Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Phastek 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 06-24-2010, 08:30 PM   #71
ALLTRBO
 
ALLTRBO's Avatar
 
Drives: V8 up front and 7-spd out back FTW
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by SummitWhiteLS View Post


First of all, what exactly is "drive shaft" hp? I heard of "crank" hp and "whp" hp, but that's it.

Second, there is NO FREAKING WAY that our v6 (or any other production engine) is going to make an EXTRA 70 hp at the crank with just race gas.

Not gonna happen. Nope.

That guy either didn't know what he was talking about, or he was just plain lying.

I mean, think about it ...

Q: If a supercharger usually adds around 90-100 hp at the crank, then how can just changing to race gas in an otherwise stock engine gonna give someone 3/4 of that?

A: It Can't.
+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurdib View Post
Then I guess you know more then the perfomance engineers then right
If the performance engineers are honestly saying otherwise, then yes, he knows more than them in this regard.
Now... I'm an engineer with the GM Performance Division.
Well actually, I'm not. But see how easy it was to say that I am?
Think about it this way...
"Someone from an internet forum said he met a guy who claimed he worked for the GM Performance Division who told him secret inside GM information."

Heh... Don't believe everything you hear or read on the internet (or anywhere else), there are millions of ways that info could be (and often is) flawed.

If the said guy actually was what he said he was, he was either lying, or he is an idiot. The latter would put him right on par with many of the engineers I directly work with at NASA, no joke.

Renke, two different dyno's giving you two different results is the norm. From what I've observed on a dyno, 87 octane does make my car knock and pull timing so I'm not saying your results are impossible, just invalid. Make the same test on the same dyno in the same conditions with the same setup (after running through a full tank of the different octane), then you'll have a clearer picture of what's actually going on.

So much mis-information. It never ends. :(
ALLTRBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2010, 08:43 PM   #72
dannkimmel
 
dannkimmel's Avatar
 
Drives: 1lt,rjt,m6 &2004 harley
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kendall ny
Posts: 96
with reguards toward... renke...and his dyno runs the fact that you have two differant types of dynos at two differant locations means you have no zero not a bit of usable information.
it would take a single dyno with many runs and with as little differances in weather conditions .
switching from one octane to the other.
this would still be a matter for debate but closer to the reality.

just fyi..im trained on the dynojet dyno and use it every day...mototrcycles but for this conversation it dosent matter.
ive seen the same bike produce differant power just by a day going by and barometric pressure, air temp and humidity changeing.

i started useing 89 it seems to run better...but i cant prove it.
dannkimmel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2010, 08:46 PM   #73
dannkimmel
 
dannkimmel's Avatar
 
Drives: 1lt,rjt,m6 &2004 harley
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kendall ny
Posts: 96
alltrbo ......you beat me to it sorry for the repete
dannkimmel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 11:45 AM   #74
renke
IN10ZRS
 
renke's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Victory Red 2LT RS #39698
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 60
For Spyderbuddy,

I actuall came up with the same number of 335 with 92 octane. The guys at St. Paul Automotive who ran the car on the Mustang dyno said to expect 20-30 HP less than the DynoJet results before we ran the dyno and when it came out to 264 rwhp they conld not believe it and ran it 4 more times. I realize that the runs were on two different dynos. Next year the 100 octane run will be on the same Mustang Dyno. For now I am not going to do anything to the car. Also to answer the person who doubted the GM engineer claim, he parked next to me in the lot at MID America Automotive and was driving the GM High Performance Semi and had the orange and black GM Performance clothes. Either way I will settle the issue for my car on the next dyno runs with 100 octane. The GM shop manuals provide a lot of the theory behind the design of the 3.2 L V6 and bears out the engineers story.
__________________
IN10ZRS
renke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 12:03 PM   #75
Maurdib

 
Maurdib's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Black Camaro 2LT/RS Auto
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 751
Quote:
Originally Posted by renke View Post
For Spyderbuddy,

I actuall came up with the same number of 335 with 92 octane. The guys at St. Paul Automotive who ran the car on the Mustang dyno said to expect 20-30 HP less than the DynoJet results before we ran the dyno and when it came out to 264 rwhp they conld not believe it and ran it 4 more times. I realize that the runs were on two different dynos. Next year the 100 octane run will be on the same Mustang Dyno. For now I am not going to do anything to the car. Also to answer the person who doubted the GM engineer claim, he parked next to me in the lot at MID America Automotive and was driving the GM High Performance Semi and had the orange and black GM Performance clothes. Either way I will settle the issue for my car on the next dyno runs with 100 octane. The GM shop manuals provide a lot of the theory behind the design of the 3.2 L V6 and bears out the engineers story.

Cool don't forget to let us know when you get that Dyno pull
__________________
BackInBlack
Performance:Vararam cold air intake
Maurdib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 12:05 PM   #76
renke
IN10ZRS
 
renke's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Victory Red 2LT RS #39698
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 60
Will do and I will scan all of the dyno sheets an post them.
__________________
IN10ZRS
renke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 01:20 PM   #77
spyderbuddy


 
spyderbuddy's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 RS Inferno Orange Metallic
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Albany, Ga.
Posts: 3,399
thanks
__________________
PCP Hideaway Headlight Covers, BBK Headers & High Flow Cats, ZL1 Add-ons Wicker Bill, TL1/ZL1 Hood Insert, Gen5 DIY Frameless Mirror, ABL Dash Lighting an My link Navigation, Blacked out Rear Bowtie, all Sylvania led Turn Signals, Ceramic Window Tint By Nicks, MBRP Exhaust tips, GEN5 DIY Virginia Legal DRL Harness, Painted Brake Calipers, Vittesse Throttle Controller, Heritage Grill, Diode Dynamics Led Lighting, Manual Shifter Boot, Paddle Shifters, CNC Throttle Body, Trifecta Tune, RX Catch Can & Breather, Trunk Black out and Side Grills, Chevorlet door Sills.
spyderbuddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 02:17 PM   #78
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
Interesting stuff...

