Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Gen5DIY
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


Reply
 
Thread Tools
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
Old 05-28-2009, 11:09 AM   #101
Ninjak
Banned
 
Drives: 08 GT Mustang | 65 GT Notchbac
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Miami Florida
Posts: 819
Well proof is in the pudding as they say. Here is a 2010GT bone stock, running 13.36@105MPH. He had 3:73 install from the factory. Have to say that is a far cry from 14's...here is the thread.

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/s...d.php?t=135615

Dyno numbers are...just that. Numbers. Its a whole different story on the track.
Ninjak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:12 AM   #102
fdjizm
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2008 Mustang GT/CS
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjak View Post
Well proof is in the pudding as they say. Here is a 2010GT bone stock, running 13.36@105MPH. He had 3:73 install from the factory. Have to say that is a far cry from 14's...here is the thread.

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/s...d.php?t=135615

Dyno numbers are...just that. Numbers. Its a whole different story on the track.
how's that pudding taste madmaxx, let me know if you need some more

refer to steps 1 & 2

1. We admit we were powerless over dyno results - that our posting lives had become unmanageable.

2. Acceptance

etc...
fdjizm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:17 AM   #103
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 THE EVIL TW1N View Post
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.
Awesome... only problem is that has nothing to do with the actual discussion.
Here, let's rescope - since it seems that the actual discussion is getting skewed with data points that don't have relevance.

Subjective: "V6 camaro dyno numbers are low"

Scoping: Initial review - They're spot on for the AF mix, tire size, temp, dyno type and miles on chassis @ 18% (automatic) loss. I would expect these numbers to be combined with other future pulls from other cars, in order to get a collection metrics from which conclusions can be drawn.

Contention: Car X only has 8% driveline loss... that is the "norm"

Resolution: We've already shown that this is not the case with any production vehicle, 8% is a totally fictitious number based on the flawed logic that BHP calculations from the manufacturer are a constant.

Rwhp numbers are used to compare with the horsepower claims of the manufacture (assuming we're talking about baseline pulls in a stock vehicle) in addition to calculating gains made by outside influences. This number can either be higher, or lower, than the manufacturer claims. In the examples posted, it's clear that the manufacture under-rated the power output of their engine in that specific chassis. It does NOT however illustrate, in any way shape or form, that the it was the driveline loss percentage that changes, rather than the initial evaluation of the bhp rating.

If we need to, we can illustrate the inverse of this rwhp calculation.... that is, listing engine HP calculation based on torque output delivered at the wheels. If car X put down 300rwhp, without making any assumptions about BHP... are you going to assume it:

-Has a "normal" loss of 8% - for a total of 324bhp
or
-Has a "normal" loss of ~15% for a total of 345bhp

Given the fact that there is *plenty* of historical data supporting average loss >8% and <22%, the larger number is going to be the most accurate rating based on the metrics given.


/Cliffs: We all bitch at each other, but yet the dyno numbers I posted haven't changed
MadMaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:19 AM   #104
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
Awesome... only problem is that has nothing to do with the actual discussion.
Here, let's rescope - since it seems that the actual discussion is getting skewed with data points that don't have relevance.

Subjective: "V6 camaro dyno numbers are low"

Scoping: Initial review - They're spot on for the AF mix, tire size, temp, dyno type and miles on chassis @ 18% (automatic) loss. I would expect these numbers to be combined with other future pulls from other cars, in order to get a collection metrics from which conclusions can be drawn.

Contention: Car X only has 8% driveline loss... that is the "norm"

Resolution: We've already shown that this is not the case with any production vehicle, 8% is a totally fictitious number based on the flawed logic that BHP calculations from the manufacturer are a constant.

Rwhp numbers are used to compare with the horsepower claims of the manufacture (assuming we're talking about baseline pulls in a stock vehicle) in addition to calculating gains made by outside influences. This number can either be higher, or lower, than the manufacturer claims. In the examples posted, it's clear that the manufacture under-rated the power output of their engine in that specific chassis. It does NOT however illustrate, in any way shape or form, that the it was the driveline loss percentage that changes, rather than the initial evaluation of the bhp rating.

If we need to, we can illustrate the inverse of this rwhp calculation.... that is, listing engine HP calculation based on torque output delivered at the wheels. If car X put down 300rwhp, without making any assumptions about BHP... are you going to assume it:

-Has a "normal" loss of 8% - for a total of 324bhp
or
-Has a "normal" loss of ~15% for a total of 345bhp

Given the fact that there is *plenty* of historical data supporting average loss >8% and <22%, the larger number is going to be the most accurate rating based on the metrics given.


