Notices
C6 Corvette ZR1 & Z06 General info about GMís Corvette Supercar, LS9 Corvette Technical Info, Performance Upgrades, Suspension Setup for Street or Track Advertisement

[ZR1] More Stock Dyno Numbers

 
Old 02-22-2009, 05:56 PM
  #1  
ZO6Jeff
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
ZO6Jeff's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: Smithfield Virginia
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default More Stock Dyno Numbers

I took my car to a local shop, VAspeed, to get some baseline numbers yesterday. The shop uses a dynojet. Here are the results.





The first set is the uncorrected numbers and the second is using the SAE correction. The owner of the shop explained to me that for forced induction engines that the SAE correction factor is not accurate and that in most cases the Uncorrected numbers are closer to the actual. He explained that the SAE 1349 standard is set up to correct for naturally aspirated engines only. Forced induction engines only should be corrected for air temperature and humidity. Since forced induction engines create their own air pressure in the intake manifold pretty much regardless of the barometric pressure, correction for the atmospheric pressure is not necessary. If you use the SAE correction factor it could artificially lower or raise the results. Yesterday when I dynoed the air temp was 71 deg F, humidity was 8%, and the pressure was 30.42 in-Hg. The SAE correction factor was .95 mostly due to the high pressure as the temp and humidity were pretty close to the SAE standard. I thought I would share this with you guys and see what you all thought.
ZO6Jeff is offline  
Old 02-22-2009, 06:10 PM
  #2  
Naeblis
CF Senior Member
 
Naeblis's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2008
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 473
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

i know ranger was looking for the xls format of these numbers do you think your tuner can get those to you

Thom
Naeblis is offline  
Old 02-22-2009, 07:18 PM
  #3  
ZO6Jeff
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
ZO6Jeff's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: Smithfield Virginia
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Naeblis View Post
i know ranger was looking for the xls format of these numbers do you think your tuner can get those to you

Thom
I've already emailed the data to Ranger and he has already reformatted it to suite his needs.
ZO6Jeff is offline  
Old 02-22-2009, 07:21 PM
  #4  
be good
CF Member
 
be good's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2008
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

sick baseline!!!!!!!
be good is offline  
Old 02-22-2009, 10:40 PM
  #5  
GForceSS
CF Senior Member
 
GForceSS's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: MD (or Ft Benning GA)
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Thatís about right, 16% drive-train loss.
GForceSS is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 05:19 AM
  #6  
Bills Z06
CF Senior Member
 
Bills Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2004
Location: Cypress TX
Posts: 14,406
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
St. Jude Donor '07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18

Default

,
Bills Z06 is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 10:12 AM
  #7  
racerns
CF Senior Member
 
racerns's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2002
Location: Smithfield VA
Posts: 2,603
Liked 87 Times in 60 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GForceSS View Post
Thatís about right, 16% drive-train loss.
Not really. The point of the post was that the SAE corrected numbers are not accurate for this application. If you take a look a the run conditions most of the correction came due to the high barometric pressure which should not be corrected for in a forced induction application. Looking at the run conditions I would think a correction factor of .99 (or none at all) would be more reasonable instead of the .95 that was used if you were going to discount need to correct for barometric pressure. That would give you a loss of 12-13% which is closer to what people were seeing on the Z06.
racerns is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 11:07 AM
  #8  
MTIRC6Z
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default OR another way to look at it...

So you're saying the correction factor doesn't really apply to your car because it's supercharged...that would mean we should be looking at the 563rwhp number and not the 534rwhp number, right???

So given the SAE certified HP number GM has of 638 this would mean your car only has a less than 12% driveline loss, is there any reason you can think of that your car would have a more efficient driveline than 'normal'???

While there is some merit to the theory that being supercharged means you're bringing along your own atmosphere and thus are less handicapped by what mother nature happens to provide you with, in reality the driveline loss should remain very constant and that means your 563rwhp number isn't as 'real' as you'd think...unless of course you have a 'factory freak' but let's NOT go there

Why is it that people can't just be happy with the factory provided hp number, it's by far the most accurate number you're even gunna get. Of course once you start to modify, the factory number is no longer relevant, but getting a rwhp dyno number on a stock car is pretty dumb, particularly if all you're going to do is talk about it and not use it as a baseline tuning figure to build upon.

Cheers, Paul.

Last edited by MTIRC6Z; 02-23-2009 at 11:10 AM.
MTIRC6Z is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 11:36 AM
  #9  
ZO6Jeff
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
ZO6Jeff's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: Smithfield Virginia
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MTIRC6Z View Post
So you're saying the correction factor doesn't really apply to your car because it's supercharged...that would mean we should be looking at the 563rwhp number and not the 534rwhp number, right???

So given the SAE certified HP number GM has of 638 this would mean your car only has a less than 12% driveline loss, is there any reason you can think of that your car would have a more efficient driveline than 'normal'???

