Go Back   Corvette Forum > C3 Corvettes, 1968 - 1982 > C3 Tech/Performance
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ Vendor Directory
Search
C3 Tech/Performance
V8 Technical Info, Internal Engine, External Engine, Basic Tech and Maintenance for the C3 Corvette Sponsored by
VBP

Welcome to Corvetteforum.com!
Welcome to Corvetteforum.com.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join Corvetteforum.com today!


Corvette Store
 
 
C7 Parts & Accessories
C6 Parts & Accessories
C5 Parts & Accessories
C4 Parts & Accessories
C3 Parts & Accessories
C2 Parts & Accessories
C1 Parts & Accessories
Wheels & Tires
Sponsored Ads
 
 
Vendor Directory
  
Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2011, 10:48 PM   #1
C3PO Vette
Junior Member
 
Member Since: Jun 2011
Default Difference between gross and net hp

I know about the switch from gross to net hp in 1972. My question is a 1970 corvette with 300hp was gross ratings, what would the net ratings be on that 1970. Also, my 1978 has 185hp net, what would that be gross hp? I understand mufflers, belt driven accessories and other variables change hp, but how much?
C3PO Vette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 10:51 PM   #2
MotorHead
CF Senior Member
 
MotorHead's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2000
Location: Never argue with Morons. If you do, you'll lower yourself to their standards, and they'll win, based on experience !!!
Default

If it's a stock setup with stock exhaust your looking at 150 RWHP max. Do allot of ricers surround you at stop lights ?

Sorry misread you would be in the 250HP Gross range
__________________
1980 Corvette, 427ci Motown SBC 465RWHP N/A so far,500 is the goal, AFR 227 Eliminators
T&D Shaft Rockers,Vic Jr, XR286R solid roller,248/254 dur .640" lift 10.6:1 Mahle pistons
Eagle stroker rods, 4 in. Callies DragonSlayer crank, 825 Drag Race Demon, 3 in exhaust
Paint by Dream Car Garage......................................My'70 CUDALotsa ladies and lotsa trouble
MotorHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 12:22 AM   #3
thatcorvetteguy
CF Senior Member
 
thatcorvetteguy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2010
Location: Rexburg Idaho
Default

More like 210hp ish
thatcorvetteguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 12:39 AM   #4
jackson
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 2001
Location: Timmonsville SC
Default

consider this
1971 base L48 rated at 270 GROSS HP
1972 base L48 rated at 200 NET HP

there ain't no significant difference in those two motors' internals, intakes or exhausts; only HOW they're rated. Both have same heads, dish pistons, low-lift hyd cam & QJet.
jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 11:21 AM   #5
jb78L-82
CF Senior Member
 
jb78L-82's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2007
Default

71 hydralic cammed LT-1 was rated at 330 Gross HP and a 72 Hydralic cammed LT-1 was rated at 255 NET HP-Same motor-Difference of 75 HP just on the ratings. Figure about 60-75HP between Gross and Net HP! A 185 Net Hp L-48 would probably rated about 250 Gross HP.
jb78L-82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 01:36 PM   #6
7T1vette
CF Senior Member
 
7T1vette's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Crossville TN
Default

net-to-gross difference is in the 15-25% range, depending on accessories [ie, auto tranny absorbs more hp than a manual one]. Roughly, use 20% loss as a good 'guess'timate.
7T1vette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 01:54 PM   #7
Mike Ward
CF Senior Member
 
Mike Ward's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2001
Location: about an hour away from Paul74 in Ontariariario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jb78L-82 View Post
71 hydralic cammed LT-1 was rated at 330 Gross HP and a 72 Hydralic cammed LT-1 was rated at 255 NET HP-Same motor-Difference of 75 HP just on the ratings..
A hydraulic cammed LT-1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7T1vette View Post
net-to-gross difference is in the 15-25% range, depending on accessories [ie, auto tranny absorbs more hp than a manual one]. Roughly, use 20% loss as a good 'guess'timate.
Both net and gross HP are taken at the flywheel, no transmission.
Mike Ward is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 02:56 PM   #8
zwede
CF Senior Member
 
zwede's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 1999
Location: Plano TX
Default

For comparison: 1971 LS5 454 was rated 365 gross, 285 net.
zwede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 03:22 PM   #9
Shark Racer
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Shark Racer's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2000
Location: San Jose CA
Send a message via ICQ to Shark Racer Send a message via AIM to Shark Racer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Ward View Post
Both net and gross HP are taken at the flywheel, no transmission.
Yep.

