Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Classic Design Concepts Sportbar
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Camaro V6 LLT Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons

Camaro V6 LLT Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons Bolt-Ons | Intakes | Exhaust

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-27-2009, 03:10 PM   #76
JohnnyBfromPeoria

 
JohnnyBfromPeoria's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 LS M6, Black
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,037
Mr. Maxx, you might want to state the position that an 8% driveline loss is LESS than any production car, right?

Can't wait to see a write-up of the supercharger installation/dyno/driveability. Keep up the good work.

John B.
__________________
12 LS M6, IPF S/C, ASA GT-5 wheels, VMax PTB
1995 Mitsubishi Montero SR
1987 Dodge Raider Turbo Project
1986 Mitsubishi Montero 2.4l FI Transplant
JohnnyBfromPeoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:12 PM   #77
JohnnyBfromPeoria

 
JohnnyBfromPeoria's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 LS M6, Black
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,037
Forgot to ask and I didn't remember reading either way, but will this installation be intercooled?

John B.
__________________
12 LS M6, IPF S/C, ASA GT-5 wheels, VMax PTB
1995 Mitsubishi Montero SR
1987 Dodge Raider Turbo Project
1986 Mitsubishi Montero 2.4l FI Transplant
JohnnyBfromPeoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:14 PM   #78
MadMaxx
Master of the V6
 
MadMaxx's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 1LT/RS
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brokinarrow View Post
maybe the cars HP is underrated?
Always possible, if they aren't SAE certified....but most likely it's just the wonderful world of variables when measuring <X>.

If a 300bhp mustang GT laid down nearly 300lbs/tq stock, they'd be running a hellova lot faster times then they are. Easiest way to spot bullshit numbers is to review the quarter mile times associated with them. Take a look at ANY of these high numbers posted on forums, you'll immediately get "hmmm.. thats far higher than anyone else stock thus far" or "what type of dyno" as the first statements. Law of averages apply -- if the bulk of the cars run at XXX, and one runs noticeably higher, then the two most likley factors are 1) dyno operator error or 2) lying (even if they didn't mean to -- such as "Oh..I forgot it had a CAI, or exhaust was done when I got it...).

Nothing new Been down this road with everything from a 40hp Mini to twin turbo vipers man. Always take a graph as a glimpse into the power potential, but never an unequivocal measurement.
MadMaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:23 PM   #79
fdjizm
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2008 Mustang GT/CS
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMaxx View Post
No, it isn't. 8% loss is greater than any production car, ever.

f you want to compare apples to apples... at 8% driveline loss, an SS camaro @ 426bhp should be damn near breaking the 400rwhp mark out of the box (392rwhp at 8%). As well all know, it doesn't

Feel free to find me examples of this though...provided you actually understand the metric of which you are posting...which as of right now, you don't seem to be getting.
so how do you explain s197 dyno numbers constantly in the 270-280's? the dyno numbers are so normally in the 270-280's people dont even go crazy over it anymore. research to your hearts content i dont want to post info and you thinking it's fake or bias, you are capable of finding out for yourself
fdjizm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:49 PM   #80
MadMaxx
Master of the V6
 
MadMaxx's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 1LT/RS
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdjizm View Post
so how do you explain s197 dyno numbers constantly in the 270-280's? the dyno numbers are so normally in the 270-280's people dont even go crazy over it anymore. research to your hearts content i dont want to post info and you thinking it's fake or bias, you are capable of finding out for yourself
1) Engine is over rated from factory (unlikely, based on what is available)
2) Not using a load bearing dyno / not using the correct corrections
3) Operators trying to make a buck with big numbers.


Doesn't change the fact that they ARE NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE achieving <9% driveline loss. Sorry bud, just ain't happening.

Since we're talking mustangs... you may actually want to read some of these threads where graphs are posted. You'll find that other folks, often who have been doing this for quite some time, call the numbers posted into question.

