Gross vs Net Torque
Last edited by Marina Blue; May 23, 2005 at 06:48 PM. Reason: Changed title to better describe the post.
adjusting one is equivalent to adjusting the other by the
same amount. In other words, I think the gross tq rating
of the LS2 is in the neighborhood you suggest.
Pat
Remember that gross HP is measured with the engine on a stand with no accessories, no mufflers, etc. Net is measured with all accessory drives installed and intake and exhaust restrictions matching the backpressure/restriction from the as-installed systems. I'd assume that modern accessories, exhausts and intakes are more efficient/less restrictive than the ones in the days of old, so there's probably less of a difference between gross and net today than there was in the '60s.

let gm lose on a 454 and tell them to produce a limited production supercar (has to be a special SS version vette) give it a $100k interior, sound system and charge $85k you would see the bottom drop out of these other performance machines.
Any other thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
BTW- The LS6 454 was rated at 450hp gross in 1970 (Chevelle only, no vettes) and 425hp net in 1971. I agree with your numbers on the LT-1.
Last edited by fdxpilot; May 24, 2005 at 09:49 PM.
BTW- The LS6 454 was rated at 450hp gross in 1970 (Chevelle only, no vettes) and 425hp net in 1971. I agree with your numbers on the LT-1.
rating in 1971 was a gross rating, not a net rating.
Pat
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
BTW- The LS6 454 was rated at 450hp gross in 1970 (Chevelle only, no vettes) and 425hp net in 1971. I agree with your numbers on the LT-1.
In my spare time I made the following comparison. If you are intersted read through it and comment.
2005 Corvette C6 Z51 vs 1967 Corvette Sting Ray L71
Specifications\ 2005 CorvetteC6 Z51\ 1967 Corvette Sting Ray L71
Wheelbase\ 105.7 in.\ 98.0 in
Length\ 174.6 in.\ 175.1 in.
Width\ 72.6 in.\ 69.6 in.
Height\ 49.1 in.\ 49.8 in.
Weight\ 3179 lbs.\ 3155 lbs.
Engine
Displacement\ 364 cu. in. (6 liter)\ 427 cu. in. (7 liter)
Compression ratio\ 10.9:1\ 11.0:1
Horsepower\ 400 @ 6000 rpm (net)\ 435 @ 5800 (gross)
Torque\ 400 @ 4400 rpm (net)\ 460 @ 4000 (gross)
Transmission\ 6-speed manual\ 4-speed manual
Axle ratio\ 3.42:1\ 3.55:1
Acceleration
0-60 mph\ 4.1 sec.\ 5.0 sec.
¼ mile (sec. @ mph)\ 12.5 @ 115 mph\ 12.9 @ 111 mph
Underrated L71
The L71 was most likely 495 horsepower, 60 higher than the factory rated 435 horsepower. Underrating horsepower was common in the late 1960s to keep insurance rates down on these powerful cars.
1971 Gross and Net Horsepower Ratings according to Chevrolet
350 cu. in. (RPO LT1) – 330 gross hp. \ 275 net hp. 275/330 = .8333 conversion factor
454 cu. in. (RPO LS6) – 425 gross hp. \ 325 net hp. 325/425 = .7647 conversion factor
Factors of conversion for net to gross or gross to net horsepower:
.8333 - Chevrolet factor for 1971 LT1 (350)
.7647 - Chevrolet factor for 1971 LS6 (454)
.8000 - Commonly used factor to convert gross or net horsepower
LS2 and L71 horsepower and torque conversions
Gross horsepower & torque comparisons
LS2
480 hp @ 6000 rpm (400/.8333)
523 hp @ 6000 rpm (400/.7647)
500 hp @ 6000 rpm (400/.8)
480 ft. lbs. torque @ 4400 rpm (400/.8333)
523 ft. lbs. torque @ 4400 rpm (400/.7647)
500 ft. lbs. torque @ 4400 rpm (400/.8)
LS2 Average Gross Ratings
501 hp @ 6000rpm
501 ft. lbs. torque @ 4400 rpm
L71 Gross Rating
495 hp @ 5800 rpm (adjusted rating)
460 ft. lbs. torque @ 4000 rpm (factory rating)*
Net horsepower & torque comparisons
L71
412 hp @ 5800 rpm (495 x .8333)
382 hp @ 5800 rpm (495 x .7647)
396 hp @ 5800 rpm (495 x .8)
383 ft. lbs. torque @ 4000 rpm (460 x .8333)*
352 ft. lbs. torque @ 4000 rpm (460 x .7647)*
368 ft. lbs. torque @ 4000 rpm (460 x .8)*
L71 Average Net Ratings
397 hp @ 5800 rpm
368 ft. lbs. torque @ 4000 rpm (factory rating)*
LS2 Net Rating
400 hp @ 6000 rpm
400 ft. lbs. torque @ 4400 rpm
Conclusion:
The LS2 and L71 are almost equals in power output with the edge going to the LS2. This is proven by their ¼ mile times. The LS2 has a slightly higher ¼ mile speed, 115 mph. to 111 mph, and has a better time of 12.5 seconds vs. 12.9 seconds. Some of the difference is due to tires as evidenced in the 0-60 mph times. The LS2’s time was 4.1 seconds and the L71 was 5.0 seconds. Using the same tires, the ¼ mile performance would probably be roughly the same. The July 2005 issue of Vette magazine compares a 2005 C6 to a 1971 LS6. The results corroborate my conclusion. Note, the LS6 engine was underrated by the factory as was the L71.
*The torque rating of the L71 is as reported by Chevrolet in 1967. However, if that is underrated as was the horsepower and it is equal to the higher horsepower rating then the average torque as calculated would be 495 ft. lbs. of gross torque and 397 ft. lbs. of net torque. Looking at the ¼ mile speed and times, this seems to be a reasonable assumption to make.
Last edited by Marina Blue; May 26, 2005 at 09:54 AM. Reason: Improper spacing
rating in 1971 was a gross rating, not a net rating.
Pat