I'd like to say (again) that this whole gross/net HP "conversion factor" is a wild goose chase. There is no conversion factor. It all depends on the exact motor you're working with. Anyone with just a little bit of knowledge of engine theory should be able to figure that out.

An L48 "gross vs net" factor would be extremely different from an LT1 or any other high power motor.

The only numbers that are important are what your engine is putting out in your configuration, and even then, HP is only as useful as the capability of the driver and the chassis.
Shark Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 03:28 PM   #10
Alan 71
CF Senior Member
 
Alan 71's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2006
Location: Westminster Maryland
Default

Hi,
I believe the main difference between the 70 and 71 engines was the lowering of the compression ratios.
Regards,
Alan
Alan 71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 07:26 PM   #11
7T1vette
CF Senior Member
 
7T1vette's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2006
Location: Crossville TN
Default

Mike's right...flywheel numbers only. :o
7T1vette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 08:32 PM   #12
540 RAT
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: Southern California
Default

There may be a bit more info here than was asked for, but some may find it interesting.

From time to time, folks try to determine what their engine HP is by back calculating from the Rear Wheel HP data they obtained from a Chassis Dyno. Let’s take a look at what it takes to make sense of that.

First we need to look at the 3, count ‘em 3, different correction factors in use.

1. SAE J607 also called SAE STD, which is the classic Hotrod and Racing Engine correction factor used by most folks on an engine dyno. So, if you plan to compare Hotrod or Racing Engine dyno figures between various engines across the nation, you must use this correction factor in order to be on the same page with most everyone else. It is corrected to 60*F, zero % humidity, and 29.92” hg. This one gives GROSS HP, and excludes the use of accessories, full exhaust system, full air cleaner, or any emissions equipment. Since this correction factor has the most favorable correction conditions, it will of course provide the highest numbers of all the correction factors shown here.

2. SAE J1995 also called SAE GROSS, was used by the OEM’s through ’71. It is corrected to 77*F, zero % humidity, and 29.234” hg. This one gives GROSS HP, and excludes the use of accessories, full exhaust system, full air cleaner or any emissions equipment. The results using this one, are usually somewhere around 20% higher than SAE NET HP figures.

3. SAE J1349 also called SAE NET, has been used by the OEM’s since ’72. It is also corrected to 77*F, zero % humidity, and 29.234” hg. But this one gives NET HP, and DOES include the use of accessories, full exhaust system, full air cleaner, and any emissions equipment.

Since each correction factor will provide different HP results, when it comes to trying to compare and/or calculate one way or the other, between engine dyno numbers and chassis dyno numbers, you MUST use the SAME correction factor for both the engine dyno and the chassis dyno. This will keep things an apples to apples comparison and/or calculation.

If you don’t use the same correction factors, you end up with, at best, an apples to oranges comparison, or at worst, an apples to elephants comparison. Neither one of these is much good for back calculating engine HP from rear wheel HP.

When Engine and Chassis Dyno numbers are compared properly, by using the same correction factor, the most widely accepted drive train loss figures for non-IRS cars have typically been around 12 to 15% for stick cars, and around 25 to 30% for automatics.

So, let’s look at some real world Engine Dyno vs Chassis Dyno tests, to see how things typically shake out:

------------------------

From June 2011 Popular Hotrodding Magazine

‘70 Chevy Nova
555ci BBC
675 HP from Engine Dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor
9” rearend (not IRS)
Powerglide automatic

1. On a Dyno Dynamics Eddy Current chassis dyno with 2 smallish 12” diameter rollers, using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 487, for a 28% drive train loss. The loss was so high here, not only because of the incompatible correction factors, but also because under load, the 2 smallish dyno rollers caused MAJOR out of shape, HP robbing, tire distortion.

