Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23
Like Tree1Likes

01 SS Dyno

This is a discussion on 01 SS Dyno within the Camaro / SS forums, part of the Vehicle Specific category; I finally got the car dyno'd and am very happy with the result - 325.1 horsepower at the wheels. I ...

  1. #1
    Junior Member Ed's 01 SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Victoria, Canada
    Posts
    14

    Navy Blue Metallic
    2001 SS SLP

    01 SS Dyno

    I finally got the car dyno'd and am very happy with the result - 325.1 horsepower at the wheels. I am the original owner and no mods have been made to the car. The "official" factory rated horsepower for this car with the CME is 335, about 40 horsepower less than it actually has. Other than the occasional minor piston slap (which the Pennzoil Platinum helped reduce) she still runs very well despite 155,000 kms.

  2. #2
    Junior Member Ed's 01 SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Victoria, Canada
    Posts
    14

    Navy Blue Metallic
    2001 SS SLP

    Sorry, I forgot to add my sig.
    01 SS, NBM non T-top coupe, A4, neutral leather, SS grille, SS dash plaque, Centre Mount Exhaust, 1 of 2, SLP #C110

  3. #3
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    These engines are very much underated, as you've just found out.

    Now you have a baseline,,,,when does the modding start?

  4. #4
    Former Mopar Man 2002ssslp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Branchville, NJ
    Posts
    3,111

    Silver & Blue
    02 Camaro SS, 04 GTO

    I agree with FBJ. Let the mods begin. The LS1 was always underated and getting to 400 rwhp is no more then a phone call to your parts supplier and a Saturday afternoon. These cars, SS & WS6, were ment to run in the 12's right from the start. The only problem is the 10 bolt rear and a couple of minor things like window motors but overall I like my SS more then a Vette. JMO
    My ride is a 2002 Camaro SS SLP #3296 with 30k, LTH, 3" Y, CME, Frost tune, K&N, ported TB, Blackwing lid, Bellows, MSD, Denso Iridium, and 85mm MAF, Bilsteins, Eibach springs, SLP strut brace, Adj. Panhard, TA Girdle, UMI, Pro 5.0, Nitto NT555
    My wife has a 2004 GTO with the rare SAP, 18" wheels, K&N Cold Air System, MSD, Ported TB, Frost tune, Denso Iridium, Flowmaster cat-back, 3200 Yank, 75k

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    bernaillio county
    Posts
    292

    navy blue
    2002 camaro ss

    To the o p i basically have the same car, same ext color and int color. mines an 02 w/cme and blackwing air lid 345 hp. Love the color its just hard to keep clean

  6. #6
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Yep I have an 02 SS vert that is identical and SLP loaded, CME, Lid, mats, portfolio, cover, etc...I've really grown to dislike the color, it's as bad as black Can't take the darn thing around the block without feeling like it needs wiped down again.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator
    pajeff02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mansfield, PA
    Posts
    21,576

    Black & Blue
    '02 WS.6 / '07 Suburban

    Nice dyno number. Any track times with her?

  8. #8
    Exalted Cyclops 67CamaroRSSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,824

    2002 Z28 A4 NBM
    Sadly now demodded :(

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    Yep I have an 02 SS vert that is identical and SLP loaded, CME, Lid, mats, portfolio, cover, etc...I've really grown to dislike the color, it's as bad as black Can't take the darn thing around the block without feeling like it needs wiped down again.
    My Z is now a DD and I basically gave up on trying to keep it clean anymore. I do like the color though. I still get comments on it even when it's dirty.

    And it put down 306/323 and the rear wheels as a stocker.

    Sig shows what the car did as modified.
    67 Camaro: K-K + 797-z (look it up), 454/Th400/4.10 12-bolt = 6mpg, PS/PDB/PW tilt, tach, gauges...

    2005 Corvette LS2/M6 Magnetic Red Metallic (What else would it be?) w/ Cashmere interior

    2002 Z28: NBM/Tan, MTI smooth lid, smooth bellows, !AIR, !cats, 1-3/4" QTP SS LT's, 2-1/2" TD's with X-pipe, MagnaFlows dumped at axle, custom welded SFC's, MidWest Chassis body mount adjustable T/A, 3400 stall, 3.23 gears (was 2.73). Tuned: 343rwhp/357rwt (before TD's). Best: 12.559 @ 108+, 1.73 60' @ 3500' DA w/MT ET Street DR's.

