More LS3 dyno numbers
07-23-2007, 10:30 AM
#41
Team Owner
We just need to see some track times when people get some miles on their cars. Taking the 18% loss factor as max 436Hp x .82 (18%loss) =357.5Hp and no dyno on a 08 is that low, not even the 430Hp Auto. So what gives. Base 430 is a 30 hp gain from last year and should be 24.6 at the RW, 436 is a 36 hp gain and should be 29.5 at the RW. Who knows, matter of fact who cares until we see performance actuals and not published GM figures which 05 ~ 07 were beat in real life by actuals on the track.
FORGET the % loss theory. It never was the way to figure horsepower. The only way to know losses is to know the Crank horsepower on an engine dyno, and the rwhp. You can't figure crank horsepower using a factor. C5's came out around 15% on a manual, and 18% on an automatic. Since then everyone has assumed those are THE numbers. They are not.
To further make those numbers meaningless, we are now operating under a new SAE Certified system. Let's quit comparing apples and oranges and just accept the new numbers. We have rwhp dyno numbers for every year Corvette made in the past several years. We can use those as a relative comparison, understanding that most variances (on same year/equipment cars) are likely to be in the dyno, not the engine output itself.
07-23-2007, 01:12 PM
#42
Le Mans Master
I just know I'm going to go insane trying to respond to all of the posts like this.....
FORGET the % loss theory. It never was the way to figure horsepower. The only way to know losses is to know the Crank horsepower on an engine dyno, and the rwhp. You can't figure crank horsepower using a factor. C5's came out around 15% on a manual, and 18% on an automatic. Since then everyone has assumed those are THE numbers. They are not.
To further make those numbers meaningless, we are now operating under a new SAE Certified system. Let's quit comparing apples and oranges and just accept the new numbers. We have rwhp dyno numbers for every year Corvette made in the past several years. We can use those as a relative comparison, understanding that most variances (on same year/equipment cars) are likely to be in the dyno, not the engine output itself.
FORGET the % loss theory. It never was the way to figure horsepower. The only way to know losses is to know the Crank horsepower on an engine dyno, and the rwhp. You can't figure crank horsepower using a factor. C5's came out around 15% on a manual, and 18% on an automatic. Since then everyone has assumed those are THE numbers. They are not.
To further make those numbers meaningless, we are now operating under a new SAE Certified system. Let's quit comparing apples and oranges and just accept the new numbers. We have rwhp dyno numbers for every year Corvette made in the past several years. We can use those as a relative comparison, understanding that most variances (on same year/equipment cars) are likely to be in the dyno, not the engine output itself.
and it is also interesting in that a 10 hp increase is so important and gets raves when a mod is added but it's insignificant when there is an 80 hp difference between the LS7 and LS3. Since GM's sinister plan to make all of them equal with TM so marketing can sell more hp why bother. Jim how do you like the new wheels?
07-23-2007, 02:12 PM
#44
Racer
Member Since: Apr 2007
Location: Stouffville, Ontario
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What kind of dyno are these results from? Last friday I saw a 06 z06 dynoed @ 414 rwhp corrected properly on a mustang dyno. These numbers seem inflated, we really need other independent persons/dynos to show results.
07-23-2007, 02:26 PM
#45
Race Director
3 or 4 paces have dynoed the numbers are great. the first one i thought it was bull. but now you have to see it is real. its just a powerhouse. i dont like it one bit the short run on the ls2 in the c6 but life goes on. get new or get modded it is what it is
07-23-2007, 05:54 PM
#46
Pro
Member Since: Mar 2005
Location: orange county CA
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it appears that the drivetrains take about 10% of the power
505 X .90 = 454 rwhp
436 X .90 = 392 rwhp
this looks very close to reality so try using 10% for a drivetrain loss.
07-23-2007, 06:06 PM
#47
This was on a Mustang Dyno. LG uses a dynojet. Mustang dyno's read lower.
07-23-2007, 07:17 PM
#48
Team Owner
2) More stock horsepower (C6 vs. C6) = better car.
3) New wheels are better than the old wheels.
4)
@ "nothing on the street can keep up with LS2s". I've raced 8 LS2s with good drivers at Houston Raceway Park in my '03 Z06, and I've never lost ONE TIME. LS2 coupes are marginally slower than C5 Z06s. Vert LS2 are slower, period.
5) The LS3 is the first non-$75k+ C6 that's substantially faster than the fastest C5.
6) The LS3 is underrated. Looking at the dyno numbers coming in, it's safe to say the LS3 should be rated at about 450hp. The LS2 was CORRECTLY rated at 400hp. 50hp (which translates to about 50 rwhp too) is a BIG jump. Without getting into semantics, simply look at the rwhp numbers. They're producing 40-50 more hp right off the lot. Ls2 owners have to do reasonably substantial mods to get there (and don't even say "catback + cold air"....not quite.....try a CAM, tune, exhaust, and cold air.....that's what it'd take).
