2010 SS vs bolt on 02 WS6

[Mike0202]

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

[big hammer]

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

[Firebirdjones]

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

[BLKCLOUD]

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.

[big hammer]

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.

[BLKCLOUD]

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.

[Zinergy]

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.

[Firebirdjones]

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.

[Mike0202]

back on topic

[Firebirdjones]

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

[BLKCLOUD]

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.

[Zinergy]

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?

[karpetcm]

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.

[Firebirdjones]

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.

[Firebirdjones]

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.

[Zinergy]

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.

[Firebirdjones]

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.

[Mike0202]

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.

[Zinergy]

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?

[Mike0202]

Who the hell was talking about a ls1?

Thats how this all started. lol