Post your BONE STOCK LS3 dyno numbers...
Please list: mileage, transmission, octane, if NPP or z51, type of dyno, A/F ratio if possible.
:cheers: |
Did mine this past Sunday at West Coast Corvettes....08,5200 Miles, MN6 ,91 octane, NPP and Z51...380 RWHP..378 RWTQ :thumbs:
Mike:cheers: |
LS3-MN6-Non-NPP 366HP, 360TQ Running verrrry fat. AFR 10.5-11.5. 2200 mi., DynoJet 11/15/07
|
Originally Posted by CorvetteMike68
(Post 1562856996)
Did mine this past Sunday at West Coast Corvettes....08,5200 Miles, MN6 ,91 octane, NPP and Z51...380 RWHP..378 RWTQ :thumbs:
Mike:cheers: |
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1001/...056488e1_o.jpg
BONE STOCK LS3 MN6 Z51 NPP W/1,200 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1241/...e7009111_o.jpg DYNO SHEET OF ALL 4 PULLS |
Originally Posted by DitchTehFish
(Post 1562857141)
nice numbers! Do you happen to know your A/F ratio?
i have no idea:rolleyes: sorry....it was my first time dynoing any car...to be honest i was alittle nervous..lol Mike:cheers: |
The lowest so far 366 while the highest is 392!!! I realize the NPP may add a few horses. I know there's a lot of factors involved, but 28rwhp is a big variance!!!:ack:
|
Originally Posted by DitchTehFish
(Post 1562857578)
The lowest so far 366 while the highest is 392!!! I realize the NPP may add a few horses. I know there's a lot of factors involved, but 28rwhp is a big variance!!!:ack:
lowest may contribute to Auto trans and the Mustang Dyno |
Originally Posted by C6 DVL
(Post 1562857595)
NPP is good for 2 or 3 rwhp
|
Originally Posted by DitchTehFish
(Post 1562857615)
So we'll go with 25rwhp difference between the highest and lowest so far. That's disturbing if you ask me.:(
|
Originally Posted by Cjunkie
(Post 1562861636)
doesnt shock me at all-different transmissions,sea levels,octane used,mileage variables,DYNO's,engine tolerances,weather,engine temps when dynoed (oil and water). you havent drag raced much or built many engines have you? :toetap:
|
Originally Posted by DitchTehFish
(Post 1562861832)
SAE formula should make up for most that.
Rear wheel dyno numbers are good for the exact car at the exact time in the exact location under the exact conditions and are virtually useless for comparing one to another amidst a sea of variables that exist between the two. Even then it is virtually useless to measure gain unless you know what the flywheel horsepower of the car was. You still have no idea what your individual parasitic loss was through the driveline. |
|
Originally Posted by Modshack
(Post 1562861975)
No way you got that kind of number out of thing 2 bone stock. :toetap: :D |
I love this kind of talk. Interesting info. Happy Thanksgiving.
:flag: :flag: :flag: |
Originally Posted by talon90
(Post 1562861922)
SAE net horsepower is still power at the flywheel. Contrary to popular misconception it does nothing for rear wheel horsepower.
. |
Originally Posted by DitchTehFish
(Post 1562857615)
So we'll go with 25rwhp difference between the highest and lowest so far. That's disturbing if you ask me.:(
p.s. if my car dynos at 390 rwhp, you can bet I'll still talk it up here !! :D |
Originally Posted by DitchTehFish
(Post 1562862127)
So you're saying that everyone who has their car dyno'ed in SAE format walks away with worthless, completely inaccurate numbers?
What I'm talking about is comparing different cars on different equipment on different days under different conditions by different operators. The only controlled variable you have is they will be different. While most dyno software possess the ability to apply SAE correction, if the operator does not input the variables data correctly for temperature, humidity and absolute barometric pressure at the time of the test, then yes I'm saying the owner is walking away with a misguided sense of his actual horsepower or worthless numbers on a page. They will always have however as Modshack demonstrated, a pretty picture to present to the forum or for bench racing with their buddies. It is also worth mentioning that to acurately apply SAE correction there are maximums that can be adjusted for variables, what are the odd that a particular operator on a particular day will know and apply this mandate? |
Originally Posted by talon90
(Post 1562862264)
Which SAE format are you discussing? Are you talking about SAE net power or J1349 correction forumula or similar?
What I'm talking about is comparing different cars on different equipment on different days under different conditions by different operators. The only controlled variable you have is they will be different. While most dyno software possess the ability to apply SAE correction, if the operator does not input the variables data correctly for temperature, humidity and absolute barometric pressure at the time of the test, then yes I'm saying the owner is walking away with a misguided sense of his actual horsepower or worthless numbers on a page. They will always have however as Modshack demonstrated, a pretty picture to present to the forum or for bench racing with their buddies. |
1340 miles, Z51 MN6 with NPP, 93 octane - 390.5 hp.
I can't find my dyno sheet right now, but it's the dyno at MTI in Houston. If nobody else posts what their's is, I'll look it up later. Gotta go to the in-laws now for turkey!:leaving: |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:50 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands