Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons

Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons Bolt-Ons | Intakes | Exhaust

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-15-2007, 12:47 PM   #1
necromant
 
Drives: Honda Civic
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 8
Will the Camaro have the Horses GM claims?

hey,

i like the styling of cars like the new mustang, camaro...

and i like the fact that they have lots of power for a good price!

until i watched this:



the mustang gt500 was dyoned with 440 hp. how lame is that!?
it's a v8, it has lots of displacement AND a supercharger, those machines should have MORE power than the spec sheet says!!!!

is that a ford-only problem?
do gm engines generally have the power they should have?

thank god that the camaro gets a full rear-suspension...

greetings from europe
necromant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 12:56 PM   #2
Casull

 
Casull's Avatar
 
Drives: Chevy Silverado
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by necromant View Post
hey,

i like the styling of cars like the new mustang, camaro...

and i like the fact that they have lots of power for a good price!

until i watched this:



the mustang gt500 was dyoned with 440 hp. how lame is that!?
it's a v8, it has lots of displacement AND a supercharger, those machines should have MORE power than the spec sheet says!!!!

is that a ford-only problem?
do gm engines generally have the power they should have?

thank god that the camaro gets a full rear-suspension...

greetings from europe


Not quite sure, but it sounds like they are equating rear-wheel horsepower with horsepower at the flywheel. The GT500 makes 500 Horse at the flywheel. No car makes the same amount of power at the wheels as it does at the flywheel, so naturally the dyno is going to report fewer horsepower. 440HP at the wheels sounds about right.

Whats more, is that every GT500 you put on the dyno is going to report different power ratings because every car is unique and there are a lot of variables that go into the powerloss through the drivetrain.
Casull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 01:05 PM   #3
necromant
 
Drives: Honda Civic
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 8
that's completly true, i know the difference between whp and hp, but i think the pro's of that tv show know that too!? well, they should...
necromant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 01:21 PM   #4
Casull

 
Casull's Avatar
 
Drives: Chevy Silverado
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by necromant View Post
that's completly true, i know the difference between whp and hp, but i think the pro's of that tv show know that too!? well, they should...
Yes, they should.... If they expected the GT500 to lay down 500 HP on the dyno then they are living in a fantasy land.

EDIT: If I remember right the average power loss from flywheel to rearwheel is about 13%. If the GT500 dynoed at 440HP, that is a 12% loss which is pretty good. Even if the Camaro loses 13%, and it has the 425HP that is anticipated out of the LS3, then it will still make approx 370HP at the wheels.... I'll take that!
Casull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 01:35 PM   #5
rray200
 
rray200's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Trac
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 287
Ford is notorious for overrating the horsepower of their cars. They had quite an embarassing scandal back in the late '90s with their Cobra Mustang which claimed to put down 320 HP at the crank, but was dynoing at around 190-200 HP at the wheels. All those cars had to be recalled and fixed and Ford stopped making the Cobra for 2 years before re-introducing it in 2001. Plus, the 2005 Mustang GTs were on average, only dynoing at 245-250 at the wheel, despite a claim of 300 HP at the crank. In '06, they fixed the problem and now they dyno between 265-270 wheel HP, which is correct for a 300 HP car. Drivetrain loss should never be more than 35 HP.

The Shelby GT500s 440 HP at the wheel is pathetic for a 500 HP car, especially one that weighs over 4100 pounds. I mean the Z06 gets 475 HP at the wheel with the LS7.

GM on the other hand generally tends to be very accurate or underrates the power in their performance cars. Certainly the LS1 F-bodies can lay testament to that, with cars rated at 325 HP, but many dynoing 310+ at the wheels, bone stock.
rray200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 03:23 PM   #6
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,786
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Good ole GM. They do the right thing and be modest, and the magazines probably tore them apart for having less reported power than Ford. Well, such is life...:p
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 07:01 PM   #7
3whiterag
GM Powertrain Retired
 
3whiterag's Avatar
 
Drives: 67SS350, 87 IROC L98, 96SS ver
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Niagara, Canada
Posts: 352
Has anyone seen the latest ( May) issue of Hot Rod magazine? Makes you think doesn't it?
3whiterag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 08:52 AM   #8
35th02ss
 