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=474064

^ Start reading.


Magnaflow had a hard time getting above 300rwhp with an exhaust change... on a 2010 (315bhp rating and a much better factory tune), etc.

Again, no one is arguing what a motor can or can't do, rather that the correction method you are implying (8% as "normal") simply isn't accurate. If a S197 mustang was rocking 280RWHP, she'd turn a far better time than a low 14 in the quarter. In reality, the S197 mustang puts down around the low 250hp mark (fordmuscle pulled the same number) which falls directly in line with it's power readings.

Cheers!
MadMaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:01 PM   #81
MadMaxx
Master of the V6
 
MadMaxx's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 1LT/RS
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 239
Oh, and just a reminder: Pull was made on 20" RS wheels Again, I don't want people to be too taken by the first set of numbers... they really don't mean a whole lot at the moment.
MadMaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 06:51 PM   #82
THE EVIL TW1N
Banned
 
Drives: 2003 Cobra Convertible
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 2,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMaxx View Post
1) Engine is over rated from factory (unlikely, based on what is available)
2) Not using a load bearing dyno / not using the correct corrections
3) Operators trying to make a buck with big numbers.


Doesn't change the fact that they ARE NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE achieving <9% driveline loss. Sorry bud, just ain't happening.

Since we're talking mustangs... you may actually want to read some of these threads where graphs are posted. You'll find that other folks, often who have been doing this for quite some time, call the numbers posted into question.

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=474064

^ Start reading.


Magnaflow had a hard time getting above 300rwhp with an exhaust change... on a 2010 (315bhp rating and a much better factory tune), etc.

Again, no one is arguing what a motor can or can't do, rather that the correction method you are implying (8% as "normal") simply isn't accurate. If a S197 mustang was rocking 280RWHP, she'd turn a far better time than a low 14 in the quarter. In reality, the S197 mustang puts down around the low 250hp mark (fordmuscle pulled the same number) which falls directly in line with it's power readings.

Cheers!
I've seen the 04-09 GT's consistantly in the 265-275 rwhp range. Ford does not SAE Certify most of their engines, therefore they can be both underrated or overrated. Same thing with most of dodge's Hemi engines (6.1). It's not that hard to fathom that the engines make more than their advertised power, especially since they are regularly in the 13's @ 102's-104's mph's (traps) in the 1/4. The '03 Cobra's are consistantly at 360-370 rwhp and they are rated at 390. I agree that 8% is too low, it's usually closer to 12%. Which would put the 300 hp 4.6's GT's really at 300-312 hp on average. (265/.88 to 275/.88).
THE EVIL TW1N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 06:54 PM   #83
fdjizm
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2008 Mustang GT/CS
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMaxx View Post
1) Engine is over rated from factory (unlikely, based on what is available)
2) Not using a load bearing dyno / not using the correct corrections
3) Operators trying to make a buck with big numbers.


Doesn't change the fact that they ARE NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE achieving <9% driveline loss. Sorry bud, just ain't happening.

Since we're talking mustangs... you may actually want to read some of these threads where graphs are posted. You'll find that other folks, often who have been doing this for quite some time, call the numbers posted into question.

http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=474064

^ Start reading.


Magnaflow had a hard time getting above 300rwhp with an exhaust change... on a 2010 (315bhp rating and a much better factory tune), etc.

Again, no one is arguing what a motor can or can't do, rather that the correction method you are implying (8% as "normal") simply isn't accurate. If a S197 mustang was rocking 280RWHP, she'd turn a far better time than a low 14 in the quarter. In reality, the S197 mustang puts down around the low 250hp mark (fordmuscle pulled the same number) which falls directly in line with it's power readings.

Cheers!
Dude you almost sound like you know what you were talking about, then you said...

