Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 85

2010 SS vs bolt on 02 WS6

This is a discussion on 2010 SS vs bolt on 02 WS6 within the Kill Stories forums, part of the Racing Forums category; A stock ls1 makes the same power as an ls1 powered vette, which was not over rated. end story haha...

  1. #61
    A stock ls1 makes the same power as an ls1 powered vette, which was not over rated. end story haha

  2. #62
    Senior Member big hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    manitoba, canada
    Posts
    1,731

    silver
    2002 ws6

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    Ya I would have thought so. Have you ever looked at the sohc mod motor intake? That thing looks like a lump of spagetti sitting on top of the heads. What a mess that is, with runners going every direction.

    I'm not surprised that taking that off for a simple victor jr. and carb that it picked up alot,,,but 100 HP was an eye opener for sure. Even the ET's and MPH at the track showed it wasn't a fluke.
    100hp is still hard to believe. it must have raised the peak RPM quite a bit

  3. #63
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by big hammer View Post
    100hp is still hard to believe. it must have raised the peak RPM quite a bit
    They were wingin' it pretty good, but I don't remember the cutoff, somewhere close to 7 I think,,,or upper 6's. But it made strong power throughout the rpm range. The cams were mild at around 230 at .050 with lobe sep around 109 for the carb setup. (carbs like tighter lobe sep) About .520 lift or so is all they could get away with due to piston to valve clearance issues and tight lobe sep, otherwise they said the engine would have responded better with even tighter lobe sep of 106 or so,, And they got the car in the bottom 11's. Wish I could link that article on here somehow. I know the mustang guys have got to be tickled with it. Probably see a huge supply of mod motor intakes flood ebay now

  4. #64
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    I'd like to see that article myself.

    And there are "bolt-on" 3Vs that are over 300 RWHP (Dynojet, SAE). 280 from a 3V with heads/cam is pitiful.

    And I'm hardly a dyno racer.

  5. #65
    Senior Member big hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    manitoba, canada
    Posts
    1,731

    silver
    2002 ws6

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    They were wingin' it pretty good, but I don't remember the cutoff, somewhere close to 7 I think,,,or upper 6's. But it made strong power throughout the rpm range. The cams were mild at around 230 at .050 with lobe sep around 109 for the carb setup. (carbs like tighter lobe sep) About .520 lift or so is all they could get away with due to piston to valve clearance issues and tight lobe sep, otherwise they said the engine would have responded better with even tighter lobe sep of 106 or so,, And they got the car in the bottom 11's. Wish I could link that article on here somehow. I know the mustang guys have got to be tickled with it. Probably see a huge supply of mod motor intakes flood ebay now
    i would really like to see that article--- i seen the guys on horsepower do a full build up on a 4v 4.6 and had trouble getting much more power than that--- another thing is even with a blower-- which replaces the intake, the still are only up in that 430-ish hp range.

  6. #66
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    Horsepower TV?

    Eeerrr.......will try not to offend today, so I'll just say no comment, other than I've seen average joe's do far, far, far, better than Horsepower TV.....with far less.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    3,260

    Arctic White, red/gray
    1997 Corvette, 92 Typhoon

    Quote Originally Posted by BLKCLOUD View Post
    Horsepower TV?

    Eeerrr.......will try not to offend today, so I'll just say no comment, other than I've seen average joe's do far, far, far, better than Horsepower TV.....with far less.
    Haha yes. 280whp from a cam/supporting mod 4.6 is pitiful, they make 250whp stock. I havent seen a bolt on 3 valve make 300whp but i have only seen 2 charts from them, the ones i saw were at 280-290whp with bolt ons.
    Last edited by Zinergy; 08-26-2009 at 02:45 PM.

  8. #68
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Just for those naysayers they can't grasp the amount of HP drop from flywheel to rearwheels,,,,check out the new GMhightech mag.

    There is an article in there from their LT1 test car, where they built a nice dart headed LT1 for it. Made 459 hp on the engine dyno before it went into the car. Once in the car they just chassis dyno'd it on a "dyno jet" no less,,,,and it put down 335 hp at the rear wheels. Then proceeded to run 12.40's at 107 mph.

    As you can plainly see that's 124 hp loss through the drivetrain. More than even my Firebird had, but definately not unusual.

  9. #69
    back on topic

  10. #70
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Well it is on topic, in a roundabout way it's what everyone here started talking about, including you, the original poster of this thread

  11. #71
    Senior Member BLKCLOUD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,100

    B2300 (Fluffy) Retired
    Plain-Jane Dodge Truck

    Let me go the other extreme on engine vs chassis dyno.

    Friend of mine used to race with me in NMRA Factory Stock. Name is Robin Lawrence. Back in 2001/2002, he campaigned a little 5.0 notch. The motor made ~390 HP on the engine dyno, and right at 340 RWHP (SAE) on a dynojet chassis dyno. This was through a T5 (manual) with 4.10 gearing. Writeup was in Mustang 5.0 & Super Ford back in ~2002. Sorry, don't have it handy.

    Do the math.

  12. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    3,260

    Arctic White, red/gray
    1997 Corvette, 92 Typhoon

    Losing a 124hp through drivetrain at those power levels is a shit ton. So what are you saying then firebirdjones, the people making 400whp are putting down 550 crank?