35th02ss's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 SS
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wallops Island, VA
Posts: 743
Most of the cars Gm makes are under rated. So yes i think it will have that if not more. Look at the LS1 cars most were way over the 305hp rating.
35th02ss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 10:48 AM   #9
Dave McFly
*new car smell*
 
Dave McFly's Avatar
 
Drives: 2007 Ford Mustang 'Natasha'
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Jamestown, NY
Posts: 2,068
Send a message via ICQ to Dave McFly Send a message via AIM to Dave McFly Send a message via MSN to Dave McFly Send a message via Yahoo to Dave McFly Send a message via Skype™ to Dave McFly
Talking

35th02ss you are correct sir, gm even to this day says their engines put out less than they really do. my 2004 monte carlo with a 3.4 ohv V6 is rated at 180-185 at the crank, but it feels like it is putting out at least 200 or more. I had a Thunderbird with the 4.6 ohc V8 that put out 200 and it felt like it had the same power, both cars are about the same size and weight, only major difference is the ford is rwd and the chevy is fwd. my brother has a 2004 short wheelbase trailblazer 4wd and that 4200 dohc inline six feels a LOT stronger than the 275 it is rated at .
__________________
I don't like it when the voices in my head are quiet, it means those bastards are up to something
Dave McFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 10:59 AM   #10
ChevyNut
 
ChevyNut's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 SS Camaro Black on Black
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 316
for the 2007 model the trailblazer and GMC envoy is rated at 291. My mom drives a 02 envoy with the same engine and i totaly agree it feels like it has much more power than GM has stated.
ChevyNut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 02:45 PM   #11
Moose
Moderator
 
Moose's Avatar
 
Drives: '99 Camaro SS #1392
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Newtown, Pa.
Posts: 4,015
Just look to the C6 ZO6...making big HP isn't a problem for GM.

I'm not worried at all that the new Camaro will carry on that tradition.
Moose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 02:50 PM   #12
Casull

 
Casull's Avatar
 
Drives: Chevy Silverado
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose View Post
Just look to the C6 ZO6...making big HP isn't a problem for GM.
Not to mention in a very fuel efficient package! How many cars make over 500 hp and still get 26mpg?
Casull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 02:55 PM   #13
Moose
Moderator
 
Moose's Avatar
 
Drives: '99 Camaro SS #1392
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Newtown, Pa.
Posts: 4,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casull View Post
Not to mention in a very fuel efficient package! How many cars make over 500 hp and still get 26mpg?
Great point!
Moose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2007, 07:10 PM   #14
IROC'em
 
IROC'em's Avatar
 
Drives: Chevy 1500 5.7L Vortec
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: FL, Go gators!
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3whiterag View Post
Has anyone seen the latest ( May) issue of Hot Rod magazine? Makes you think doesn't it?
And to think I scrolled right over that without realizing. *slaps self* ty mr GM guy
IROC'em is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2007, 03:37 AM   #15
Rock36
I just like V8s
 
Rock36's Avatar
 
Drives: 2007 Corvette Z06
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 919
A couple things:

I think the only problem with the GT500 aside from the weight, is the dealer gouging on the car. It is amazing someone would think that 440 rwhp from a SAE rated 500hp for $41K is pathetic. Well $41K is what it is supposed to cost.

A GT500 IS NOT supposed to compete with a Corvette Z06. There is nothing more to say about that. Just because they both have 500hp does not put them in the same market segment.

The GT500 coupe still comes in just a hair under 4000lbs, it is the vert that weighs 4100lbs+. I'm spiliting hairs, but I'm being accurate.

The 1999 Cobra was overrated, but Ford implemented a fix, and it was indeed a black eye for SVT. However, that was the only year the Ford Mustang Cobra had that issue.

The 2003-2004 Mach 1 was rated at 305hp from the factory, but makes around 285 rwhp. So either it has only 6.5% drive train loss or is underrated. I'm guessing it is underrated. Just providing a counter-example to the claim that Fords are overrated.

I'm well aware how underrated the LS1 F-bodies were, but saying a car feels faster that it is rated is pointless. Your butt dyno is no more accurate than mine.

EDIT: I didn't join this site merely to defend Mustangs or anything, but being a guy that is involved with both the Ford and Chevy communities there is a lot of misinformation and skewed perspectives on both sides. I don't want anyone to think I am here being a troll especially since I haven't bashed the Camaro. I just might end up owning a new Camaro, but that doesn't change facts.
__________________
"Anyone know who sells the driver mods?"