    Carbon footprint? CLOWN SHOE!

  9. #9
    expensive tires az gt eater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    phoenix
    Posts
    1,951

    white
    04 2500 4x4 crew cab

    Quote Originally Posted by Ed's 01 SS View Post
    I finally got the car dyno'd and am very happy with the result - 325.1 horsepower at the wheels. I am the original owner and no mods have been made to the car. The "official" factory rated horsepower for this car with the CME is 335, about 40 horsepower less than it actually has. Other than the occasional minor piston slap (which the Pennzoil Platinum helped reduce) she still runs very well despite 155,000 kms.
    That's pretty close to what I put down factory. 324/338 at the wheels. I had mine dynoed to see that everything was working as it should.

  10. #10
    Junior Member danjo11's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    62

    Victory Red
    2000 SS

    My 00 SS is factory 320hp. On Bluecat's Dyno it laid down 295 stock with SLP lid before his tune. A few keyboard clicks later 306hp to the wheel. I was surprised that it lost 25hp from the flywheel to the road. Always good to have a baseline number.
    -- We are the people your parents warned you about.

  11. #11
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by danjo11 View Post
    I was surprised that it lost 25hp from the flywheel to the road. Always good to have a baseline number.
    Actually they loose quite a bit more. The numbers GM puts on these production cars isn't really that close and shouldn't be used as a comparison for real world dyno's.

    There is a pretty large difference if you dyno the engine alone vs a chassis dyno. Of course correction numbers and dyno's vary but generally the engine on a dyno has no accessories to run, usually gets a carb hat for outside air, in a controlled room, and for ease of hookup generally runs an electric water pump since the accessory drive in most cases in non existent.
    I've seen nearly 100hp difference from engine to chassis dyno on a couple of my cars. By the time the engine is in the car, running all accessories, heat soaked, surrounded by a hot engine compartment, air cleaner assembly installed, full exhaust, turning the transmission, driveshaft, rearend, wheels and tires, it all robs alot of HP.

    A perfect example of LS engines was GM High Performance several years ago running the LS1 crate engine on an engine dyno with no accessories similar to what I described above, and right out of the crate it made right at 400 hp at the flywheel. So when you put it in a car and you see all these examples making 300-330 HP on a chassis dyno, it starts to make more sense. GM sandbagged the advertised HP numbers just like they've done for the last 40 something years.
    Last edited by Firebirdjones; 09-21-2012 at 08:03 AM.

  12. #12
    Former Mopar Man 2002ssslp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Branchville, NJ
    Posts
    3,111

    Silver & Blue
    02 Camaro SS, 04 GTO

    Agreed, they grossly underrated the LS1 and I do not know why because every time you open a magazine you see someone else has the HP lead. Mustang, Corvette, Viper, Camaro they leap frog every month.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Too Fast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    54
    Posts
    5,170

    Black
    2000 WS6 6spd Hooker LT

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    Actually they loose quite a bit more. The numbers GM puts on these production cars isn't really that close and shouldn't be used as a comparison for real world dyno's.

    There is a pretty large difference if you dyno the engine alone vs a chassis dyno. Of course correction numbers and dyno's vary but generally the engine on a dyno has no accessories to run, usually gets a carb hat for outside air, in a controlled room, and for ease of hookup generally runs an electric water pump since the accessory drive in most cases in non existent.
    I've seen nearly 100hp difference from engine to chassis dyno on a couple of my cars. By the time the engine is in the car, running all accessories, heat soaked, surrounded by a hot engine compartment, air cleaner assembly installed, full exhaust, turning the transmission, driveshaft, rearend, wheels and tires, it all robs alot of HP.

    A perfect example of LS engines was GM High Performance several years ago running the LS1 crate engine on an engine dyno with no accessories similar to what I described above, and right out of the crate it made right at 400 hp at the flywheel. So when you put it in a car and you see all these examples making 300-330 HP on a chassis dyno, it starts to make more sense. GM sandbagged the advertised HP numbers just like they've done for the last 40 something years.

