How much torque does the z28 really have?

[Camaro68396]

I've seen both 481 ft/lbs and 471 ft/lbs in magazines. Which is the real amount?

[McRat]

Nobody will know until the dyno results after break-in start to appear.

I remember getting into a pissing contest on the Interwebbythingy with John K of MotorTrend about why they don't do real dyno testing for their articles. He said it costs too much. Really? I mean REALLY? Many dyno shops would be happy to do mag tests for free to get some ink about their shop.

I get a good deal with Westech Performance because I send them business. I get free dyno time with PPE because I get them ink in mags.

There have been SO many wrong MFR horsepower claims. The fact the mags just spew the Brochure numbers is a disservice to the automotive performance consumer.

Classic recent cases?

Mazda RX-8? dyno'd so bad that they had to offer buyers their money back.
1999 Ford Cobra was so low, they issued a voluntarily recall and fix.
The 4th Gen Fbodies dyno'd very high. But people bought Mustangs because the brochure numbers were the same as the Fbody.

[LehmanZ06]

481 is the number

[McRat]

The Corvette Museum says 475lb-ft:

http://www.corvettemuseum.org/specs/2006/LS7.shtml

[LehmanZ06]

That was the motor in a corvette, slightly different in the Z28 application.

LS7 has different headers in the Z28 and a K and N like intake.
I believe on the Chevy site they quote 481 lbs in the Z28

[toehead93]

I personally think putting chassis dyno numbers in a magazine is a really bad idea, there are so many factors that it is impossible to get an accurate number from car to car from day to day Etc. Chassis dynos are just a tool for tuning and to get an idea of power gains. Engine dynos are very accurate and expensive to do which is why only a handful of tuning shops have one. I know Texas Speed has one and has done some back to back testing of specific products in the v8 section.

[b4z]

The ls7 in the z is a little bit different than the one in the vette. The z's ls7 has less rotating mass.

[DGthe3]

http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro-z28.html

481 ft-lbs

Originally Posted by McRat

Nobody will know until the dyno results after break-in start to appear.

I remember getting into a pissing contest on the Interwebbythingy with John K of MotorTrend about why they don't do real dyno testing for their articles. He said it costs too much. Really? I mean REALLY? Many dyno shops would be happy to do mag tests for free to get some ink about their shop.

I get a good deal with Westech Performance because I send them business. I get free dyno time with PPE because I get them ink in mags.

There have been SO many wrong MFR horsepower claims. The fact the mags just spew the Brochure numbers is a disservice to the automotive performance consumer.

Classic recent cases?

Mazda RX-8? dyno'd so bad that they had to offer buyers their money back.
1999 Ford Cobra was so low, they issued a voluntarily recall and fix.
The 4th Gen Fbodies dyno'd very high. But people bought Mustangs because the brochure numbers were the same as the Fbody.

SAE certification has a smaller margin of error than than calculating crank numbers from a chassis dyno does.

[2012 Mustang GT]

Originally Posted by McRat

Nobody will know until the dyno results after break-in start to appear.

I remember getting into a pissing contest on the Interwebbythingy with John K of MotorTrend about why they don't do real dyno testing for their articles. He said it costs too much. Really? I mean REALLY? Many dyno shops would be happy to do mag tests for free to get some ink about their shop.

I get a good deal with Westech Performance because I send them business. I get free dyno time with PPE because I get them ink in mags.

There have been SO many wrong MFR horsepower claims. The fact the mags just spew the Brochure numbers is a disservice to the automotive performance consumer.

Classic recent cases?

Mazda RX-8? dyno'd so bad that they had to offer buyers their money back.
1999 Ford Cobra was so low, they issued a voluntarily recall and fix.
The 4th Gen Fbodies dyno'd very high. But people bought Mustangs because the brochure numbers were the same as the Fbody.

People bought Mustangs because the 4th Gen was garbage....
And no 2 dyno's read the same... The Mags spew brochure numbers b/c that's what the manufactures say they are rated at.

[DRKS1D3]

Originally Posted by 2012 Mustang GT

People bought Mustangs because the 4th Gen was garbage....
And no 2 dyno's read the same... The Mags spew brochure numbers b/c that's what the manufactures say they are rated at.

Here we go...

[McRat]

Originally Posted by 2012 Mustang GT

People bought Mustangs because the 4th Gen was garbage....
And no 2 dyno's read the same... The Mags spew brochure numbers b/c that's what the manufactures say they are rated at.

As someone who was racing AutoX and Drag Racing constantly in that time period, as well as running all-brand dyno days at Brother's (a Mustang Performance shop) I can assure you the dismal ET's at the track, and the foul handling at the track is what got the Mustang Cobra owners in a tizzy and caused the 03 Terminator to be built.

It was simply useless to compete in FS with a Mustang. All the top entries were Fbodies. And few stock 1999 Cobras ever saw a 13 second time slip, when most the LS1 Fbodies were in solidly in the mid 13's, and hotshoes were running high 12's stock. For me, 12.89, and I wasn't the fastest.

[72MachOne99GT]

Recent: 1999

Does not compute

[McRat]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro-z28.html

481 ft-lbs
SAE certification has a smaller margin of error than than calculating crank numbers from a chassis dyno does.

Unless the MFR deliberately listed wrong numbers, or did not use the newest formula. GM was the first company to embrace the new, more pessimist SAE procedure, J2723B?

[McRat]

Originally Posted by 72MachOne99GT

Recent: 1999

Does not compute

Recent to me means the Second HP war, which is still in full swing.