2007 Corvette Z06: Le Mans blue, 2LZ

Rock36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2007, 07:55 AM   #16
Casull

 
Casull's Avatar
 
Drives: Chevy Silverado
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock36 View Post
A couple things:

I think the only problem with the GT500 aside from the weight, is the dealer gouging on the car. It is amazing someone would think that 440 rwhp from a SAE rated 500hp for $41K is pathetic. Well $41K is what it is supposed to cost.

A GT500 IS NOT supposed to compete with a Corvette Z06. There is nothing more to say about that. Just because they both have 500hp does not put them in the same market segment.

The GT500 coupe still comes in just a hair under 4000lbs, it is the vert that weighs 4100lbs+. I'm spiliting hairs, but I'm being accurate.

The 1999 Cobra was overrated, but Ford implemented a fix, and it was indeed a black eye for SVT. However, that was the only year the Ford Mustang Cobra had that issue.

The 2003-2004 Mach 1 was rated at 305hp from the factory, but makes around 285 rwhp. So either it has only 6.5% drive train loss or is underrated. I'm guessing it is underrated. Just providing a counter-example to the claim that Fords are overrated.

I'm well aware how underrated the LS1 F-bodies were, but saying a car feels faster that it is rated is pointless. Your butt dyno is no more accurate than mine.

EDIT: I didn't join this site merely to defend Mustangs or anything, but being a guy that is involved with both the Ford and Chevy communities there is a lot of misinformation and skewed perspectives on both sides. I don't want anyone to think I am here being a troll especially since I haven't bashed the Camaro. I just might end up owning a new Camaro, but that doesn't change facts.




I had actually started typing a response to the "it feels stronger than it is rated' comments above, but about 1/2 way in I decided to delete the post because I couldn't find a way to say what you said without sounding like a complete jerk. But I have to say I literally laughed out loud when i read that!

I agree BTW.....

As for defending the Mustang... it is all good! It is good to have someone around that can speak intelligently about the Mustang.
Casull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2007, 11:44 AM   #17
TAG UR IT
www.Camaro5store.com
 
TAG UR IT's Avatar
 
Drives: THRSS #2 / CGM#1
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SA, Texas
Posts: 26,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock36 View Post
I'm well aware how underrated the LS1 F-bodies were, but saying a car feels faster that it is rated is pointless. Your butt dyno is no more accurate than mine.

EDIT: I didn't join this site merely to defend Mustangs or anything, but being a guy that is involved with both the Ford and Chevy communities there is a lot of misinformation and skewed perspectives on both sides. I don't want anyone to think I am here being a troll especially since I haven't bashed the Camaro. I just might end up owning a new Camaro, but that doesn't change facts.
BUTT DYNO... Funny and true.

You make good points which are valid. Ford has been both under and over rated in their hp claims. I can understand a car co. wanting to under rate their hp in a particular vehicle to assist the buyer in saving a few bucks on their car insurance in order to actually be able to afford owning the car.

But, the practice of over rating a vehicles hp to sell more cars and make the veh more desireable is very poor practice and is a slap in the face to the unsuspecting new owner.

It's obvious you are not a troll and you do bring good points/discussion. Personally, I'm not a Ford guy, but still respect the muscle car that it is. Hopefully you do end up owning a new Camaro!
__________________
The build of THRSS #2
TAG UR IT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2007, 01:43 PM   #18
KILLER74Z28
MOD SQUAD
 
KILLER74Z28's Avatar
 
Drives: 2G1FT1EW9A9100666
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 5,662
Exactly, When the green light drops, the “BULL SHIT” stops…

This world is full of gullible individuals… “It has to be true, I read it on the internet”.
KILLER74Z28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2007, 06:00 PM   #19
IROC'em
 
IROC'em's Avatar
 
Drives: Chevy 1500 5.7L Vortec
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: FL, Go gators!
Posts: 172
The Mr GM guy 3whiterag thinks the May issue of Hot Rod magazine is a good indicator of the HP.

Im telling you that means its prolly gonna be almost exactly what the mag says.
IROC'em is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2007, 07:15 PM   #20
Casull

 
Casull's Avatar
 
Drives: Chevy Silverado
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by IROC'em View Post
The Mr GM guy 3whiterag thinks the May issue of Hot Rod magazine is a good indicator of the HP.