7) Newer engines with more power outdate older ones with less power. The LS3 is getting the hype because it deserves it. It's the new badboy. The LS2 is not.
-- Ryan
07-23-2007, 07:29 PM
#49
Indeed there is one example I found from LG Motorsports which put down 468 RWHP.
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...5&postcount=23
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...highlight=dyno
and it is also interesting in that a 10 hp increase is so important and gets raves when a mod is added but it's insignificant when there is an 80 hp difference between the LS7 and LS3. Since GM's sinister plan to make all of them equal with TM so marketing can sell more hp why bother. Jim how do you like the new wheels?I just know I'm going to go insane trying to respond to all of the posts like this.....
FORGET the % loss theory. It never was the way to figure horsepower. The only way to know losses is to know the Crank horsepower on an engine dyno, and the rwhp. You can't figure crank horsepower using a factor. C5's came out around 15% on a manual, and 18% on an automatic. Since then everyone has assumed those are THE numbers. They are not.
To further make those numbers meaningless, we are now operating under a new SAE Certified system. Let's quit comparing apples and oranges and just accept the new numbers. We have rwhp dyno numbers for every year Corvette made in the past several years. We can use those as a relative comparison, understanding that most variances (on same year/equipment cars) are likely to be in the dyno, not the engine output itself.
FORGET the % loss theory. It never was the way to figure horsepower. The only way to know losses is to know the Crank horsepower on an engine dyno, and the rwhp. You can't figure crank horsepower using a factor. C5's came out around 15% on a manual, and 18% on an automatic. Since then everyone has assumed those are THE numbers. They are not.
To further make those numbers meaningless, we are now operating under a new SAE Certified system. Let's quit comparing apples and oranges and just accept the new numbers. We have rwhp dyno numbers for every year Corvette made in the past several years. We can use those as a relative comparison, understanding that most variances (on same year/equipment cars) are likely to be in the dyno, not the engine output itself.
Because there is so much variability among chassis dyno results, it is easier and no doubt more accurate to rely on the now "certified" SAE horsepower ratings of both cars, as opposed to dyno results and attempting to back calculate flywheel horsepower.The SAE Certified numbers which GM states for both engines are 430, 436 horsepower for the C6 and 505horsepower for the C6 Z06. And thats pretty much it, end of story.
Of course there will be a few which fall slightly under or go slightly over those numbers, but the bottom line is these numbers are more reliable than using numbers seen on a chassis dyno and attempting to back calculate flywheel horsepower.
It is curious though, that some want to argue that the LS3 is somehow "underrated" because of the chassis dyno results and that the chassis dyno numbers somehow prove that the LS3 has very significantly "closed the gap" between the base C6 and the Z06.
To that I say I disagree. Both engines are rated by GM under the new SAE standard. The LS3 is no more "underrated" than the LS7 is. Despite ones best efforts to back calculate flywheel horsepower from rearwheel horsepower numbers generated on a chassis dyno.
Last edited by '06 Quicksilver Z06; 07-23-2007 at 08:39 PM.
07-23-2007, 07:59 PM
#50
Le Mans Master
the ls2 was correctly rated, under the old system. not anymore. both the ls7 and ls3 are rated under the "new system" and have for ever more screwed up back-in crank hp percentages. these motors are strong, and it seems positive from the hotrod perspective since you get more than the insurance companies probably realize - lol
07-23-2007, 08:15 PM
#51
Team Owner
That's HIGHLY subjective and very debatable and you will find that many (most?) on this board will disagree with you.
Is it?
Based on what?
You might turn out to be correct but at the moment that is a 100% FALSE statement, unless you're talking strictly about top speed (in which case the C6 LS2 already had the fastest C5 (aka: C5 Z06) covered).
Based on what?
You might turn out to be correct but at the moment that is a 100% FALSE statement, unless you're talking strictly about top speed (in which case the C6 LS2 already had the fastest C5 (aka: C5 Z06) covered).
Last edited by LS1LT1; 07-23-2007 at 09:10 PM.
07-23-2007, 08:55 PM
#53
Team Owner
07-23-2007, 09:02 PM
#54
Team Owner
1) A better starting point concerning power = a better car.
2) More stock horsepower (C6 vs. C6) = better car.
3) New wheels are better than the old wheels.
4) @ "nothing on the street can keep up with LS2s". I've raced 8 LS2s with good drivers at Houston Raceway Park in my '03 Z06, and I've never lost ONE TIME.
LS2 coupes are marginally slower than C5 Z06s. Vert LS2 are slower, period.
5) The LS3 is the first non-$75k+ C6 that's substantially faster than the fastest C5.
