Vengeance Racing C7 Z06 Baseline Dyno Numbers- 585/617 BONE STOCK!!!
12-06-2014, 04:00 PM
#241
Drifting
Nice results with tune only. I can't wait to see what it will do with headers and a can change.
12-06-2014, 07:18 PM
#242
Melting Slicks
I was speaking about manufacturing processes, variance and tolerances. I never said electronical devices.
These cars are 650/650. Obviously you must be a subject matter expert in Manufacturing processes. Please advise on GM's process.
These cars are 650/650. Obviously you must be a subject matter expert in Manufacturing processes. Please advise on GM's process.
12-06-2014, 09:06 PM
#243
Scraping the splitter.
On page 5 a poster stated his zr1 stock on the same type of dyno made 570rwhp.... which then follow accuratly with the fwhp differential between 638 and 650.
so did a google search for kicks and found a dyno chart that Vengance posted on a stock zr1 puting down 564rwhp.... so why did you use a 530whp dyno graph overlay and not something better? a bit disengenious?
why not overlay the best stock zr1 graph you got instead... that would be better suited.
so did a google search for kicks and found a dyno chart that Vengance posted on a stock zr1 puting down 564rwhp.... so why did you use a 530whp dyno graph overlay and not something better? a bit disengenious?
why not overlay the best stock zr1 graph you got instead... that would be better suited.
It's pretty much accepted that ZR1's will dyno in the 530-540 rwhp range SAE corrected on a DynoJet unloaded dyno.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...what-dyno.html
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...-the-dyno.html
That being said, I can see why Vengeance would use a ~532 rwhp ZR1 graph, as 564 rwhp appears to be an outlier (and we don't know if it was corrected to SAE or STD). It seems to be pretty representative of a ZR1. I would probably question a 569 rwhp dyno of a stock ZR1, more specifically, whether it was actually a corrected number, which correction factor was used or if it was corrected at all. FWIW...SAE J607 (often referred to as STD), is typically ~4% higher than SAE J1349 (often referred to as SAE) due to correcting to different conditions.
Whether or not 580-590 rwhp/610-620 rwtq will be representative of C7 Z06 M7 cars is yet to be seen. The other dyno that was 572 rwhp was on a Mustang Dyno, which typically would translate to an even higher number on a DynoJet.
S.
12-06-2014, 09:12 PM
#244
It's pretty much accepted that ZR1's will dyno in the 530-540 rwhp range SAE corrected on a DynoJet unloaded dyno.
That being said, I can see why Vengeance would use a ~532 rwhp ZR1 graph, as 564 rwhp appears to be an outlier (and we don't know if it was corrected to SAE or STD). It seems to be pretty representative of a ZR1. I would probably question a 569 rwhp dyno of a stock ZR1, more specifically, whether it was actually a corrected number, which correction factor was used or if it was corrected at all. FWIW...SAE J607 (often referred to as STD), is typically ~4% higher than SAE J1349 (often referred to as SAE) due to correcting to different conditions.
S.
12-06-2014, 11:33 PM
#245
Melting Slicks
I see 530 - 540 rwhp on the ZR1. But what is the difference on the drive line between the ZR1 and C7 Z06? This would mean (as others have said) that the drive train loss is significantly more on a ZR1 than a C7 Z06. So the question I have is how, as it appears the drivetrains to be almost identical?
How can the C7 have over 4% gain on that area (which is very significant)?
I can see 572 as that would make sense. But 10 or more differences in the C7 Z06 is a lot of variance in a manufacturing process.
How can the C7 have over 4% gain on that area (which is very significant)?
I can see 572 as that would make sense. But 10 or more differences in the C7 Z06 is a lot of variance in a manufacturing process.
12-06-2014, 11:40 PM
#246
that the drive train loss is significantly more on a ZR1 than a C7 Z06.
12-06-2014, 11:42 PM
#247
Scraping the splitter.
I see 530 - 540 rwhp on the ZR1. But what is the difference on the drive line between the ZR1 and C7 Z06? This would mean (as others have said) that the drive train loss is significantly more on a ZR1 than a C7 Z06. So the question I have is how, as it appears the drivetrains to be almost identical?
