Go Back   Corvette Forum > C7 Corvette > C7 General Discussion
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ Vendor Directory
Search
C7 General Discussion
General C7 Corvette Discussion not covered in Tech Sponsored by
Kerbeck Corvettes

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 05-03-2013, 08:33 AM   #1
Big Dan 427
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Aug 2012
Location: Danbury CT
Default Sandbagging on HP...MAYBE

Seeing how GM has been somewhat coy regarding certain aspects of the C7 do any of you guys think they may be reserving the real hp numbers? I think it's fair to say that if the car came out rated 480 plus an awful lot of folks would be real happy!
Big Dan 427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 08:38 AM   #2
Slynky
CF Senior Member
 
Slynky's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2012
Location: McDonough, Georgia
Default

I would say GM is more likely to lowball the final certified number than over estimate. I expect 460.
Slynky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:03 AM   #3
CPhelps
CF Senior Member
 
CPhelps's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2006
Location: Vergennes VT
Default

I'm very curious if the track mode enables a higher rev limit and associated power or something as well. The SAE paper had a graph showing over 7k, and numerous reports from the bash reported someone mentioned 7k in 4th. Contrasting that is all the official information from GM so far has said and shown 6600rpm. Either there is a pretty big surprise in store for the C7 /LT1 or something was slipped about future product.

As it sits now though, we were promised at least 450,I'm not expecting significantly more than that, but would love to be pleasantly surprised.

Last edited by CPhelps; 05-03-2013 at 09:06 AM.
CPhelps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:14 AM   #4
jschindler
CF Senior Member
 
jschindler's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Default

My guess is that they were conservative with the 450 - rather under promise and over deliver. But I don't picture more than 470. My guess is in the 465 range.
jschindler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:24 AM   #5
Big Dan 427
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Aug 2012
Location: Danbury CT
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jschindler View Post
My guess is that they were conservative with the 450 - rather under promise and over deliver. But I don't picture more than 470. My guess is in the 465 range.
Well I could be wrong but with all of the anticipation GM has created not to mention the secretiveness maybe just maybe they will blow everyone's socks off with a big number. No doubt if they did that it would certainly stimulate more buzz and IMO more buyers!
Big Dan 427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:35 AM   #6
schilitj
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '05-'06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13
Support Corvetteforum!
 
schilitj's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Default

well, maybe someone, like me, will take their C7 to their speed shop and have it dynoed. Then real numbers will be available.

Last edited by schilitj; 05-03-2013 at 09:58 AM.
schilitj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:44 AM   #7
lt4obsesses
CF Senior Member
 
lt4obsesses's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jschindler View Post
My guess is that they were conservative with the 450 - rather under promise and over deliver. But I don't picture more than 470. My guess is in the 465 range.
I agree with this. It will be more than 450 but not by a whole lot, I don't think. I think hoping for 475, which seems to be magical number floating around, is a bit optimistic.

It just seems to me that this redesign was not centrally focused around creating more power. I believe the redesign was more about using this power more effectively.
lt4obsesses is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:49 AM   #8
1KULC7
CF Senior Member
 
1KULC7's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2001
Location: Old Dominion VA
https://www.facebook.com/collin.macdonald.73
Default

Actually, I was say less than the stated 450. If history proves itself on the newer model cars, they usually have less to the rear wheels than what they state. I would estimate 425 or in that area. However with the new design and new materials, what is lacking in HP will be made up in road efficiencies.
1KULC7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:52 AM   #9
OHV4LIFE
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jan 2013
Default

Would anyone here mind it if GM purposely underrated the engine? Based on dyno results, the early GTRs were underrated by Nissan. Also, BMW is notorious for underrating their engines. From what I can tell they underrate their engines 10% across the board.

Last edited by OHV4LIFE; 05-03-2013 at 10:22 AM.
OHV4LIFE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:54 AM   #10
lt4obsesses
CF Senior Member
 
lt4obsesses's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EBVette View Post
Actually, I was say less than the stated 450. If history proves itself on the newer model cars, they usually have less to the rear wheels than what they state. I would estimate 425 or in that area. However with the new design and new materials, what is lacking in HP will be made up in road efficiencies.
Well, yes. The rated HP is at the crank, so of course RWHP is going to be 15-18% less.
lt4obsesses is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:00 AM   #11
Hemi Dave
CF Senior Member
 
Hemi Dave's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2012
Location: Long Island New York
Default

470 to 500.........Actual performance is more important than HP to me

If It will out run a C6 427 ( Awesome car) at 450 HP that's fine with me Dan

Last edited by Hemi Dave; 05-03-2013 at 10:02 AM.
Hemi Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:03 AM   #12
Shrike6
CF Senior Member
Cruise-In 7, 9 & 12 Veteran
Wounded Warrior Escort '11
St. Jude Donor '07-'08-'09-'10-'11
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Shrike6's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2005
Default

Well, GM has said they focused on a flat torque curve that makes great torque over a large rev band. Now, given that the hold over 6 speed autobox is only rated to about 435 lb/ft, there will very likely be torque management. So, overall, the numbers may mean rather less than the actual on road performance.
Still hoping for something closer to 475 hp/ 475 tq.
We will know soon enough, and even better, when the first tests in the magazines come out.
Shrike6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:07 AM   #13
Daekwan06
CF Senior Member
 
Daekwan06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2011
Location: Arlington VA
Daekwan Daekwan Daekwan Daekwan
Default

I think 475 will be the final number. It accomplishes everything it needs to do. It guarantees the C7 base will be significantly faster than the C6 base.