6) The LS3 is underrated. Looking at the dyno numbers coming in, it's safe to say the LS3 should be rated at about 450hp. The LS2 was CORRECTLY rated at 400hp. 50hp (which translates to about 50 rwhp too) is a BIG jump. Without getting into semantics, simply look at the rwhp numbers. They're producing 40-50 more hp right off the lot. Ls2 owners have to do reasonably substantial mods to get there (and don't even say "catback + cold air"....not quite.....try a CAM, tune, exhaust, and cold air.....that's what it'd take).
7) Newer engines with more power outdate older ones with less power. The LS3 is getting the hype because it deserves it. It's the new badboy. The LS2 is not.
-- Ryan
2) More stock horsepower (C6 vs. C6) = better car.
3) New wheels are better than the old wheels.
4)
@ "nothing on the street can keep up with LS2s". I've raced 8 LS2s with good drivers at Houston Raceway Park in my '03 Z06, and I've never lost ONE TIME. LS2 coupes are marginally slower than C5 Z06s. Vert LS2 are slower, period.
5) The LS3 is the first non-$75k+ C6 that's substantially faster than the fastest C5.
6) The LS3 is underrated. Looking at the dyno numbers coming in, it's safe to say the LS3 should be rated at about 450hp. The LS2 was CORRECTLY rated at 400hp. 50hp (which translates to about 50 rwhp too) is a BIG jump. Without getting into semantics, simply look at the rwhp numbers. They're producing 40-50 more hp right off the lot. Ls2 owners have to do reasonably substantial mods to get there (and don't even say "catback + cold air"....not quite.....try a CAM, tune, exhaust, and cold air.....that's what it'd take).
7) Newer engines with more power outdate older ones with less power. The LS3 is getting the hype because it deserves it. It's the new badboy. The LS2 is not.
-- Ryan
07-23-2007, 09:07 PM
#55
Melting Slicks
* 344 RWHP x10%= 34.40 + 344= 378.40 Crank HP
I think I'll stick to 17%, I know my C6 has more than 378HP/Crank. I ran 12.53 @ 113.79 in the quarter yesterday. Thanks anyway
07-23-2007, 10:01 PM
#56
Pro
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Ann Arbor MI
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure why we're still having these discussions. There have been three different 08 dynos on two different dynos on three different days, and they are all within 6hp of each other. What more do you people want? Further more who cares about crank hp? If we ALREADY KNOW what it puts out at the wheel, why all the guessing as to the crank numbers?
You 06-07 people need to come to terms with the fact that the 08 really does put out AT LEAST the 36hp that is advertized, and likely even more than that. Why the hate/disbelief?
You 06-07 people need to come to terms with the fact that the 08 really does put out AT LEAST the 36hp that is advertized, and likely even more than that. Why the hate/disbelief?
07-23-2007, 10:02 PM
#57
Pro
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Ann Arbor MI
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, your math is slightly flawed. bhp + x% is not equal to rwhp - x%. You are calculating it backwards.
07-23-2007, 10:21 PM
#58
Burning Brakes
I just know I'm going to go insane trying to respond to all of the posts like this.....
FORGET the % loss theory. It never was the way to figure horsepower. The only way to know losses is to know the Crank horsepower on an engine dyno, and the rwhp. You can't figure crank horsepower using a factor. C5's came out around 15% on a manual, and 18% on an automatic. Since then everyone has assumed those are THE numbers. They are not.
To further make those numbers meaningless, we are now operating under a new SAE Certified system. Let's quit comparing apples and oranges and just accept the new numbers. We have rwhp dyno numbers for every year Corvette made in the past several years. We can use those as a relative comparison, understanding that most variances (on same year/equipment cars) are likely to be in the dyno, not the engine output itself.
FORGET the % loss theory. It never was the way to figure horsepower. The only way to know losses is to know the Crank horsepower on an engine dyno, and the rwhp. You can't figure crank horsepower using a factor. C5's came out around 15% on a manual, and 18% on an automatic. Since then everyone has assumed those are THE numbers. They are not.
To further make those numbers meaningless, we are now operating under a new SAE Certified system. Let's quit comparing apples and oranges and just accept the new numbers. We have rwhp dyno numbers for every year Corvette made in the past several years. We can use those as a relative comparison, understanding that most variances (on same year/equipment cars) are likely to be in the dyno, not the engine output itself.
This is about as good an explanation I have seen without going into technical details.Save this in a word document for future recall and duplication.
07-23-2007, 10:27 PM
#59
Pro
Member Since: Apr 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's great! But it isn't so much that I need to go run out and get one, I'm modding so it really doesn't mean anything to me. The new interior is more of a selling point to me actually, but its not enough to get rid of my 06, I luv this friggin car....
07-23-2007, 10:28 PM
#60
Pro
Member Since: Oct 2006
Location: N.J.
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can somone just pull both LS2 & LS3 out and put it on a engine dyno to see what the crank #'s are?
I know easier said then done, but at least that would put to rest what are real and what are advertised #'s.
BTW im not donating
I know easier said then done, but at least that would put to rest what are real and what are advertised #'s.
BTW im not donating