How can the C7 have over 4% gain on that area (which is very significant)?
I can see 572 as that would make sense. But 10 or more differences in the C7 Z06 is a lot of variance in a manufacturing process.
How can the C7 have over 4% gain on that area (which is very significant)?
I can see 572 as that would make sense. But 10 or more differences in the C7 Z06 is a lot of variance in a manufacturing process.
So once again, in reviewing SAE J1349 and the SAE certification, nowhere does it say that the LT4 is governed to a maximum horsepower in production cars. It must make "at least". Nowhere does it state "but not more than" or "not to exceed".
Until somebody pulls a production engine and tests it in accordance with SAE, claiming that it will 'only' make 650 hp is speculative.
Funny how the same scrutiny was not applied to a 670 rwhp Hellcat.
S.
12-06-2014, 11:43 PM
#248
I was speaking about manufacturing processes, variance and tolerances.
12-07-2014, 07:37 AM
#249
Melting Slicks
I am very familiar with manufacturing processes.
What I am saying is that when a car is certified for power, it is what it puts out, given a certain, minor variance. And in these automated, state of the art processes, where tolerances are extremely tight, variances are extremely low, when a manufacturing company states the numbers, that is what the car is. Period. There are no freaks.
A dyno, as you know, is a tool to base your car as a starting point, then calculate what works in terms of modifications or what does not work - R&D. So, if another vendor shows his new C7 Z06 at 535 RWHP, should we take that as the number as well? I can show you a ZR1's that dynoed at 500 RWHP in 2009 - Yet, we are going to base it on a 530-540 number. What about the 500 number? Or are those "stingy" dynos?
I would believe that GM has the best equipment money can buy, agree? State of the art robotics and processes, agree?
What I am not understanding and need assistance with is the differences in drive trains in the ZR1 vs. the C7 Z06 that accounts for these large differences in a car that is 12 FWHP diffferent. Please advise.
The reason I am asking all of this is that the dyno numbers do not add up to the test results from the magazine. With all of this power on a car that is "only" 200 pounds more, how come it's times and speed are not better? I know, we are going to talk about some drag, and for that, I will remind you of a nice "old" report Katech completed - http://www.katechengines.com/street_...a%20report.pdf
I like the car, I am just trying to understand why the dyno's do not equate to the magazine times - they should be much better. The times are what matters in the end, not the dyno number anyway.
What I am saying is that when a car is certified for power, it is what it puts out, given a certain, minor variance. And in these automated, state of the art processes, where tolerances are extremely tight, variances are extremely low, when a manufacturing company states the numbers, that is what the car is. Period. There are no freaks.
A dyno, as you know, is a tool to base your car as a starting point, then calculate what works in terms of modifications or what does not work - R&D. So, if another vendor shows his new C7 Z06 at 535 RWHP, should we take that as the number as well? I can show you a ZR1's that dynoed at 500 RWHP in 2009 - Yet, we are going to base it on a 530-540 number. What about the 500 number? Or are those "stingy" dynos?
I would believe that GM has the best equipment money can buy, agree? State of the art robotics and processes, agree?
What I am not understanding and need assistance with is the differences in drive trains in the ZR1 vs. the C7 Z06 that accounts for these large differences in a car that is 12 FWHP diffferent. Please advise.
The reason I am asking all of this is that the dyno numbers do not add up to the test results from the magazine. With all of this power on a car that is "only" 200 pounds more, how come it's times and speed are not better? I know, we are going to talk about some drag, and for that, I will remind you of a nice "old" report Katech completed - http://www.katechengines.com/street_...a%20report.pdf
I like the car, I am just trying to understand why the dyno's do not equate to the magazine times - they should be much better. The times are what matters in the end, not the dyno number anyway.
Watch the video and pay close attention to the screen. 572 rwhp was on a Mustang Dyno.
So once again, in reviewing SAE J1349 and the SAE certification, nowhere does it say that the LT4 is governed to a maximum horsepower in production cars. It must make "at least". Nowhere does it state "but not more than" or "not to exceed".