Even if there is some truth to this 100 octane story, wouldn't you think there is a probability that the factory tune of the ECM might hold back your results?

Maybe this GM tech dude meant to say more of what the engine may be capable of with (what I'll call) an 'unlocked' tune, versus what GM has on it from the factory?

There are some here whom think the computer is basically only allowing so much torque, and unlocking that barrier would open up all new possibilities.

Also, assuming the high octane myth is true, shouldn't other guys here who are running CAI, exhaust, headers, and tune AND 93 octane be dynoing at nearly 290 to 300 rwhp if your stock car did 264? They're not.

I'm not saying I don't at all believe there isn't some key yet to be found to unlocking the V6's potential, but I just think in your case that the possibility of moving from one dyno to another (plus some help from the 02 octane) is more likely the cause of seeing the big number changes.

Lets not forget that the new ford V6 also produces quite a bit more HP than TQ numbers, just like our V6. What is it about these engines that causes them to produce much high HP numbers than TQ, when traditional engines produced higher TQ than HP?? (for example, the outgoing ford 4.0. 210 horse, but 240 TQ!) Is ford holding back that engine as well? Or is it just the design and thats that?
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 03:16 PM   #79
SummitWhiteLS
 
SummitWhiteLS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Mustang V6 Automatic
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
... Even if there is some truth to this 100 octane story
There can't be.

It's ridiculous to believe that by simply changing from 93 to 100 octane, that an engine is gonna pick up 75 hp at the crank.

Snake oil stuff being sold by that "engineer" ...
SummitWhiteLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 04:03 PM   #80
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by SummitWhiteLS View Post
There can't be.

It's ridiculous to believe that by simply changing from 93 to 100 octane, that an engine is gonna pick up 75 hp at the crank.

Snake oil stuff being sold by that "engineer" ...
I agree with you...but thinking about it lead me to thinking about more stuff which I posted above lol...so I just wrote out all my thoughts!
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 04:08 PM   #81
renke
IN10ZRS
 
renke's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Victory Red 2LT RS #39698
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 60
The difference of 23 HP is from 87 to 92 Octane and it shows up in the higher RPM's (3000 to 6500). The torque numbers are basically flat from 2000 and up due to the VVT 10 degree advance which comes in at 2000. The V6, in my opinion was meant to be a road car because the power is only available above 2000 RPM, where the V8, push rod high torque low RPM design is the old style muscle car.

During the Hot Hod Power Tour, in TN I was folowing 4 late model corvette's and a Mustang GT 500. For 30 plus minutes I was running in second and third between 2000 and 6300 RPM and nobody was able to pull away from anyone else. It was like living a road race video game. I only had to tap the brakes twice. It is amazing how the engine pulls through the curves and slows the car when you let off the gas. My point is it is really a first class road car with the V6, but trying to due burnouts with the V6 A6 is embarrising at times. I have had the experience of blowing out a torque converter and I do not want to do this to my new car. The only thing I would change is the color to Aqua Blue. Very nice car above!
Attached Images
  
__________________
IN10ZRS
renke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 04:27 PM   #82
renke
IN10ZRS
 
renke's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Victory Red 2LT RS #39698
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 60
Dyno sheets

First is with 87, 2nd and 3rd are 92 Octane.
Attached Images
   
__________________
IN10ZRS
renke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 04:42 PM   #83
ALLTRBO
 
ALLTRBO's Avatar
 
Drives: V8 up front and 7-spd out back FTW
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by renke View Post
Also to answer the person who doubted the GM engineer claim, he parked next to me in the lot at MID America Automotive and was driving the GM High Performance Semi and had the orange and black GM Performance clothes.
So a GM engineer is also a GM semi-truck driver, huh? Boy I hope he gets paid double-time.
As I went on to say earlier, even if he was a GM Performance Division engineer, he's lying or he's an idiot.
I patiently await your 100 octane results. That might prove informative even though it won't give you anywhere near 70 extra horsepower vs. 87 octane.
I wish I had 100 octane around here. I'd do it next week.

Quote:
Originally Posted by renke View Post
During the Hot Hod Power Tour, in TN I was folowing 4 late model corvette's and a Mustang GT 500. For 30 plus minutes I was running in second and third between 2000 and 6300 RPM and nobody was able to pull away from anyone else.
ALLTRBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2010, 09:19 PM   #84
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 13,941
renke...thanks for the comments on my ABM color! I think your car looks dang sharp too! I have a few nice blown up shots of my car on my profile page..check em out!
__________________
2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties
2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)
KMPrenger 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
V6 Camaro Performance Upgrades rtcat600man Camaro V6 LLT Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 387 09-19-2019 06:53 PM
GM nears completion of twin-turbo V6 (LF3) to combat Ford’s new EcoBoost engine Tran 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 91 01-11-2011 07:37 PM
V6, A6 Guys, I think I found the MPG sweet spot Maurdib 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 23 05-11-2010 06:31 PM
Lowering springs and rear gears V6 information macwest 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 12 04-30-2010 10:58 PM
2010 Camaro SS & V6 Line Lock/Roll Control Meister@Torq Suspension / Chassis / Brakes 0 02-23-2010 11:27 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.