V6 Camaro Dyno numbers are in!!

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by MadMaxx

306*.82 (which is 18% loss, ) = 249.28

Within ~3hp of average loss on a automatic, which is 18%. Humidity, dyno type and the age of the engine *DO* play a large role. Also, the super-rich condition of the run doesn't help the total numbers either. The ECU may still be learning, so again...take everything w/ a grain of salt.

Just so we're clear, the caddy 261rwhp mark was done through a manual on a dynajet if memory serves

Anyone who claims they dyno'd 276rwhp (That is 8% driveline loss...pretty much a miracle) on an engine rated at 300bhp is either:

1) lying
2) had a dyno operator who didn't know what they were doing

Cheers

well i guess that miracle is pretty much standard then lol it's been done and has become normal.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by MadMaxx

306*.82 (which is 18% loss, ) = 249.28

Within ~3hp of average loss on a automatic, which is 18%. Humidity, dyno type and the age of the engine *DO* play a large role. Also, the super-rich condition of the run doesn't help the total numbers either. The ECU may still be learning, so again...take everything w/ a grain of salt.

Just so we're clear, the caddy 261rwhp mark was done through a manual on a dynajet if memory serves

Anyone who claims they dyno'd 276rwhp (That is 8% driveline loss...pretty much a miracle) on an engine rated at 300bhp is either:

1) lying
2) had a dyno operator who didn't know what they were doing

Cheers

The 4.6 in the mustang is not SAE Certified, so it is possible to be underrated some.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

thats like standard.. lol google it.

here is 280 stock s197
http://allfordmustangs.com/forums/20...yno-today.html



here is 278 stock s197



i can find more if you want? any questions?
stock s197 dyno #'s = 270-280 on average

I'd hardly count that dynapak one because of the spike.

But I do agree in that I've seen the average right around 270 as well though.

[MadMaxx]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

well i guess that miracle is pretty much standard then lol it's been done and has become normal.

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.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by MadMaxx

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.

maybe the cars HP is underrated?

[JohnnyBfromPeoria]

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.

[JohnnyBfromPeoria]

Forgot to ask and I didn't remember reading either way, but will this installation be intercooled?

John B.

[MadMaxx]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

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.

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by MadMaxx

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

[MadMaxx]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

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]

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.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by MadMaxx

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).

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by MadMaxx

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...

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

[ckaram]

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...