Quote:
she'd turn a far better time than a low 14 in the quarter. In reality, the S197 mustang puts down around the low 250hp mark
Stock s197's run 13.5 all day and actually do put down 260-270rwhp. i get my numbers from real life where are you getting yours from, when have you ever seen a low 14 sec s197? lmao

p.s: that link you provided just confirmed everything i have said lol thanx
fdjizm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 07:00 PM   #84
ckaram

 
ckaram's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS RS, 1968 ragtop
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,604
How 'bout you clowns quit the bickering? "My johnson is bigger than your johnson blah blah blah". Let it go or find another forum, geez.

Someone's always faster, tough guys...
__________________
1968 Camaro convertible, soon to be LS1 & T56, Magnaflows, 3.42 posi, 17" Torque Thrusts
2011 2SS/RS, LS3, M6, IOM in and out, factory Hurst short throw, GMPP axleback exhaust
ckaram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 07:01 PM   #85
fdjizm
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2008 Mustang GT/CS
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckaram View Post
How 'bout you clowns quit the bickering? "My johnson is bigger than your johnson blah blah blah". Let it go or find another forum, geez.

Someone's always faster, tough guys...
Correcting false information again as you can see. it's not a pissing match more of an educational dispute in which one party has the wrong information and must be corrected.
fdjizm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 07:36 PM   #86
Koru
 
Koru's Avatar
 
Drives: 201? Camaro
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MD
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckaram View Post
How 'bout you clowns quit the bickering? "My johnson is bigger than your johnson blah blah blah". Let it go or find another forum, geez.

Someone's always faster, tough guys...
:upset:
__________________
Koru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 07:42 PM   #87
JohnnyBfromPeoria

 
JohnnyBfromPeoria's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 LS M6, Black
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,037
Jeez...Mr. Maxx is establishing a baseline for mods he's spending money to develop for the V-6. I'll go out on a limb and say the numbers he has posted are going up in the very near future, and I'd place a great deal of confidence in the results.

Not knowing much about operating a dyno, I will say that I like his technique. At least he did describe his dyno of choice as being the heartbreaker. Why don't you all run together on the same machine? Seems that would make things pretty even.

Lots of things can make subtle differences. He stressed the humidity. It was a fairly warm day. The car was sitting on 20's. The car isn't fully run in yet and is pulling a rich mixture, which would possibly change as the computer settled in.

Instead, he's already spent the money to install a supercharger. *Ahem*...bet his V-6 is going to pull higher numbers than just about everyone else's once it's dialed in...for a while.

I'm not going to race him.

John B.
__________________
12 LS M6, IPF S/C, ASA GT-5 wheels, VMax PTB
1995 Mitsubishi Montero SR
1987 Dodge Raider Turbo Project
1986 Mitsubishi Montero 2.4l FI Transplant
JohnnyBfromPeoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:23 PM   #88
ckaram

 
ckaram's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS RS, 1968 ragtop
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,604
Can't wait to see his numbers climb...MadMaxx is gonna lead the pack.
__________________
1968 Camaro convertible, soon to be LS1 & T56, Magnaflows, 3.42 posi, 17" Torque Thrusts
2011 2SS/RS, LS3, M6, IOM in and out, factory Hurst short throw, GMPP axleback exhaust
ckaram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:06 PM   #89
dacm99
 
Drives: V-6 DI CTS Caddy
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Deltona, FL
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMaxx View Post
Caddy guys guys proximately 31rwhp on their M6 car w/ catback and CAI. Tune and LT's would *really* help this motor.