/Cliffs: We all bitch at each other, but yet the dyno numbers I posted haven't changed
you're a lost cause. you're contradicting real world facts. there is obviously no talking to you. i'm done. if you cant accept real world facts there is no sense in even going back and forth.
fdjizm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:25 AM   #105
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 Ninjak View Post
Well proof is in the pudding as they say. Here is a 2010GT bone stock, running 13.36@105MPH. He had 3:73 install from the factory. Have to say that is a far cry from 14's...here is the thread.

http://www.modularfords.com/forums/s...d.php?t=135615

Dyno numbers are...just that. Numbers. Its a whole different story on the track.
Rock on. So we've gone from discussing the metrics of dyno calculation to somehow getting stuck on mustang numbers (up until this point, it was 05-09 but what ever). I'm glad they're running low/mid 13's out of the box, and that ford actually gives decent gearing ratios (their track package is pretty slick). None of this has any bearing on the actual dyno numbers for the camaro chassis.... but it's all good.

My 99 GTS ran a 11.9 the 2nd day I had it, bone stock down to the original pilot sports and air filters. Good times... miss that car :(
MadMaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:27 AM   #106
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
you're a lost cause. you're contradicting real world facts. there is obviously no talking to you. i'm done. if you cant accept real world facts there is no sense in even going back and forth.
Sweet. If you end up buying an LS/LT, please add your numbers to the mix. Regardless of who says what when bantering back and forth, the end goal is still the same -- data collection on a new platform.
MadMaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:41 AM   #107
rolnslo
Rolling along...
 
rolnslo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS SGM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 4,344
I'm sorry but what were we discussing here... Oh, yeah, that's right...v6 2010 Camaro dyno results!

What's all this banter about the super low friction Mustang V8 HP numbers???? In a v6 Camaro thread too...You'd think Mustang owners are scared of a lowly v6 Camaro....my how times have changed.

Back to our regular "Camaro V6 LLT Engine and Powertrain Discussion"....
__________________
rolnslo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:41 AM   #108
Ninjak
Banned
 
Drives: 08 GT Mustang | 65 GT Notchbac
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Miami Florida
Posts: 819
Quote:
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!
That is your statement Maxx. I posted the track times because they are well beneath what you are stating here. There are quite a few more threads on other forums where people are running 13.5~13.7 with 3:31 gears and 3:55. So yes dyno numbers...blah blah blah. I am not going to jump into that convo, but I will still say, no matter what the dyno says, that is just a tuning tool. The track is what matters.
Ninjak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:42 AM   #109
Ninjak
Banned
 
Drives: 08 GT Mustang | 65 GT Notchbac
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Miami Florida
Posts: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolnslo View Post
I'm sorry but what were we discussing here... Oh, yeah, that's right...v6 2010 Camaro dyno results!

What's all this banter about the super low friction Mustang V8 HP numbers???? In a v6 Camaro thread too...You'd think Mustang owners are scared of a lowly v6 Camaro....my how times have changed.

Back to our regular "Camaro V6 LLT Engine and Powertrain Discussion"....


Read the entire thread and you will see how this topic came up.
Ninjak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:46 AM   #110
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 Ninjak View Post
That is your statement Maxx. I posted the track times because they are well beneath what you are stating here. There are quite a few more threads on other forums where people are running 13.5~13.7 with 3:31 gears and 3:55. So yes dyno numbers...blah blah blah. I am not going to jump into that convo, but I will still say, no matter what the dyno says, that is just a tuning tool. The track is what matters.
I agree whole heartedly -- I've been saying that the dyno results were secondary to what the machine could actually produce on a track. I was under the impression that they (again,5 years ago when I was going to buy one) were in the very low 14's/high 13's -- apparently that isn't the case, and I'm actually *GLAD* they're faster than I thought they were. That reinforces the stance that ford put together a nice under-rated engine combo...but it's still a far cry from some magical <9% loss number. That was my whole problem here... the number cruncher in me couldn't let that one slide

If anyone else has an LS/LT (especially when the 6spds hit!) *please* get it up on the rollers or on the track I've got to try and get up to the rock here soon for some shakedown passes.

Cheers!
MadMaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:50 AM   #111
rolnslo
Rolling along...
 
rolnslo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS SGM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 4,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjak View Post


Read the entire thread and you will see how this topic came up.


I've been following the whole flippin thread. It diverged into the Mustang v8 numbers when this post was made by fdjizm:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fdjizm View Post
Dyno seems a bit low, whats the drivetrain loss on this thing? for 304 hp i would expect to see dyno's in the 280's
He started this threadjacking....
__________________
rolnslo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:54 AM   #112
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 rolnslo View Post


I've been following the whole flippin thread. It diverged into the Mustang v8 numbers when this post was made by fdjizm:

He started this threadjacking....
His logic was as follows:
----
Mustang is rated at 300bhp
Plants the rollers at 280rwhp

Obviously the 304hp camaro should be higher!

Failure point in the logic structure:
------
300bhp mustang is not actually 300bhp, as proven (a few times now) to be higher based on pulls. The camaro on the other hand is *certified* at 304hp.
Hugh difference when trying to use something that is variable as a known constant vs. a solid known constant...

Good threadjack though. Like I said, in the end... I'm just posting up what I find as I go through this chassis. The only place to go is up from my initial numbers
MadMaxx 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 89 02-20-2015 08:43 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 09:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.