  13. #73
    Senior Member karpetcm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Tujunga, CA
    Posts
    1,646

    White
    01 Camaro 6speed

    I have to admit as well 124 hp loss by the time it gets to the wheels is alot. If it was a 800hp motor then i can understang that it gets 680rwhp, 15% drivetrain loss since the numbers are greater. If a car has 300rwhp for example it should have about 353-355hp at the motor give or take.

  14. #74
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    I explained it pretty well in post #51. Easy to understand going from an engine dyno to a chassis dyno.
    My fathers car is another prime example. Making 609 hp at the flywheel, using his chassis headers as well but nothing on the engine, even used an electric water pump.
    But in the car it's turning power steering, water pump, factory air cleaner, through the mufflers, etc....and only mad 501 hp at the wheels. That's also spinning a 400 turbo with a loose converter and 3.73 gears. A lockup type converter may have gotten a few more ponies, but you can still obviously see the difference here.

    Engine dyno's vary as well depending on whether you can use the chassis headers or special made dyno headers to clear the water brake. Just depends on how much room you have to work with.
    Dyno headers tend to make another 10-15 hp over a chassis header on a full tilt motor, which would further stretch the difference once it's in the car with a chassis header.

  15. #75
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Zinergy View Post
    Losing a 124hp through drivetrain at those power levels is a shit ton. So what are you saying then firebirdjones, the people making 400whp are putting down 550 crank?
    That would be 150hp difference. Quite extreme. But we have found that 100 hp give or take isn't out of the ordinary.

    The 124 HP loss I posted is what GM High Tech found on their test vehicle. Every car is different, as well as dyno's both engine and chassis. Also how they go about it on the engine dyno is another factor, correction factors, etc....and what are they hooking up to the engine?? Are they running all the accessories on the engine dyno??
    These are all pending questions that have a huge affect on the final outcome.

  16. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    3,260

    Arctic White, red/gray
    1997 Corvette, 92 Typhoon

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebirdjones View Post
    I explained it pretty well in post #51. Easy to understand going from an engine dyno to a chassis dyno.
    My fathers car is another prime example. Making 609 hp at the flywheel, using his chassis headers as well but nothing on the engine, even used an electric water pump.
    But in the car it's turning power steering, water pump, factory air cleaner, through the mufflers, etc....and only mad 501 hp at the wheels. That's also spinning a 400 turbo with a loose converter and 3.73 gears. A lockup type converter may have gotten a few more ponies, but you can still obviously see the difference here.

    Engine dyno's vary as well depending on whether you can use the chassis headers or special made dyno headers to clear the water brake. Just depends on how much room you have to work with.
    Dyno headers tend to make another 10-15 hp over a chassis header on a full tilt motor, which would further stretch the difference once it's in the car with a chassis header.
    Losing 105hp in a 610crank hp car through an auto trans and a big rear end is understandable. Losing 124hp in a car that made 460 crank isnt, even if it was an auto with a 9 inch or 12 bolt.

  17. #77
    Moderator Firebirdjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Zinergy View Post
    Losing 105hp in a 610crank hp car through an auto trans and a big rear end is understandable. Losing 124hp in a car that made 460 crank isnt, even if it was an auto with a 9 inch or 12 bolt.
    Well you would have to take that up with GM High Tech. It was their dyno and their car, I wasn't there to see it. But I can certainly understand.

    My firebird that I used as an example in post 51,,,,lost 91 HP and 105 ft lbs. of torque through the drivetrain, and that's a pure stock engine,,,,using a 400 turbo but still with a stock tight torque converter that flashes at 1600 rpms, and both cars using 12 bolt rearends. Both engines and cars were used on the same dyno's. As you can see I still had significant loss, not quite as much as my father, but considering he uses a 3800 converter that doesn't lock.......

    I'm willing to bet my chevelle would see the same results. On the same DTS engine dyno it made 638 hp. Also using a 400 turbo, a 3600 converter and a 12 bolt. Just as my father I'd be lucky to eclipse the 500 hp mark at the wheels. Maybe someday I'll stick it on a chassis dyno, but the results won't be surprising to me.
    Last edited by Firebirdjones; 09-01-2009 at 11:47 AM.

  18. #78
    You guys are beating a dead horse at this point haha. 300rwh = 350 bhp same as the vette, same as the gto, an ls1 is an ls1 is an ls1 is an ls1.

  19. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    3,260

    Arctic White, red/gray
    1997 Corvette, 92 Typhoon

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike0202 View Post
    You guys are beating a dead horse at this point haha. 300rwh = 350 bhp same as the vette, same as the gto, an ls1 is an ls1 is an ls1 is an ls1.
    Who the hell was talking about a ls1?

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Zinergy View Post
    Who the hell was talking about a ls1?
    Thats how this all started. lol

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 2010 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2010 Ford Saleen Mustang - Ponycar
    By Ed Blown Vert in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 04:30 PM
  2. 2011 Mustang V-6 vs 2010 Genesis Coupe vs 2010 Cam
    By trev0006 in forum Camaro / SS
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-21-2010, 09:02 PM
  3. 2010 Camaro Performance Parts - New Camaro Bolt-On
    By Ed Blown Vert in forum Almost Anything Goes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-10-2009, 10:50 PM
  4. 2010 Chevy Camaro V6 LT vs 2010 Hyundai Genesis Co
    By trev0006 in forum Camaro / SS
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-11-2009, 02:24 PM
  5. Center bolt to Perimeter bolt Heads, Coil Mounting help
    By juiced99ws6 in forum Internal Engine
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-31-2007, 12:38 AM

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
  •