Video: Double ZL1 dyno day at Lingenfelter
 

Thought you might like this!

Results: 518hp / 513lb-ft torque

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8LDrTgD-uQ

What NO numbers !!!!


Better ...

Man thats just wrong Total ZL1 Porn and no finish NUMBERS??????

Agreed! Do any new owners have plans to dyno their car soon?

That's bulls**t......doing that to us!!!:laugh:

500-510 is what was posted on yellowbullet from this same video, as well note thats on a mustangdyno

I'll be dynoing right after breakin but my ZL1 is still on a train so I'm sure numbers will be out by the time I do it! Hoping to go pulley and tune right away though.

#'s
 

Numbers are 500-511 at tstat temp, cooler best runoff 524 rwhp. Torque was 490-504 same conditions. We will test intake pullies etc over the next few days and post them up.

wow, that video is awesome, those ZL1's sound great

That sounds similar to what a recent V' put down. That sounds a little more than 580 :)

Are they both manual transmissions? I'm hoping for some auto numbers.

Yeah, only 12-13% loss, instead of the typical 15%...might be more like 600 at the crank, or just less loss through the drivetrain. Maybe the auto's will put down 480-490RWHP....

zl1 on dyno
 

Saw this over on the bullet and thought you guys might like it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8LDrTgD-uQ

:confused0068: :headbang:

I dunno how one of those ZL1s can be #214.....214 is my car. :laugh:

I LOVE that video...right around 2:37, I think - you can hear the valve slap open and the car ROAR!! :drool: :bow:

why mess with perfection?:rolleyes:btw, it's out of gas...

12-13% is what regular M6 SS have for drive train loss since they dyno about high 360s low 370s. I think 580 hp is pretty accurate.
The autos are usually about 40 rwhp lower, so I'm guesstimating they an auto ZL1 would dyno about 460 ish.

But isn't that using the factor from a L99 auto comparison vs a LS3 m6 instead of an auto CTS-V vs m6 CTS-V or did I misunderstand.

There won't be 40 rwhp difference on the ZL1 (More like 20)

The LSA flywheel hp is the same 580 for Auto or Manual where as the L99 is 26hp less than the LS3 right off the bat.

And it's not SIM...:facepalm: :rolleyes:

But they do sound AWESOME!!!

Oops, yeah, I forgot the auro guys get jipped 26 HP. Yeah, 20 rwhp is better.

Puffs out the right tailpipe at 2:36 and 3:32 any cause for concern? Nothing out of the left that I can see.

500+ rwhp, and 520 rwtq, from the factory on a mustang dyno. Nothing wrong with those numbers at all. Now lets see what Lingenfelter does with them from here.

Yeah I saw that too, hmmm, I am not a mechanic but I would be concerned if it was mine. Maybe there is something to the suggested break in period.

That it puffed from one side of the engine and not the other is what got my attention.

That would be called detonation, on that run. Nothing to do with a break in period, just us exploring the performance of the vehicles at different temperatures and heat soak periods to see the effects of intercooler system efficiencies when heat soaked etc. we are just establishing where the limitations may be before we explore extreme power levels. its all about understanding what the production set up is capable of before pushing it to where we wish to be with these cars. First notes are the intercooler efficiency differences between this set up and the CTSV, inlet depression, obviously exhaust system backpressure, etc.

Graham.

Do you guys plan on getting some 1/4 mile runs before the modding starts?

I'm at work, so i can't view the video to see if you ran through the gears "hard" or not. But if so:
Did you notice much difference between throttle input and actual % throttle body opening between shifts to get an idea of how much torque management is dialed in?

It is the same hard parts as the CTS V, so I think we know what one will do.

An example of why I leave this stuff to the experts, makes sense. :bow:

Any results from anyone on a dynojet yet?

Cool video MEAN!

The paint match on the Red car is horrible! From the plastic compared to the metal... dang.

very nice,strong right out of the box,i was expecting #'s to be in the high 490'ish,but over 500 i think is pretty darn impressive,man,the more i see the more i want!i just got off Chevy's site building my own,$56,845..which is about 10-15g's too deep for my pocket,hope everyone that gets one enjoy's the hell out of it,i would!

oh,and rwhp is about 63 more than i have with my "ss" with mild g.m. cam,tune,cai,kooks l/tubes with 3"exaust w/hi flo cats,

Double ZL1...it's so VIVID! WOOOOWWWWWW!!!

I just noticed the ZL1 has readable "skinnier" tach needles....
Is this the same for newer years? I have the 2010 fat needle that is useless.

:drool:

Were both of those manuals?

Started with the 2012 Camaro's :popcorn:

Good numbers and right in line with what I would have expected on a Mustang dyno. My neighbors 2012 GT500 w/PP made 500rwhp/480rwtq on a Mustang dyno. Given the extra CID of the 6.2 versus the 5.4, the greater torque generated by the larger motor shows.

I think in a drag race, the 2011-2012 GT500 and the ZL1 are going to be a drivers race with the edge going to the ZL1 given equal drivers.

At 518RWHP if that engine is indeed making 580BHP at the crank then that would give us an 11% drive line loss.

The reason that the V6 Mustang and V6 Camaro can get the fuel economy numbers that they get is due to such low drive line losses. Consider that the V-6 Mustang is rated at 305BHP and gets a best 31MPG and the Camaro V-6 at 323BHP gets a best 30MPG. Consider that the Honda Accord V6 Coupe wwith 271BHP gets a best 29MPG highway, thats all 3 with automatic transmissions and consider that the Honda is 3,400 pounds compared to 3,450 pounds for the Mustang and 3,750 pounds for the Camaro. When you equip all 3 vehicles with manual transmissions the Honda does even worse as it has a rating of 26MPH highway. Compare that to 29MPG for the Mustang and 28MPG for the Camaro.

So what I am saying is the reduction in drive line loss has given the RWD platform new life as they are now capable of achieving fuel economy numbers that are competitive to their FWD counter parts. The fact that RWD vehicles use to have a driveline loss in the 20-25% range and now are in the 10-15% range is impressive. That some models in the past had a 25% drive line loss and now have a 10% drive line loss doesn't just mean better fuel economy. This also means better performance all around, consider that if it takes 300RWHP to get a 3,000 pound vehicle to 60MPH in 4.5 seconds. At a 25% drive line loss it takes 400BHP to achieve 300RWHP, this means a engine that not only consumes more fuel but a engine that is bigger and heavier all things equal. Also the transmission has to be beefier to handle 400BHP going into it, so the the drive line gains weight. So in order to keep the 3,000 pound vehicle weight you need to use lighter (more expensive) materials. At 10% drive line loss you only need 375BHP to do the same thing, though the difference of only 25BHP is a small difference. This difference becomes more pronounced as the power levels go up. When you are looking at 700BHP range at 25% loss you get 525RWHP and at 10% loss you get 630RWHP a difference of more then 100RWHP.