Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFS197
I don't think the burden of proof is on him considering the plethora of data that's out there. As he stated earlier, the previous iterations of LS engines were under rated. However, if the adoption of SAE standards from 2006+ is indeed true, then it would stand to reason that the old LS1/2/6 engines would fall in line before this adoption. From here on out, the concept of under rated engines is likely misunderstood these days. More likely, transmissions and their application to the wheels has become more efficient; leading enthusiasts to believe that the engine is under rated when they're still abiding by the old 15% rule.
If you doubt his ascertations, it would behoove you to research the topic yourself as a pose to interjecting a seemingly pretentious snub. Venture on over to LS1tech or any other reputable forum and start scouring around. You'll find the information you're looking for.
|
The SAE rating also includes the accessories which can vary greatly from car to car.
For example the Zl1 does not have hydro power steering but other LSA cars do.
Some of the newest advances in auto tech in the last 10 years have been making the accessories more efficient and thus making the car more efficient.
The variable output alternator comes to mind.
Also, the Hellcat's 8 speed is advertised as being below 10% power train loss and highly efficient.
The LS7 was the first to SAE certified with GM. It came after the LS1/LS2 so obviously the LS1/LS2 was not SAE certified before then. (stands to reason as it is fact and proof already given in this thread)