Until somebody pulls a production engine and tests it in accordance with SAE, claiming that it will 'only' make 650 hp is speculative.
Funny how the same scrutiny was not applied to a 670 rwhp Hellcat.
S.
So once again, in reviewing SAE J1349 and the SAE certification, nowhere does it say that the LT4 is governed to a maximum horsepower in production cars. It must make "at least". Nowhere does it state "but not more than" or "not to exceed".
Until somebody pulls a production engine and tests it in accordance with SAE, claiming that it will 'only' make 650 hp is speculative.
Funny how the same scrutiny was not applied to a 670 rwhp Hellcat.
S.
12-07-2014, 07:41 AM
#250
Melting Slicks
It does not matter. I am just trying to figure out why the magazine article speeds are not better with all of this power. Why drive train loss is less than the old ZR1 on what appears to be a very similar drivetrain.
In the end, we all like the car.
In the end, we all like the car.
12-07-2014, 10:08 AM
#251
I am just trying to figure out why the magazine article speeds are not better with all of this power
12-07-2014, 10:23 AM
#252
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
On page 5 a poster stated his zr1 stock on the same type of dyno made 570rwhp.... which then follow accuratly with the fwhp differential between 638 and 650.
so did a google search for kicks and found a dyno chart that Vengance posted on a stock zr1 puting down 564rwhp.... so why did you use a 530whp dyno graph overlay and not something better? a bit disengenious?
why not overlay the best stock zr1 graph you got instead... that would be better suited.
so did a google search for kicks and found a dyno chart that Vengance posted on a stock zr1 puting down 564rwhp.... so why did you use a 530whp dyno graph overlay and not something better? a bit disengenious?
why not overlay the best stock zr1 graph you got instead... that would be better suited.
We used a 530 graph for two reasons..
#1 of the 60+ ZR1 that have been on our dyno they average 530-540 stock.
#2 I was not looking for the highest or lowest graph I could fine. A simple comparison of the average baseline was all I was after, and I found it.
12-07-2014, 11:28 AM
#253
Safety Car
Was the dyno to which you are referring corrected to SAE or STD? I have seen the graph, and the article, and it does not specify.
It's pretty much accepted that ZR1's will dyno in the 530-540 rwhp range SAE corrected on a DynoJet unloaded dyno.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...what-dyno.html
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...-the-dyno.html
That being said, I can see why Vengeance would use a ~532 rwhp ZR1 graph, as 564 rwhp appears to be an outlier (and we don't know if it was corrected to SAE or STD). It seems to be pretty representative of a ZR1. I would probably question a 569 rwhp dyno of a stock ZR1, more specifically, whether it was actually a corrected number, which correction factor was used or if it was corrected at all. FWIW...SAE J607 (often referred to as STD), is typically ~4% higher than SAE J1349 (often referred to as SAE) due to correcting to different conditions.
Whether or not 580-590 rwhp/610-620 rwtq will be representative of C7 Z06 M7 cars is yet to be seen. The other dyno that was 572 rwhp was on a Mustang Dyno, which typically would translate to an even higher number on a DynoJet.
S.
It's pretty much accepted that ZR1's will dyno in the 530-540 rwhp range SAE corrected on a DynoJet unloaded dyno.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...what-dyno.html
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...-the-dyno.html
That being said, I can see why Vengeance would use a ~532 rwhp ZR1 graph, as 564 rwhp appears to be an outlier (and we don't know if it was corrected to SAE or STD). It seems to be pretty representative of a ZR1. I would probably question a 569 rwhp dyno of a stock ZR1, more specifically, whether it was actually a corrected number, which correction factor was used or if it was corrected at all. FWIW...SAE J607 (often referred to as STD), is typically ~4% higher than SAE J1349 (often referred to as SAE) due to correcting to different conditions.
Whether or not 580-590 rwhp/610-620 rwtq will be representative of C7 Z06 M7 cars is yet to be seen. The other dyno that was 572 rwhp was on a Mustang Dyno, which typically would translate to an even higher number on a DynoJet.
S.
12-07-2014, 11:33 AM
#254
Safety Car
We used a 530 graph for two reasons..
#1 of the 60+ ZR1 that have been on our dyno they average 530-540 stock.