And 475 approaches C6Z06 "competitive" territory.. while still leaving plenty of room for a 525+hp C7Z06 and 650+hp C7ZR1.
Daekwan06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:10 AM   #14
Jinx
CF Senior Member
 
Jinx's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Dan 427 View Post
Well I could be wrong but with all of the anticipation GM has created not to mention the secretiveness maybe just maybe they will blow everyone's socks off with a big number. No doubt if they did that it would certainly stimulate more buzz and IMO more buyers!
I think this is like hoping that the chunky girl your friend fixed you up with has lost a lot of weight since she took that Facebook photo.

.Jinx
Jinx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:20 AM   #15
Big Dan 427
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Aug 2012
Location: Danbury CT
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullius View Post
Would anyone here mind it if GM purposely underrated the engine? Based on dyno results, the early GTRs were underrated by Nissan. Also, BMW is notorious for underrating their engines. From what I can tell they underrate their engines 10% across the board.
I remember back in the 60's the L88 (I believe it was this motor) was way underrated, back then I think it had something to do with production allowances if the hp was too high. I'm sure some here can enlighten on that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinx View Post
I think this is like hoping that the chunky girl your friend fixed you up with has lost a lot of weight since she took that Facebook photo.

.Jinx
Hey jinx you know they say the "chunky" girls never know when they'll "get it" again so simply put hang on for the ride!!

Thread is off to a good start, lots of excellent posts!
Big Dan 427 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:29 AM   #16
OHV4LIFE
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jan 2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike6 View Post
Well, GM has said they focused on a flat torque curve that makes great torque over a large rev band. Now, given that the hold over 6 speed autobox is only rated to about 435 lb/ft, there will very likely be torque management. So, overall, the numbers may mean rather less than the actual on road performance.
Still hoping for something closer to 475 hp/ 475 tq.
We will know soon enough, and even better, when the first tests in the magazines come out.
How many people would prefer for GM to tune the engine for more peak hp at the expense of a broad torque curve?
OHV4LIFE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:31 AM   #17
BeaZt
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '14
 
BeaZt's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2008
1320vetteran
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schilitj View Post
well, maybe someone, like me, will take their C7 to their speed shop and have it dynoed. Then real numbers will be available.
Exactly! I think GM is going to give a small but pleasant surprise with the final "released" HP number

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinx View Post
I think this is like hoping that the chunky girl your friend fixed you up with has lost a lot of weight since she took that Facebook photo.

.Jinx
Slumpbusters can be fun in private
BeaZt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:37 AM   #18
Turbo6TA
CF Senior Member
 
Turbo6TA's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2011
Location: SW Florida
Default

My guess ...


465 Advertised w/ NPP

M7 . . 420 RWHP SAE Corrected (DynoJet)

A6 . . 402 RWHP SAE Corrected (DynoJet)
Turbo6TA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 11:49 AM   #19
drivestwin
CF Senior Member
 
drivestwin's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2007
Location: Northeast NE
Default

I think that even if GM knows they can wring something like 500HP out of the LT1, it may be wise to take it easy and start it at 460 or so. Even with all the same components they can dial it down a bit.

That way they can sit back and see if the engine has any unknown issues before really leaning on the thing.

They can then step it up in later years if the engine proves reliable. They have done that with the LS series but with some minor changes in camshafts and such.
drivestwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 12:31 PM   #20
chaase
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '12
 
chaase's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2003
Location: East Meadow NY
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullius View Post
How many people would prefer for GM to tune the engine for more peak hp at the expense of a broad torque curve?
I would rather have the broad torque curve since that is what I would use most when driving.
chaase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 12:31 PM
 
Go Back   Corvette Forum > C7 Corvette > C7 General Discussion
Reload this Page Sandbagging on HP...MAYBE
 
 
 
Reply


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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Power difference between Z51 and Z06 LS6GXP C7 General Discussion 5 06-07-2014 06:21 PM
Speculation on 1000hp? Sarasota_Mike C7 Z06 Discussion 6 02-07-2014 10:49 AM
why would GM Hold Back On Real HP Rating and Weight? Torch2013C6 C7 General Discussion 219 04-06-2013 02:32 PM
HP and torque ratings? corvette C6 Z51 C7 General Discussion 4 01-30-2013 04:49 PM
84 corvette serpentine belt removal 84VetteMan205hp C4 General Discussion 5 12-27-2012 11:16 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:47 AM.


Emails & Password Backup