Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
ADM PERFORMANCE
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 05-27-2009, 01:43 PM   #71
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
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.
fdjizm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 02:00 PM   #72
THE EVIL TW1N
Banned
 
Drives: 2003 Cobra Convertible
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 2,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMaxx View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 02:03 PM   #73
THE EVIL TW1N
Banned
 
Drives: 2003 Cobra Convertible
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 2,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdjizm View Post
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.
THE EVIL TW1N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 02:53 PM   #74
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
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.
MadMaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:04 PM   #75
Brokinarrow


 
Brokinarrow's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 Honda NC700x
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianola, IA
Posts: 5,318
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.
maybe the cars HP is underrated?
__________________
Brokinarrow is offline   Reply With Quote
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: 2,047
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: 2,047
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: 1,830
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, LS1 & T56, Texas Speed 228R cam, 3.73 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
 
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 08:29 PM.


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