While there is some merit to the theory that being supercharged means you're bringing along your own atmosphere and thus are less handicapped by what mother nature happens to provide you with, in reality the driveline loss should remain very constant and that means your 563rwhp number isn't as 'real' as you'd think...unless of course you have a 'factory freak' but let's NOT go there

Why is it that people can't just be happy with the factory provided hp number, it's by far the most accurate number you're even gunna get. Of course once you start to modify, the factory number is no longer relevant, but getting a rwhp dyno number on a stock car is pretty dumb, particularly if all you're going to do is talk about it and not use it as a baseline tuning figure to build upon.

Cheers, Paul.
I'm not trying to say that the 'real' number is 563, but that it is probably closer to that than 534. Rather than the 0.95 SAE factor, maybe it should be somewhere between 0.98 and 0.99 to correct for humidity and temperature. Also, a 12% loss from engine to rear wheels is not unreasonable, my C6 Z06 had a 9.5% loss (Dynojet SAE corrected number of 457 hp).
ZO6Jeff is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 11:46 AM
  #10  
racerns
CF Senior Member
 
racerns's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2002
Location: Smithfield VA
Posts: 2,603
Liked 87 Times in 60 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MTIRC6Z View Post
So you're saying the correction factor doesn't really apply to your car because it's supercharged...that would mean we should be looking at the 563rwhp number and not the 534rwhp number, right???
No, it should only be corrected for temp and humidity but not barometric pressure for forced induction engines per the SAEJ1349 specifcation. I estimate that the correction factor should have been .99 instead of .95 for the temp being under the 77F standard.

So given the SAE certified HP number GM has of 638 this would mean your car only has a less than 12% driveline loss, is there any reason you can think of that your car would have a more efficient driveline than 'normal'???
Not sure if you have been paying attention but most of the C6 M6 cars have been in the 12-13% loss range. The Z06's dyno in the 440-450 range while the engine rating is 505hp and the LS3's dyno in the 370-380 rwhp range while the engine rating is 435hp.

While there is some merit to the theory that being supercharged means you're bringing along your own atmosphere and thus are less handicapped by what mother nature happens to provide you with, in reality the driveline loss should remain very constant and that means your 563rwhp number isn't as 'real' as you'd think...unless of course you have a 'factory freak' but let's NOT go there
This is not just a theory but is part of the SAE specification. It is just that the dynojet software automatically adjust for barometric pressure when you apply the SAE correction.

Why is it that people can't just be happy with the factory provided hp number, it's by far the most accurate number you're even gunna get. Of course once you start to modify, the factory number is no longer relevant, but getting a rwhp dyno number on a stock car is pretty dumb, particularly if all you're going to do is talk about it and not use it as a baseline tuning figure to build upon.
I agree that the factory SAE certification process is now the most accurate for the engine hp rating. Though it is not a bad idea to dyno a stock car just to make sure you got all that you paid for. Back in '99 they had problems with the Mustang Cobra producing very low rwhp numbers and Ford eventually had to admit that they were not making the advertised hp. ZOJeff, my father, also wanted to get some detailed data to give to Ranger for the upcoming private drag rental.

Last edited by racerns; 02-24-2009 at 09:45 AM.
racerns is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 08:38 PM
  #11  
GForceSS
CF Senior Member
 
GForceSS's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: MD (or Ft Benning GA)
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

So since the Z06 is rated at 505 and cars are putting down 440-450, you think 12-13% is the way it is for all manual cars? I bet you think gear ratio has no affect on the dyno either. The only real way to know is to pull your engine, dyno the engine alone, read it at the rear wheels, and then calculate. As for the 9%, thatís the most efficient car on the planet, grats.
GForceSS is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 10:52 PM
  #12  
racerns
CF Senior Member
 
racerns's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2002
Location: Smithfield VA
Posts: 2,603
Liked 87 Times in 60 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GForceSS View Post
So since the Z06 is rated at 505 and cars are putting down 440-450, you think 12-13% is the way it is for all manual cars?
No but that does seem to be the trend for Corvettes though and you pretty much can't deny it with the numbers being put down by stock Corvettes. I am not sure what your problem with the 457 dyno number by a stock Z06, that was not that uncommon. Do I really bellieve it was really only 9.5% loss? no not really just really good weather condtions that the correction factors did not fully adjust for. Also remember, the old rule of thumb for drivetrain loss (I always used 15% myself for a manual) came from before then new SAE certification process. I am fully aware of what gear ratios can do to dyno rwhp dyno numbers as I have a new G8 that does not have a 1:1 gear to dyno in.
racerns is offline  
Old 02-23-2009, 11:38 PM
  #13  
GForceSS
CF Senior Member
 