Im telling you that means its prolly gonna be almost exactly what the mag says.
Problem is that the mg doesn't really give us more than we already knew other than the 550HP s/c version. It says it will have the 6.2 LS3 capable of over 400 hp... which I would hope is true since the LS2 gets 400....
Casull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 01:46 AM   #21
TAG UR IT
www.Camaro5store.com
 
TAG UR IT's Avatar
 
Drives: THRSS #2 / CGM#1
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SA, Texas
Posts: 26,225
To answer the threads question....Yes.

If GM claims the Camaro will have X amount of hp, then it's fairly reasonable to assume that the production version will have close to, if not more hp than what they state.
__________________
The build of THRSS #2
TAG UR IT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 08:27 AM   #22
Casull

 
Casull's Avatar
 
Drives: Chevy Silverado
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAG UR IT View Post
To answer the threads question....Yes.

If GM claims the Camaro will have X amount of hp, then it's fairly reasonable to assume that the production version will have close to, if not more hp than what they state.
At the very most we will see a pretty typical amount of drivetrain loss but nothing like the Fords previously mentioned. If you look at the C6 and GTO that utilize the LS2, neither of them put down 400 to the wheels. The majority of the vettes put down anywhere from 340-380 to the wheels.
Casull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 09:17 AM   #23
rray200
 
rray200's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Trac
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casull View Post
At the very most we will see a pretty typical amount of drivetrain loss but nothing like the Fords previously mentioned. If you look at the C6 and GTO that utilize the LS2, neither of them put down 400 to the wheels. The majority of the vettes put down anywhere from 340-380 to the wheels.
So I'm guessing, with the LS3, we'll be looking at a range of about 370-400 HP at the wheels. It would have to be since the LS2s get 340-380 on the dyno. That's going to make for a very scintallating driving experience. I can't wait.
rray200 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2007, 10:14 AM   #24
35th02ss
 
35th02ss's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 SS
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wallops Island, VA
Posts: 743
I would bet anything that if GM claims 400hp than the car will aleast have that, most likely more.

BTW how many auto mans. are using SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) rated motors. Don't worry I'll wait for the answer.
35th02ss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2007, 02:40 PM   #25
MattD
 
Drives: 05 Ford Mustang GT
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by rray200 View Post
Ford is notorious for overrating the horsepower of their cars. They had quite an embarassing scandal back in the late '90s with their Cobra Mustang which claimed to put down 320 HP at the crank, but was dynoing at around 190-200 HP at the wheels. All those cars had to be recalled and fixed and Ford stopped making the Cobra for 2 years before re-introducing it in 2001. Plus, the 2005 Mustang GTs were on average, only dynoing at 245-250 at the wheel, despite a claim of 300 HP at the crank. In '06, they fixed the problem and now they dyno between 265-270 wheel HP, which is correct for a 300 HP car. Drivetrain loss should never be more than 35 HP.

The Shelby GT500s 440 HP at the wheel is pathetic for a 500 HP car, especially one that weighs over 4100 pounds. I mean the Z06 gets 475 HP at the wheel with the LS7.

GM on the other hand generally tends to be very accurate or underrates the power in their performance cars. Certainly the LS1 F-bodies can lay testament to that, with cars rated at 325 HP, but many dynoing 310+ at the wheels, bone stock.

Parasitic loss is based on percentage, and can not be just a number. If I am reading you correctly, then you are saying that if I put an engine in a car that makes 100 hp, then it should dyno between 65-70 to the wheels. And that same car should dyno 465-470 to the wheels if I put a 500hp engine in it.
__________________
Previous F-bodies
86 IROC Z
88 IROC Z
93 Z28 12.40 @ 108mph
97 WS6 11.80 @ 114mph
99 Z28 11.77 @ 114mph

Current F-body
2002 MRM Trans Am
MattD 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
A Message to all Fbody Enthusiasts TAG UR IT 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 12 02-02-2013 07:41 PM
Official Camaro Convertible CONCEPT Press Release Tran Camaro Convertible Forum 12 11-18-2009 07:05 PM
Detroit News panel wants GM to build Camaro concept Tran 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 12 03-15-2009 04:38 PM
Camaro to get "green light" this week! Peco 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 57 10-16-2007 12:01 PM


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


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