When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
OK......example LT1...460 HP?.....is that 460 hp in the enclosed engine room Dyno with no add on to put drag on motor like AC,Alt,Power steering transmission etc....or is that 460 hp to the rear wheels (rwhp)..if it is rwhp then you need to add approx 15% ( for standard Trans) to the rwhp to get hp to crank.....which would make the LT1 (460 rwhp + 15%=529 hp to crank (motor).....Talk to me...what is on motor when dynoed at 460?
12%-15% less than the 460 you have at the crank is what you will have at the wheels .
I agree 100%...that comes out to about 400 rwhp on stock LT1......Its amazing how many people have gotten base line dynos and their numbers are nowhere close to that.....Which means after their mods the hp is not close either....I know Mustang dynos are better for tuning and read about 10% less than a Dynojet which should be close....If you take the time to search a bunch of dynos it becomes funny..
The SAE rating is 460 hp at the flywheel. It includes all accessory loads. IN 1972 Socoety of Automotibve Engineers (SAE) changed the standard hp rating to include all engine loads. The rear wheel power will be reduced by an amount for the traansmission and differential and other drive train losses (inefficiencies).
I agree the RWHP will be 12 to 15% less than the 460 at the flywheel.
Last edited by GarryZR1; Aug 26, 2017 at 05:11 PM.
The SAE rating is 460 hp at the flywheel. It includes all accessory loads. IN 1972 Socoety of Automotibve Engineers (SAE) changed the standard hp rating to include all engine loads. The rear wheel power will be reduced by an amount for the traansmission and differential and other drive train losses (inefficiencies).
I agree the RWHP will be 12 to 15% less than the 460 at the flywheel.
Thanks for the info....Does that mean that the top Dog in 1970 the 450 hp 454 Chevelle was really only 392 hp with 13% loss?...Just kidding ...The point is that all these shops that have dynos hacked up to show you that you have a lot more Hp and torque than you do should Quit that
I answered my own question from a article from Hagerty...
“Rear wheel horsepower was at least 30 percent lower than the reported gross figure, in some cases even more,” Campisano said.
Some Super Chevy readers must have been stunned to see that an LS6 Chevelle SS, with 450-hp rating, put down 288 rear wheel hp in the dyno test. That would have put a net hp rating at around 350 hp for that legendary big block.
I answered my own question from a article from Hagerty...
“Rear wheel horsepower was at least 30 percent lower than the reported gross figure, in some cases even more,” Campisano said.
Some Super Chevy readers must have been stunned to see that an LS6 Chevelle SS, with 450-hp rating, put down 288 rear wheel hp in the dyno test. That would have put a net hp rating at around 350 hp for that legendary big block.
Back in those days, auto makers used SAE Gross, which was with no accessory loads, no intake restrictions, no mufflers..... Hugely misleading.
Back in those days, auto makers used SAE Gross, which was with no accessory loads, no intake restrictions, no mufflers..... Hugely misleading.
actually I would consider it more accurate when defining actual engine horsepower. they don't call it "Engine HP with AC, power steering, emissions equipment, auto slushbox" they call it "Engine HP."
what this means is that engine advancements, drivetrain efficiency, and automotive technology in general has come even farther than we give it credit for.
Thanks for the info....Does that mean that the top Dog in 1970 the 450 hp 454 Chevelle was really only 392 hp with 13% loss?...Just kidding ...The point is that all these shops that have dynos hacked up to show you that you have a lot more Hp and torque than you do should Quit that
The relationship between Gross and Net HP has changed over the years due to more efficient accessories. I used to have a 71 LS6 Corvette with a 425 HP 454 BB. That was gross HP. While I had the 71 I purchased the Assembly Manual that indicated GM was going to offer the same engine in 72 with a net HP of 330 HP but ended up never actually releasing the engine for build. Gross HP ratings were taken with no accessories and with headers Vs the stock exhaust manifolds.
With newer engines accessories have gotten more efficient and stock exhaust manifolds have also gotten more efficient so Net HP ratings are much closer to Gross HP if they actually measured gross HP anymore.
The truth is that before SAE became the agreed upon method, relatively recently, mfg's reported whatever they wanted using whatever method they wanted.
OK......example LT1...460 HP?.....is that 460 hp in the enclosed engine room Dyno with no add on to put drag on motor like AC,Alt,Power steering transmission etc....or is that 460 hp to the rear wheels (rwhp)..if it is rwhp then you need to add approx 15% ( for standard Trans) to the rwhp to get hp to crank.....which would make the LT1 (460 rwhp + 15%=529 hp to crank (motor).....Talk to me...what is on motor when dynoed at 460?
Thanks
460 hp at the crank.At the wheel approximately 405-420.
The truth is that before SAE became the agreed upon method, relatively recently, mfg's reported whatever they wanted using whatever method they wanted.
This!!
True compression, cam specs etc. Still done today by many mfrs.....dont get hung up on dyno #s car will still run the same.
The truth is that before SAE became the agreed upon method, relatively recently, mfg's reported whatever they wanted using whatever method they wanted.
In the past, some of GM's performance specifications seemed to have been written by the Advertising Department rather than by Engineering.
In the past, some of GM's performance specifications seemed to have been written by the Advertising Department rather than by Engineering.
There was an art form to the lies though. Back in the day drag race classes were based on advertised hp to weight figures. GM seemed to have a knack for building lighter cars than Ford or Chrysler and lied less about HP. So a guy could go the strip in a stock 57 Chevy 2 Dr Hardtop with a 270 horse small block and completely blow away an 8 year newer Mustang with a 270 horse motor. It happened all the time.