GForceSS's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: MD (or Ft Benning GA)
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by racerns View Post
No but that does seem to be the trend for Corvettes though and you pretty much can't deny it with the numbers being put down by stock Corvettes. I am not sure what your problem with the 457 dyno number by a stock Z06, that was not that uncommon. Do I really bellieve it was really only 9.5% loss? no not really just really good weather condtions that the correction factors did not fully adjust for. Also remember, the old rule of thumb for drivetrain loss (I always used 15% myself for a manual) came from before then new SAE certification process. I am fully aware of what gear ratios can do to dyno rwhp dyno numbers as I have a new G8 that does not have a 1:1 gear to dyno in.
I donít have a problem with the dyno #s, mine put down 440 (corrected and 455 actual). Itís the continuous use of the 505 rated hp in ALL conditions that people derive their drivetrain loss from. So if the air was zero degrees and the engine was now producing 480whp, they would say ďI only have 5% drivetrain lossĒ. Or if the engine happens to have more hp from the factory than average, they wouldnít account for that (how could they unless they measure the engine by itself). Or what if GM underrated all of them. My point is I doubt the real world loss is only 9-13%. Mechanics is mechanics regardless of the engine rating system. 1 ZR1 (or Z06) doesnít have 9% while another has 15%, they use the same drive line.
GForceSS is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 04:45 AM
  #14  
PRE-Z06
CF Senior Member
 
PRE-Z06's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 6,800
Liked 42 Times in 37 Posts
Default

I thought the zr1 uses a different clutch, transmission and differential than the z06... possibly making drivetrain loss greater?
PRE-Z06 is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 10:39 AM
  #15  
MTIRC6Z
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

ZR1 clutch is twin-disc, probably a little lighter than the Z06, but I can't see it making much difference.

ZR1 trans is a TR6060 same as '08 and '09 Z06s, granted the ratios are a little different but 4th gear is always 1.00 and that's what's used to measure RWHP, so I can't see it making much difference.

ZR1 diff has stronger cases, better bearing support and billet pieces where the Z06 is forged, but ring/pinion is the same as is the ratio at 3.42, so I can't see it making much difference.

I know of a few of cases where Z06s (after being modified) were measured on an engine dyno and then later measured in the car, driveline loss was always in the 15-16% range. This is why I was sceptical about a loss of under 12% for the ZR1 in question.

However if you assume a 99% correction factor then the RWHP becomes more like 557 and the driveline loss at least gets to above 12%. Interestingly if you take the fully corrected RWHP at 534 it ends up with a loss of just over 16%.

Cheers, Paul.
MTIRC6Z is offline  
Old 02-24-2009, 11:39 AM
  #16  
JSB LS3
CF Senior Member
 
JSB LS3's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2007
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I happen to think there's an inherent flaw in using a percentage to calculate drivetrain loss.....if you have a 400 hp engine that makes 350 RWHP (50 HP for a 12.5% loss) through a stock driveline, and you then supercharge said engine to make 600 HP, the same 12.5% drivetrain loss would mean you're now using 75 HP to turn the EXACT same drivetrain....

Obviously, an aftermarket clutch, half shafts or some other beefed up parts will change parasitic loss a small amount, but I think it's erroneous to calculate using percentages in a very high horsepower build. Unless the drivetrain is COMPLETELY different, I would think the drivetrain is going to use roughly the same amount of horsepower to turn it no matter how much horsepower the engine in front of it makes.
JSB LS3 is offline  
Old 02-25-2009, 09:39 AM
  #17  
MTIRC6Z
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Your "inherent flaw" thought would have a little more merit in all the gears involved weren't helical, but even at that you'd still be mostly wrong. At best you could think the loss would be a fixed amount + a variable, but the amount that's fixed is small enough that just going with a variable is going to be pretty accurate. Point is, going with JUST a fixed amount (like your 50hp example) isn't even close to being right.

Cheers, Paul.
MTIRC6Z is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 09:10 AM
  #18  
Red Rochester
CF Senior Member
 
Red Rochester's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2008
Location: Rochester New York
Posts: 8,046
Liked 29 Times in 27 Posts
Default

nice
Red Rochester is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 10:46 AM
  #19  
PaintballaXX
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jun 2007
Location: Sometimes Miami Sometimes Orlando Florida
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JSB LS3 View Post
I happen to think there's an inherent flaw in using a percentage to calculate drivetrain loss.....if you have a 400 hp engine that makes 350 RWHP (50 HP for a 12.5% loss) through a stock driveline, and you then supercharge said engine to make 600 HP, the same 12.5% drivetrain loss would mean you're now using 75 HP to turn the EXACT same drivetrain....

Obviously, an aftermarket clutch, half shafts or some other beefed up parts will change parasitic loss a small amount, but I think it's erroneous to calculate using percentages in a very high horsepower build. Unless the drivetrain is COMPLETELY different, I would think the drivetrain is going to use roughly the same amount of horsepower to turn it no matter how much horsepower the engine in front of it makes.
Rotational inertia is constant. The more you try to create radial acceleration the more force you must apply. Thus the percent loss should stay the same.

Last edited by PaintballaXX; 03-04-2009 at 11:43 AM.
PaintballaXX is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 11:38 AM
  #20  
Cobra4B
CF Senior Member
 
Cobra4B's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 25,889
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
CI 3-5-6-7-8 Veteran
Default

Nice numbers I'll have to see this car in person sometime.
Cobra4B is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: [ZR1] More Stock Dyno Numbers


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: