650 hp

whitec7 · 2019-10-22 19:18:09

Z0Sick6 (https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/members/168025-z0sick6.html) great Avatar

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Oct 28, 2019 | 06:54 AM

#61

Metraman

Burning Brakes

Joined: Jul 2005

Posts: 892

Likes: 459

From: Belleville Michigan

Z0Sick6 great Avatar

Oct 28, 2019 | 10:53 AM

#62

1SG_Ret

Melting Slicks

Joined: Jul 2014

Posts: 2,195

Likes: 479

From: Bonita Springs Florida

FWIW

Oct 29, 2019 | 10:42 AM

#63

PRE-Z06

Race Director

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 12,396

Likes: 2,912

From: Fort Worth, Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reciprocal

You really have no clue about what I didn't say.

Since you have a clue, please explain how the dyno numbers MT published add up if you believe them to be true.

Oct 29, 2019 | 11:07 AM

#64

Lavender

Melting Slicks

Joined: Jan 2013

Posts: 2,828

Likes: 432

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reciprocal

You really have no clue about what I didn't say.

Huh? You said that a C8 Z51 traps the same as C6 ZR1 which is laughable at best. Care to explain yourself?

Oct 29, 2019 | 12:50 PM

#65

Reciprocal

Burning Brakes

Joined: Nov 2010

Posts: 994

Likes: 30

From: Aurora Colorado

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRE-Z06

Since you have a clue, please explain how the dyno numbers MT published add up if you believe them to be true.

Since you said I don't, nothing needs to be said about dyno numbers except this, they were rechecked, Motor Trend stands behind them.

Oct 29, 2019 | 01:21 PM

#66

JazzVA

Pro

Joined: Apr 2019

Posts: 551

Likes: 263

It's largely summed up below...

Oct 29, 2019 | 01:22 PM

#67

jvp

Tech Contributor

Joined: Mar 1999

Posts: 10,448

Likes: 4,405

From: Northern VA

"Ask Tadge" Producer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reciprocal

Since you said I don't, nothing needs to be said about dyno numbers except this, they were rechecked, Motor Trend stands behind them.

They were not "rechecked" because Motor Trend doesn't have another car to "recheck" them with. Whether they stand behind their original article or not is irrelevant; they were incorrect in publishing it. The car did not, in any way, shape, or form produce the amount of rear wheel torque they claim it did.

So, exactly what is your point? State it clearly so we can get away from the dodging and guessing.

Oct 29, 2019 | 01:34 PM

#68

Reciprocal

Burning Brakes

Joined: Nov 2010

Posts: 994

Likes: 30

From: Aurora Colorado

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavender

Huh? You said that a C8 Z51 traps the same as C6 ZR1 which is laughable at best. Care to explain yourself?

#10 on the C6 ZR1 fast list trapped at only 125.33.

Corvette Stories

The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts

5 Best & 5 Most Overrated Corvette Track Packages of All Time!

Joe Kucinski

Every 2027 Corvette Engine Explained

Joe Kucinski

Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette

Verdad Gallardo

10 Ugly Corvettes That We Still Kinda Love

Joe Kucinski

Top 10 Most Expensive Corvettes Ever Sold on Bring A Trailer

Brett Foote

10 Things Every Corvette Owner Needs (2026 Edition)

Michael S. Palmer

8 Most "Only Corvette Owners Understand" Quirks and Problems

Pouria Savadkouei

10 Reasons the C6 Z06 is Still A Performance Benchmark After 20 Years

Joe Kucinski

How Much Horsepower Every Corvette Engine "LOST" in 1972

Joe Kucinski

Top 10 DOs and DON'Ts for Protecting Your Convertible Top!

Michael S. Palmer

Oct 29, 2019 | 01:38 PM

#69

Lavender

Melting Slicks

Joined: Jan 2013

Posts: 2,828

Likes: 432

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reciprocal

#10 on the C6 ZR1 fast list trapped at only 125.33.

So just because some random schmuck trapped 125 in this C6 ZR1 that means the C8 Z51 that GM send to MT was a ringer?

I asked before but didnt get an aswer...so I'll ask again. Do you even have a drivers license?

Oct 29, 2019 | 01:38 PM

#70

Reciprocal

Burning Brakes

Joined: Nov 2010

Posts: 994

Likes: 30

From: Aurora Colorado

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvp

the car did not, in any way, shape, or form produce the amount of rear wheel torque they claim it did.

prove it!

Oct 29, 2019 | 01:39 PM

#71

jvp

Tech Contributor

Joined: Mar 1999

Posts: 10,448

Likes: 4,405

From: Northern VA

"Ask Tadge" Producer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reciprocal

prove it!

Science already has. If you can't accept that, then there's really nothing else to discuss with you.

Oct 29, 2019 | 02:05 PM

#72

Reciprocal

Burning Brakes

Joined: Nov 2010

Posts: 994

Likes: 30

From: Aurora Colorado

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvp

Science already has. If you can't accept that, then there's really nothing else to discuss with you.

What science?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motor Trend

Why the huge discrepancy with the numbers? We still don't know. The dyno we used complies with the SAE J1349 procedures, and we've used it multiple times in the past. To prove there wasn't a problem with the dyno, we ran a 2020 Ram 2500 Limited powered by the 6.7-liter turbodiesel Cummins engine, which produces 850 lb-ft of torque but is not SAE-certified. The dyno read 760 lb-ft at the wheels, which means there's about 890 lb-ft at the crank, much closer to the numbers Ram claims.

One thing we know for certain: the 2020 Chevrolet Corvette C8 provided for all our testing produces more power than what Chevy claims. The question is, will all subsequent production Corvettes match this one's output? You can be sure we'll be testing many C8 Corvettes to come, and we'll endeavor to test retail customer cars as well as press cars. Stay tuned.

Oct 29, 2019 | 02:13 PM

#73

RapidC84B

Team Owner

Joined: Feb 2013

Posts: 22,598

Likes: 14,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reciprocal

prove it!

The 121-122 mph 1/4 mile traps prove it. If you don't understand that then there's not much we can tell you.

Oct 29, 2019 | 02:15 PM

#74

PRE-Z06

Race Director

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 12,396

Likes: 2,912

From: Fort Worth, Texas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reciprocal

What science?

First off you understand HP is a derivative of torque and rpm right? Please provide another dyno graph of a NA 6.2L V8 that runs on 91 octane and makes the same amount of torque as this one, then we can have an educated discussion.

Oct 29, 2019 | 02:16 PM

#75

SladeX

Melting Slicks

Joined: Aug 2014

Posts: 2,587

Likes: 873

Wow this slugfest over an inflated number has gone nuts. The trap speed and weight do not support anything but the SAE numbers.

Oct 29, 2019 | 02:32 PM

#76

Reciprocal

Burning Brakes

Joined: Nov 2010

Posts: 994

Likes: 30

From: Aurora Colorado

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tool Hoarder

The 121-122 mph 1/4 mile traps prove it. If you don't understand that then there's not much we can tell you.

First of all, it was 123.2 mph, secondly it was an instrumented test at Fontana which has no 1/4 mile course, but I agree with you on the last point, there is not much you can tell me.

Oct 29, 2019 | 02:38 PM

#77

jvp

Tech Contributor

Joined: Mar 1999

Posts: 10,448

Likes: 4,405

From: Northern VA

"Ask Tadge" Producer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reciprocal

First of all, it was 123.2 mph, secondly it was an instrumented test at Fontana which has no 1/4 mile course, but I agree with you on the last point, there is not much you can tell me.

Let's stick a pin in this. In a few months' time when Motor Trend gets a production car and they run it down the quarter, I'll bet you one of my sizeable pay check that they get a trap speed in the low 120s again. From there, they'll take it back to their dyno shop and run it. This time, it'll come in at the appropriate rear-wheel torque number we'd expect from an SAE-measured 470 crank. Between then and now, the dyno operator in question will have realized his set-up mistake and he'll have corrected it.

The key point here will be: same trap speed, but different rear-wheel torque number. You'll be expected to explain that. Thus the pin.

Oct 29, 2019 | 02:40 PM

#78

RapidC84B

Team Owner

Joined: Feb 2013

Posts: 22,598

Likes: 14,556

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reciprocal

First of all, it was 123.2 mph, secondly it was an instrumented test at Fontana which has no 1/4 mile course, but I agree with you on the last point, there is not much you can tell me.

One test was 123... others were 121.

The SAE certifications for the LS7, LT1, LT4, and LT5 have all proven accurate. Yet now GM figured out how to botch the SAE test and somehow make a 550 rwhp smog legal 6.2 that revs to 6,600? Sure bud.

Oct 29, 2019 | 02:43 PM

#79

Lavender

Melting Slicks

Joined: Jan 2013

Posts: 2,828

Likes: 432

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reciprocal

First of all, it was 123.2 mph, secondly it was an instrumented test at Fontana which has no 1/4 mile course, but I agree with you on the last point, there is not much you can tell me.

There is a lot people can tell you. First of all you claim the engine that its this particular Corvette have a Volumetric Efficiency of 170%. No engine in this world (probably other worlds as well LMAO) has ever came close to those numbers. F1 in its Naturally Aspirated glory days with the 3.0l V10 had MAY BE 125% VE but I doubt it was actually that high.

Also please humor me on this one too. Since you like linking trap speeds without anything about weather conditions..etc etc I'll link something myself.

2~~~~11.377~~122.91~~1.71~ Bone stock C7 Z5 w/ 460hp @ 3,400lbs (give or take). That's 2.5mph less than your precious C6 ZR1pass you copied with 180 hp less. I'm fairly certain Farmer has done 123.8mph in bone stock C7. It was mentioned in one of this threads back @ 2014. How come its trapping so close with such a colossal power deficit?

Last edited by Lavender; Oct 29, 2019 at 02:46 PM.

Oct 29, 2019 | 02:45 PM

#80

Lavender

Melting Slicks

Joined: Jan 2013

Posts: 2,828

Likes: 432

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tool Hoarder

\

Can you help me out please. I'm @ Chevy C8 website trying to spec a Z51 C8 with the 560rwhp 170% VE engine. I'm somewhat at a loss there because for the sake of me...I cant find it

Can you point me in the right direction?

Reply Share

First
Prev
4 / 5
Next
Last

Forum Jump