#2 I was not looking for the highest or lowest graph I could fine. A simple comparison of the average baseline was all I was after, and I found it.
#1 of the 60+ ZR1 that have been on our dyno they average 530-540 stock.
#2 I was not looking for the highest or lowest graph I could fine. A simple comparison of the average baseline was all I was after, and I found it.
12-07-2014, 12:15 PM
#255
Drifting
Was the dyno to which you are referring corrected to SAE or STD? I have seen the graph, and the article, and it does not specify.
It's pretty much accepted that ZR1's will dyno in the 530-540 rwhp range SAE corrected on a DynoJet unloaded dyno.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...what-dyno.html
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...-the-dyno.html
That being said, I can see why Vengeance would use a ~532 rwhp ZR1 graph, as 564 rwhp appears to be an outlier (and we don't know if it was corrected to SAE or STD). It seems to be pretty representative of a ZR1. I would probably question a 569 rwhp dyno of a stock ZR1, more specifically, whether it was actually a corrected number, which correction factor was used or if it was corrected at all. FWIW...SAE J607 (often referred to as STD), is typically ~4% higher than SAE J1349 (often referred to as SAE) due to correcting to different conditions.
Whether or not 580-590 rwhp/610-620 rwtq will be representative of C7 Z06 M7 cars is yet to be seen. The other dyno that was 572 rwhp was on a Mustang Dyno, which typically would translate to an even higher number on a DynoJet.
S.
It's pretty much accepted that ZR1's will dyno in the 530-540 rwhp range SAE corrected on a DynoJet unloaded dyno.
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...what-dyno.html
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...-the-dyno.html
That being said, I can see why Vengeance would use a ~532 rwhp ZR1 graph, as 564 rwhp appears to be an outlier (and we don't know if it was corrected to SAE or STD). It seems to be pretty representative of a ZR1. I would probably question a 569 rwhp dyno of a stock ZR1, more specifically, whether it was actually a corrected number, which correction factor was used or if it was corrected at all. FWIW...SAE J607 (often referred to as STD), is typically ~4% higher than SAE J1349 (often referred to as SAE) due to correcting to different conditions.
Whether or not 580-590 rwhp/610-620 rwtq will be representative of C7 Z06 M7 cars is yet to be seen. The other dyno that was 572 rwhp was on a Mustang Dyno, which typically would translate to an even higher number on a DynoJet.
S.
I'm not a dyno expert but further to my post on pg 5 re. stock '13 ZR1 Dynojet numbers...
Just a FYI, my bone stock 2013 ZR1 made the following numbers on a Dynojet 224X (August 2014, Toronto, Ontario).
569 hp
531 tq
It drives like a monster!
Bet your stock C7 Z06 drives like a 'hyper-monster'!!
Way to go, GM!!!
And congrats on the new car.
...my dyno sheet says
CF: SAE Smoothing: 5
Run Type: RO
Run Conditions: 87.44 F, 29.47 in Hg, Humidity 52%,
SAE 1.03
Not sure if this helps with the C7 Z06 dyno comparison but it's pretty clear to me that this C7 Z06 is making more HP and significantly more TQ than my C6 ZR1.
I'd be admiring the C7 Z06 tail lights on the drag strip and probably lose sight of those lights on a road course...again, the engineering evolution of the Corvette super cars is great!
12-07-2014, 12:54 PM
#256
b
Some guys either cannot read, are too lazy to read, or have heads with concrete for brains. There is a mustang dyno number of 572 rwhp that everyone on the forum is aware of but you sir.
ut you only have 1 c7z dyno...
12-07-2014, 12:56 PM
#257
Team Owner
No it is not. Why not just say you are wrong. You are obfuscating on your first assertion that all c7z06's produce exactly 650 hp. They do not. Most of them will produce a little more than that. It is called a cushion. Now you want to talk about driveline loss. This stuff is not as exact as you seem to want to believe.
GM doesn't dyno 100 engines, and then select the one with the lowest horsepower, to be used on the SAE measurement certification, just so they can "sandbag" the "rated" horsepower so that "most" of the engines built after the certification test will have "more" horsepower than what the engine is rated for.