2. On a Dynojet Inertia chassis dyno with 1 large 24” diameter roller, using SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to elephants comparison because of REALLY incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 564, for a 16% drive train loss. The larger dyno roller did not cause any HP robbing tire distortion here.

The results between these two chassis dyno’s varied by a whopping 77 Rear wheel HP, or 12%. This leaves you with absolutely no chance of back calculating engine HP with any degree of accuracy. Even if you threw out number 1 with all the tire distortion, and looked only at number 2, you still couldn’t accurately back calculate engine HP. Because that 16% loss is considered to be more in line with stick drive train losses, when compatible correction factors are used, and NOT automatic drive train losses when significantly incompatible correction factors are used.

The results here just leave you scratching your head. So, you can’t accurately back calculate engine HP and you can’t even feel confident about how much HP you are actually putting to the ground either. This certainly questions the value of using a Chassis dyno at all.

-------------------------------


From February 2011 Super Chevy Magazine

’72 Corvette
383ci SBC
426 HP from Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor
IRS rear end
4 speed stick

On Super Chevy Magazine’s brand new Dynojet inertia chassis dyno, and using the SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 283, for a whopping 34% drive train loss.



’70 Chevelle LS6
454ci BBC
450 HP from factory Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor
Solid rear end (no IRS)
TH400 automatic

On Super Chevy Magazine’s brand new Dynojet inertia chassis dyno, and using the SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 285, for a whopping 37% drive train loss.



’69 L72 Yenko Camaro
427ci BBC
425 HP from factory Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor
Solid rear end (no IRS)
Stick tranny

On Super Chevy Magazine’s brand new Dynojet inertia chassis dyno, and using the SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 288, for a whopping 32% drive train loss.



’57 Chevy BelAir
283ci SBC
245 HP dual quad, from factory Engine Dyno using SAE J1995/SAE GROSS correction factor
Solid rear end (no IRS)
Powerglide automatic

On Super Chevy Magazine’s brand new Dynojet inertia chassis dyno, and using the SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 158, for a whopping 36% drive train loss.

The drive train losses for this group of 4 cars ranged from 32% to 37%, and were high due to incompatible correction factors. On top of that, there was no clear distinction at all between stick cars, automatic cars, and IRS cars, even though stick cars typically only have about half as much drive train loss as automatic cars. So, none of these figures are worth much either, in terms of accuracy or usefulness.


------------------------------------


From March 2011 Hotrod Magazine

2011 Shelby GT500 Super Snake Mustang
5.4L Supercharged V-8
750 HP from Engine Dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor
solid rearend (not IRS)
6 speed stick

1. On a Dynojet Inertia chassis dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor. Rear wheel HP = 654, for a 13% drive train loss. Being that this is an apples to apples comparison because of the same correction factors being used, it makes sense to see a 13% drive train loss, which is in the range of what would be expected for a non-IRS stick car.

2. On a SECOND Dynojet Inertia chassis dyno at another shop, which also used the SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor. Rear wheel HP = 652, for a 13% drive train loss. Being that this is an apples to apples comparison because of the same correction factors being used, again it makes sense to see a 13% drive train loss, which is in the range of what would be expected for a non-IRS stick car.

3. On a Superflow Auto Dyn eddy current chassis dyno using SAE J607/SAE STD correction factor. Rear wheel HP = 630, for a 16% drive train loss. Being that this is an apples to apples comparison because of the same correction factors being used, it still makes sense to see a 16% drive train loss, which is just on the outer edge of the range of what would be expected for a non-IRS stick car.

4. On a Mustang brand eddy current chassis dyno using SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 568, for a 24% drive train loss. These numbers are too far off to be of any use for comparison or for even determining how much HP is put to the ground.