    And that 100 HP diff you wrote about is why almost all the cars from the late 60s had so much over-rated advertised power. When you see a 330 HP, 410 ft-lb torque 400 Firebird from 1968 run a 1/4 mile time of mid to high 14s @ 102 MPH, it makes sense when the 4th gen cars with about the same curb weight run a full second (or better) and 6 MPH faster. And the new cars get 28 MPG highway. And don't overheat. And stop more than once before the brakes fade. And go around corners so much better. And (on and on).

  14. #14
    Your friendly policeman FinZ28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    519

    Bright Rally Red
    2001 Chevy Camaro Z28

    Quote Originally Posted by 2002ssslp View Post
    Agreed, they grossly underrated the LS1 and I do not know why because every time you open a magazine you see someone else has the HP lead. Mustang, Corvette, Viper, Camaro they leap frog every month.
    GM didn't want the F-body to be on par with Chevy's flagship car, the Corvette.
    2001 Chevy Camaro Z28 A4
    SLP cold air intake/lid, SLP smooth bellow, Pacesetter LT's, ORY, Magnaflow exhaust, BMR STB, adjustable Panhard rod, SFC's, LCA's, 1LE sway bars, cross-drilled rotors

  15. #15
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Too Fast View Post
    And that 100 HP diff you wrote about is why almost all the cars from the late 60s had so much over-rated advertised power. When you see a 330 HP, 410 ft-lb torque 400 Firebird from 1968 run a 1/4 mile time of mid to high 14s @ 102 MPH, it makes sense when the 4th gen cars with about the same curb weight run a full second (or better) and 6 MPH faster. And the new cars get 28 MPG highway. And don't overheat. And stop more than once before the brakes fade. And go around corners so much better. And (on and on).
    They just don't have the character, or collectability, or a growing increase in value every year,,,,,Just jabbin

    Alot of the gross ratings back then were still a bit conservative but not nearly as bad as some of the cars today. That's why NHRA quickly refactored alot of cars in class racing because they were clearly running quicker than their factory HP ratings would suggest, which is how they are initially classed.
    The DZ 302 rated at 290 HP actually made 350-360 hp with a good tune but the 70 LT-1 that came out a year later rated at 360 hp (370 HP for the vette) actually makes nearly right on that HP number. Just depends on the car in question I think.
    My 69 SCJ mustang is a perfect example of a low (fudged) HP rating on purpose. Only 335 from the factory but in 68 when they were first introduced they cleaned house in Stock Eliminator and NHRA quickly refactored them at 380hp or something like that. Many more examples too.
    My 70 ram air formula 400 was factory rated at 345 hp. I rebuilt it to stock specs with alot of attention to detail, nothing ported, and stuck to the pure stock rule book where I wanted to run the car. They basically stick to some of the NHRA stock eliminator rules where they allow up to a .060 overbore (these engines are getting old :wink and they have a certain rod and piston part number that is allowable per NHRA that mimics a stock piece similar in weight and CC's. They do allow a bump (up to 1.5 points) in compression as well to compensate for cc'ing your heads, decking the block, and the overbore.

    I decked the block and CC'd the heads a little tighter (slightly milled), but I chose to go only .030 over, and I chose to keep the compression down to 10:1 (slightly below stock) to try and get away with pump gas most of the time since it's also a driver. So you could say mine is slightly detuned, still runs a stock blueprint camshaft, stock heads, carb intake etc....

    It dyno'd at 384 hp (I believe give or take, I'll have to look at the sheets, it's been 14 years ago) I know it was 380-something.
    Anyway, a few years after, I had already been racing the car, had a sharp tune in it, have the car so well dialed in I could pretty much predict what ET it would run on any given day and weather condition when we rolled in. It was deadly consistent. They had a chassis dyno on the premises one day at the Tri-Power Nats, and after racing that day we decided to throw it on there for giggles (it was only $35 for 2 pulls). Made 301 HP and 355 TQ with a flat 13:1 AFR throughout the pull. Made another pull without shutting the car off and it duplicated the first pull to the button. That's why the car is so consistent going rounds, it just doesn't fall off when it's hot.