Last edited by JoesC5; 12-07-2014 at 01:04 PM.
12-07-2014, 01:04 PM
#258
Team Owner
We do not know what condition the cars the magazines tested were in. The torque comes in really early on this engine. I cannot prove what I am going to suggest, just observations over the years. It always seems that roots supercharged engines on inertia dynos always show slightly higher rwhp than 1/4 mile speeds would indicate. I believe this is because the low end torque is so much higher and hence the acceleration of the drum occurs a little quicker which shows up in the hp calculations. I do not believe inertia dynos correctly show the hp loss at high rpms that comes from powering the blower. If you have raced similar hp, roots blower vs na, cars against each other you can see this first hand. I believe this is one of the reasons the car does not pull as hard at speed as the hp would indicate. Again I have no scientific proof of this. ie the torque from 2k to 4k rpms does not matter on a track because any decent driver is always above those rpms. The aftermarket is going to fix this...look what Vengeance has already done.
12-07-2014, 01:48 PM
#260
Scraping the splitter.
I am very familiar with manufacturing processes.
What I am saying is that when a car is certified for power, it is what it puts out, given a certain, minor variance. And in these automated, state of the art processes, where tolerances are extremely tight, variances are extremely low, when a manufacturing company states the numbers, that is what the car is. Period. There are no freaks.
A dyno, as you know, is a tool to base your car as a starting point, then calculate what works in terms of modifications or what does not work - R&D. So, if another vendor shows his new C7 Z06 at 535 RWHP, should we take that as the number as well? I can show you a ZR1's that dynoed at 500 RWHP in 2009 - Yet, we are going to base it on a 530-540 number. What about the 500 number? Or are those "stingy" dynos?
I would believe that GM has the best equipment money can buy, agree? State of the art robotics and processes, agree?
What I am not understanding and need assistance with is the differences in drive trains in the ZR1 vs. the C7 Z06 that accounts for these large differences in a car that is 12 FWHP diffferent. Please advise.
The reason I am asking all of this is that the dyno numbers do not add up to the test results from the magazine. With all of this power on a car that is "only" 200 pounds more, how come it's times and speed are not better? I know, we are going to talk about some drag, and for that, I will remind you of a nice "old" report Katech completed - http://www.katechengines.com/street_...a%20report.pdf
I like the car, I am just trying to understand why the dyno's do not equate to the magazine times - they should be much better. The times are what matters in the end, not the dyno number anyway.
What I am saying is that when a car is certified for power, it is what it puts out, given a certain, minor variance. And in these automated, state of the art processes, where tolerances are extremely tight, variances are extremely low, when a manufacturing company states the numbers, that is what the car is. Period. There are no freaks.
A dyno, as you know, is a tool to base your car as a starting point, then calculate what works in terms of modifications or what does not work - R&D. So, if another vendor shows his new C7 Z06 at 535 RWHP, should we take that as the number as well? I can show you a ZR1's that dynoed at 500 RWHP in 2009 - Yet, we are going to base it on a 530-540 number. What about the 500 number? Or are those "stingy" dynos?
I would believe that GM has the best equipment money can buy, agree? State of the art robotics and processes, agree?
What I am not understanding and need assistance with is the differences in drive trains in the ZR1 vs. the C7 Z06 that accounts for these large differences in a car that is 12 FWHP diffferent. Please advise.
The reason I am asking all of this is that the dyno numbers do not add up to the test results from the magazine. With all of this power on a car that is "only" 200 pounds more, how come it's times and speed are not better? I know, we are going to talk about some drag, and for that, I will remind you of a nice "old" report Katech completed - http://www.katechengines.com/street_...a%20report.pdf
I like the car, I am just trying to understand why the dyno's do not equate to the magazine times - they should be much better. The times are what matters in the end, not the dyno number anyway.
I too 'thought' that J1349 called for a 2% window, so no more than 1% below or above the rated power and torque. I never really looked closely at it. That's not how it appears to be and IMO SBC_and_a_Stick may very well be correct...it's only allows for 2% less than rated power but not really a ceiling on how much more than rated.
S.