54rwhp may be a tall order, but 40ish should be possible.... either way, lots of potential in this little gem.
I have the CTS caddy with the V6 DI. I was hoping the new camaro guys would have some sites or know of any companies who are tunning this motor. ??
dacm99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:08 PM   #90
trudawg660

 
Drives: 2006 Dodge Charger / 2SS IOM
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacm99 View Post
I have the CTS caddy with the V6 DI. I was hoping the new camaro guys would have some sites or know of any companies who are tunning this motor. ??
i would love to see the v6 get as much attention as the v8 but we all know that wont happen.
trudawg660 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:10 PM   #91
MadMaxx
Master of the V6
 
MadMaxx's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 1LT/RS
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdjizm View Post

Stock s197's run 13.5 all day and actually do put down 260-270rwhp. i get my numbers from real life where are you getting yours from, when have you ever seen a low 14 sec s197? lmao

p.s: that link you provided just confirmed everything i have said lol thanx
Good for them, I guess I just wasn't seeing them in the multiple posts I was reading on the mustang forums. And yes, I've seen low 14 second GT's... when I was looking at buying one back in 05'. Then again, I'm not around them on a daily basis, you own one so obviously you're more in touch with the community. Ask me about Supras or Vipers, my two main hobbies up until now, and I'd be happy to fill your head full of my real world experiences with them

Regardless, my point still very much stands -- 8% drive line loss is NOT the norm. All bringing up a specific car (in this case, mustangs) has shown is that they're either far underrating their motors, or people are continually manipulating the numbers. Odd that there are such wildly variant numbers from both vendors and individuals on the platform though... that kind of deviation isn't normally seen in a high numbers production vehicle.

Feel free to post up the numbers on your '10 if you ever get it done, I'd love to start a pool of metric collection going.
MadMaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:15 PM   #92
rays
V6 - It just isn't normal
 
rays's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 2LT M6, F250 7.3L Diesel
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacm99 View Post
I have the CTS caddy with the V6 DI. I was hoping the new camaro guys would have some sites or know of any companies who are tunning this motor. ??
Go check out http://www.d3cadillac.com/

I asked them if they will be developing anything for the Camaro...

So far.... Crickets..
__________________

2LT RS M6 RJT Black leather
4/29/2009 Ordered
6/24 6000 Delivered
rays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:22 PM   #93
trudawg660

 
Drives: 2006 Dodge Charger / 2SS IOM
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by rays View Post
Go check out http://www.d3cadillac.com/

I asked them if they will be developing anything for the Camaro...

So far.... Crickets..
i just looked at the CAI from them its not that expensive.
trudawg660 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:41 PM   #94
fdjizm
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2008 Mustang GT/CS
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMaxx View Post
Good for them, I guess I just wasn't seeing them in the multiple posts I was reading on the mustang forums. And yes, I've seen low 14 second GT's... when I was looking at buying one back in 05'. Then again, I'm not around them on a daily basis, you own one so obviously you're more in touch with the community. Ask me about Supras or Vipers, my two main hobbies up until now, and I'd be happy to fill your head full of my real world experiences with them

Regardless, my point still very much stands -- 8% drive line loss is NOT the norm. All bringing up a specific car (in this case, mustangs) has shown is that they're either far underrating their motors, or people are continually manipulating the numbers. Odd that there are such wildly variant numbers from both vendors and individuals on the platform though... that kind of deviation isn't normally seen in a high numbers production vehicle.

Feel free to post up the numbers on your '10 if you ever get it done, I'd love to start a pool of metric collection going.

Yes they are continually manipulating the numbers bro that must be it, wow why did i even try, you wont accept truth. have a goodnight.
fdjizm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 11:25 PM   #95
caverman


 
caverman's Avatar
 
Drives: '69 SS Convertible
Join Date: May 2009
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 6,993
Like someone already said, Dyno numbers are one thing and track times are another.

I'm ready to see what the V6 does at the drag strip. I would love to see a video of one going down the track in stock form and then start adding on the mods so we can see what these things can really do.