    Anyway, long story short, it's a good 80+ HP off of the actual flywheel HP it dyno'd. Pulling through a 400 turbo with stock converter, and the original 12 bolt rear.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    bernaillio county
    Posts
    292

    navy blue
    2002 camaro ss

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Fast View Post
    And that 100 HP diff you wrote about is why almost all the cars from the late 60s had so much over-rated advertised power. When you see a 330 HP, 410 ft-lb torque 400 Firebird from 1968 run a 1/4 mile time of mid to high 14s @ 102 MPH, it makes sense when the 4th gen cars with about the same curb weight run a full second (or better) and 6 MPH faster. And the new cars get 28 MPG highway. And don't overheat. And stop more than once before the brakes fade. And go around corners so much better. And (on and on).
    Yes but in the 60s they used a gross horsepower rating and sometime in the mid 70s they started using a net horsepower rating. The gross ratings were always way higher then net ratings

  17. #17
    Senior Member Too Fast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    54
    Posts
    5,170

    Black
    2000 WS6 6spd Hooker LT

    Ah yes, FBJ, the character. You must mean the overheating, ill-handling/ill-stopping/flexable chassis. J/K! Some of the best looking cars came out in the late 60s/early 70s, why are some of today's cars copies of those. I like the old cars with a modern suspension and brakes.

    I have noticed my WS6 is starting to get some heads turning, it's 12 years old now. But not as much as my 68 Le Mans drop top, and I'm sure you know this with your classic rides. What you say about HP ratings is true, some were underrated back in the day but most were not at all representative of what the engine made in actual car trim. And like slimss reminds, those numbers were gross. I think it was '72 when it went SAE net.

  18. #18
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by slimss View Post
    Yes but in the 60s they used a gross horsepower rating and sometime in the mid 70s they started using a net horsepower rating. The gross ratings were always way higher then net ratings
    Yep, the only difference is the gross resembled no accessories or any other HP robbing add ons. Pretty much how every engine is still dyno'd today. Net ratings are with all drive accessories included, usually the air cleaner, all robbing some power. They went to net ratings in 72, with lower HP numbers but engines remained assentially untouched from the previous 71 model year with a few acceptions.

  19. #19
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Too Fast View Post
    Ah yes, FBJ, the character. You must mean the overheating, ill-handling/ill-stopping/flexable chassis. J/K! Some of the best looking cars came out in the late 60s/early 70s, why are some of today's cars copies of those. I like the old cars with a modern suspension and brakes.

    I have noticed my WS6 is starting to get some heads turning, it's 12 years old now. But not as much as my 68 Le Mans drop top, and I'm sure you know this with your classic rides. What you say about HP ratings is true, some were underrated back in the day but most were not at all representative of what the engine made in actual car trim. And like slimss reminds, those numbers were gross. I think it was '72 when it went SAE net.
    I don't really experience any of those "ill" problems you speak of. If in tip top shape they are trouble free daily transportation for me

    I'm a bit opposite,,,,don't care for modern suspension and brakes on an old car. Pro touring doesn't do it for me, just another fad. I like em' as they rolled of the assembly line and I drive em' that way without a complaint.

    Some of you geezers have gotten soft
    pajeff02 likes this.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Too Fast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    54
    Posts
    5,170

    Black
    2000 WS6 6spd Hooker LT

    ^^^Damn now I'm part of the geezer crowd. Speaking of which, the Good Guys are in town this weekend. At least I'm not a member of AARP!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Chassis-Dyno Tuning - Dyno-Mite!
    By Ed Blown Vert in forum GTO
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2011, 03:30 PM
  2. Dyno Comparison Gtech, Mustange Dyno & Iphone
    By karpetcm in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-25-2009, 11:44 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-07-2008, 02:31 PM
  4. Dynojet dyno,Mustang dyno??
    By speedydog in forum Dyno Information
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-13-2007, 05:57 AM
  5. Dyno Day @ The Dyno Shop on Sat: 07-22-2006
    By Ed Blown Vert in forum Western Members
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-23-2006, 03:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •