Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com

Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com (https://www.camaro5.com/forums/index.php)
-   Camaro ZL1 Forum - ZL1 Specific Topics (https://www.camaro5.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=85)
-   -   Video: Double ZL1 dyno day at Lingenfelter (https://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215600)

Mr. Wyndham 04-10-2012 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Behan (Post 4785639)
Thought you might like this!

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:

2010SLVRBULIT 04-10-2012 11:27 PM

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

SUX2BU 04-11-2012 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMAN311 (Post 4786524)
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....

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.

RLHMARINES 04-11-2012 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUX2BU (Post 4787383)
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.

mlee 04-11-2012 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUX2BU (Post 4787383)
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.

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.

Bad@ssCamaro 04-11-2012 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragoneye (Post 4787141)
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:

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

But they do sound AWESOME!!!

SUX2BU 04-11-2012 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLHMARINES (Post 4787429)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlee (Post 4787432)
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.

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

Coolidge 04-11-2012 07:11 AM

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

newmoon 04-11-2012 07:23 AM

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.

zfuzz 04-11-2012 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolidge (Post 4787832)
Puffs out the right tailpipe at 2:36 and 3:32 any cause for concern? Nothing out of the left that I can see.

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.

Coolidge 04-11-2012 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zfuzz (Post 4787869)
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.

Graham Behan 04-11-2012 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolidge (Post 4787874)
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.

Ron66Vette&10SS 04-11-2012 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Behan (Post 4786023)
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.

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?

nanokpsi 04-11-2012 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newmoon (Post 4787862)
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.

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.