden days of the caveman where we hunted mastodons and sometimes used only one gear getting to 60mph.

Please also note that the Olds weighs considerably more than the Toyota, yet the lbs/hp gave us very predictable acceleration – just as the Silvy vs. ’66 Caprice numbers were quite similar and predictable.

 

that's about the dumbest thing I've ever read.

 

that's about the dumbest thing i've ever read.

lol!

 

This thread gave me a headache, I was expecting to read about Lingenfelter Dyno / Performance numbers.

 

What is going on in here?

lbs/hp? What kind of math is that? Sure, it seems good on the surface but its just wrong.


As far as six speeds go, what is wrong with them? They give great performance (outside the 1/4) and great MPG. Isnt that the progress we want?

 

I'm not saying there is anything 'wrong with' the six speed. I'm saying the primary purpose of them is to boost gas mileage. They boost 'driveability' and gas mileage. Their primary purpose is not to increase full throttle acceleration.

Obviously it would not be fair to judge vehicles without the lbs/hp comparison.

 

OK. I will play some numbers games here. A quick google search gave me two different test from two essentially identical trucks, all but with slightly different power trains.

First up, a 2007 Silverado LTZ crew cab tested by Edmunds. 6.0, 4A, and very possibly 4.10 gears although it could have had 3.42s or 3.73s. Anyways. 0-60 in 7.9 seconds 1/4 mile in 16.0 seconds.

Next up, is a 2009 Silverado LTZ crew cab tested by C&D. 5.3, 6A and 3.42 gears. 0-60 in 7.6 seconds 1/4 mile in 16.0 seconds. This in itself shows the benefits of the 6 speed. You have the same truck with 52 less HP and 40 less torque go 3 tenths faster to 60 mph. The 1/4 mile stayed the same however due to the extra HP. The only real difference would be the transmission and possibly the rear end gear.

This is alone should be case closed.



Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

exactly. you can't compare the big inch engines of yore with 3 speeds and very broad and high torque curves to the high revving 6 cylinders of today.

 

And this is why even mild big blocks in a race car will run with or beat pretty wild small blocks.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

in the real world, hp\ltr is a totally useless number.

 

OK people, re-read the original post (it appears some have not read it once)and it will become obvious why I'm comparing the past with the present. The whole idea of that post was that over time the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are quite predictable by lbs/HP and that the relationship or 'ratio' between 0-60 and 1/4 mile hasn't much changed - despite using more gears to get there.

Let me offer another example for the 'keeping 'er at top revs all the time makes you faster' arguers.

Take the 2012 Motor Trend Nissan Maxima - 3528lb curb weight, we'll call 3800lb test weight. With 390hp you get 13.1lbs/hp. The 14.3 @ 98mph 1/4 mile and 5.8 second 0-60mph are right in there with the very similar Olds and Camry lbs/hp and acceleration. It has the ultimate 'keep the revs up for the narrow power band' setup in the constant velocity transmission - a more advanced design than the 6 speed since keeps revs at a constant while changing the multiplication to accelerate. It's just a tad *slower* than the other two examples.

The other thing to consider is that a 4:1 x 3.42 axle on the Olds would leave you with 13.68:1 breakaway times the torque converter multiplication.

All that extra low end reduction would just break the tires loose -even if it had today's sticky tires, so the traction control would just brake it all up anyway. It's the same principle as with the PG 409 - the lower breakaway ratio allowed the car to lay the power to the pavement and not go up in smoke.

Remember, we can multiply torque, but not HP.

4:1 1st x 3.42 axle x 270lbs/ft = 3693lbs/ft breakaway torque / 3657lb test weight =

1.01 lbs/multiplied tq

2.5 1st x 3.42 axle x 500 lbs/ft = 4275lbs/ft breakaway torque /4200lb test weigtht = .... wait for it...

1.02lbs/multiplied tq.

So the Olds has, by the tiniest of margins, slightly more weight to move for each lb/ft of multiplied torque.