5. On a Dyna Pack hydraulic type chassis dyno that bolts directly to the hubs, and using SAE J1349/SAE NET correction factor. This is an apples to oranges comparison because of incompatible correction factors, and Rear wheel HP = 585, for a 22% drive train loss. These numbers are too far off to be of any use for comparison or for even determining how much HP is put to the ground.

Overall, these 5 chassis dyno’s ranged a whopping 86 RWHP, or 11% on the SAME car, with the exact SAME setup. Good luck trying to ever back calculate engine HP from these numbers, or even trying to determine how much HP is actually delivered to the ground.

However, if you only look at the 3 dyno’s above that used the same correction factor as the engine dyno, you’ll see that they produced reasonable numbers that actually are usable. They ranged only 24 HP or 3%, which is about as good as you are ever going to get. And this backs up the statement that you MUST use the SAME correction factor for both the engine dyno and the chassis dyno.

Also, new cars since ’72 have been rated in SAE NET engine HP. So, you can fairly reasonably use a chassis dyno that uses the same SAE NET HP correction factor for comparison there. But even that is a little iffy because the OEM’s often underrate their HP levels, so that introduces more error back into any comparison/back calculation.

If you don’t use the same correction factors for comparison, then all chassis dyno’s are really good for is to compare back to back changes you make while on that dyno. That way you are only looking at the delta’s, and not caring about what the absolutes truly are. If used in this manner, any random chassis dyno “can” be a useful tool for modifications (though it’s wise to make a few back to back pulls with no changes to see if the dyno is repeatable, because some are not).

And if you are using mismatched correction factors for comparison, don’t even bother trying to back calculate your engine HP, because you won’t get valid results. In addition to that, with all the other variables between dyno’s (due to different makes and models, strap tension, tire pressure, tire rubber compound, dyno cooling fan airflow, etc, etc), don’t put much stock in the amount of HP they claim you are putting to the ground either, since the numbers will be all over the place.

So, at the end of the day, you have to decide for yourself if you think a Chassis Dyno session is even worth the cost and effort. Joe Sherman, the Godfather of Engine Building, has told me that he thinks Chassis Dyno’s are a complete joke and not worth the effort. And after reviewing the data above, I’d have to agree with him.
540 RAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 08:37 PM   #13
Vette5.5
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 2004
Location: Livonia MI
Default

I agree with generally a 20-25% difference, and starting in 1971, GM lowered compression ratios to accomodate no lead low octane fuel dropping power even further. As mentioned, the power ratios are really a black science, as some of the high hp big blocks(although gross), were actually advertised under rated for insurance reasons.
Vette5.5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 10:58 PM   #14
RescueDad
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: May 2011
Location: Clayton NC
kevinnadeaupe
Default

540 RAT - What a great compilation of data Thanks for your time in pulling this all together. I certainly learned a thing or two here.
RescueDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 12:10 AM   #15
MotorHead
CF Senior Member
 
MotorHead's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2000
Location: Never argue with Morons. If you do, you'll lower yourself to their standards, and they'll win, based on experience !!!
Default

I just took my motor out and put it on an engine dyno then put it back in and put it on a chassis dyno, result for mine was 21-23% loss from gross to RWHP I like to see things and do them not read the mucho trash out there
MotorHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2011, 12:10 AM
 
Go Back   Corvette Forum > C3 Corvettes, 1968 - 1982 > C3 Tech/Performance
Reload this Page Difference between gross and net hp
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
gross vs. net HP markKlein C4 General Discussion 17 12-24-2011 09:43 AM
Speculation - LS3 gross hp rating? mngreg C6 Corvette General Discussion 13 04-25-2010 09:32 PM
'72 horsepower question TSAGG C3 Tech/Performance 20 12-21-2005 11:46 AM
Crate engines: gross or net HP? 95wht6spd C4 Tech/Performance 9 08-11-2005 07:07 PM
Gross vs Net Torque Marina Blue C6 Tech/Performance 10 05-25-2005 07:58 PM


Tags
1971, 1972, 255, 427, corvette, difference, dyno, factory, gross, horsepower, hp, l48, net, rear, true, wheel


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Click for Advanced Search

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Emails & Password Backup