I'm still up in the air on buying the V6 (which is better suited for a daily driver & affordabilty) or feeding my mid-life crisis with some big cojones.
caverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 12:25 AM   #96
UsedTaHaveA68
 
UsedTaHaveA68's Avatar
 
Drives: Hyundai Sonata
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMaxx View Post
No, it isn't. 8% loss is greater than any production car, ever.

f you want to compare apples to apples... at 8% driveline loss, an SS camaro @ 426bhp should be damn near breaking the 400rwhp mark out of the box (392rwhp at 8%). As well all know, it doesn't

Feel free to find me examples of this though...provided you actually understand the metric of which you are posting...which as of right now, you don't seem to be getting.
2002 Camaro SS making 301hp. Rated 325. That's 9%. http://www.dragtimes.com/2002-Chevro...aphs-9026.html
Another one making 302hp. 9% http://gmhightechperformance.automot...ade/index.html

These Mustangs wouldn't be the first car in history to come out under rated.
UsedTaHaveA68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 05:24 AM   #97
fdjizm
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2008 Mustang GT/CS
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsedTaHaveA68 View Post
2002 Camaro SS making 301hp. Rated 325. That's 9%. http://www.dragtimes.com/2002-Chevro...aphs-9026.html
Another one making 302hp. 9% http://gmhightechperformance.automot...ade/index.html

These Mustangs wouldn't be the first car in history to come out under rated.
he is just going to deny anything you said, because in his world it's impossible, and they manipulated the numbers.
fdjizm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 08:04 AM   #98
Hemlawk
AwesomeBillDawesonville
 
Hemlawk's Avatar
 
Drives: CGM 2SS/RS =)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 2,074
Well atleast MADMAXX is giving us the honest and ugly truth.

MM, are you going to run the 1/4 before doing any mods?
__________________

Order placed on 1/13/11 - Purchased 2/22/11 2SS/RS CGM
Hemlawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 08:08 AM   #99
MadMaxx
Master of the V6
 
MadMaxx's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 1LT/RS
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsedTaHaveA68 View Post
2002 Camaro SS making 301hp. Rated 325. That's 9%. http://www.dragtimes.com/2002-Chevro...aphs-9026.html
Another one making 302hp. 9% http://gmhightechperformance.automot...ade/index.html

These Mustangs wouldn't be the first car in history to come out under rated.
^^ And the truth shall set you free,

Underrated engine ratings != driveline friction reduction to <9% levels

That is my ENTIRE point -- all of these examples are showing how a motor is UNDER RATED from factory, rather illustrating some magical method of reducing friction 50% I guess you guys don't realize how huge a 50% reduction in the static loss through friction would be to a manufacturer..

I'll get into some actual math illustrating how bhp isn't a valid constant in a few of these examples. We can the "ego factor" to illustrate this too... I'll be back in a few hours
MadMaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 10:05 AM   #100
THE EVIL TW1N
Banned
 
Drives: 2003 Cobra Convertible
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 2,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMaxx View Post
^^ And the truth shall set you free,

Underrated engine ratings != driveline friction reduction to <9% levels

That is my ENTIRE point -- all of these examples are showing how a motor is UNDER RATED from factory, rather illustrating some magical method of reducing friction 50% I guess you guys don't realize how huge a 50% reduction in the static loss through friction would be to a manufacturer..

I'll get into some actual math illustrating how bhp isn't a valid constant in a few of these examples. We can the "ego factor" to illustrate this too... I'll be back in a few hours
Your in your own world man. It's already been stated that the engines (3v 4.6's) are slightly underrated, probably by about 5 to 10 hp using the NORMAL driveline losses of 12% when on a dynojet.
THE EVIL TW1N is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
V8 Camaro Performance Upgrades List Milk 1027 Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 85 11-11-2013 12:48 PM
Camaro Laws ChevyNut Off-topic Discussions 102 06-06-2011 10:34 PM
Camaro SS 2010 on dyno makes 364 whp & 371 rwtq !! Vid inside UCF w00t Camaro Photos | Spyshots | Video | Media Gallery 128 03-20-2011 10:27 PM
GM memo to dealers Moose 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 41 02-04-2010 07:33 PM
Car and Driver drives V6 Camaro! Xanthos 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 63 08-26-2008 09:21 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.