[13vertss]

Originally Posted by rontammy0

At 421 rwhp based on average of 20% drivetrain loss for the auto....that puts you at 505 crank hp.

These numbers don't relate anymore to the modern sport cars. There now 10%-12% loss.

[rontammy0]

Originally Posted by 13vertss/r's

These numbers don't relate anymore to the modern sport cars. There now 10%-12% loss.

Auctually 18 to 20 in the last gen. Which is definetly modern ..and by no means a sports car. The 10% claim seems accurate which has me thinking the 455 hp is a little consevrative. 2 more speeds and less hp lose. Tech is a wonderful thing. The 15 looks to be the average still.....until this car came along.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/12/...maro-ss-video/

[OleGreg]

Originally Posted by zx9rmal

<First pull I made 421whp Second pull I made 425whp/435tq.>

Newbie here. Just got my new 1LE. Wow. Are these numbers for a stock motor? Please tell me yes.

Only mod is flowmaster axle back and I doubt it added any power at all.

[Immoralus]

Damn impressive need to see how you run at the track!

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by rontammy0

Auctually 18 to 20 in the last gen. Which is definetly modern ..and by no means a sports car. The 10% claim seems accurate which has me thinking the 455 hp is a little consevrative. 2 more speeds and less hp lose. Tech is a wonderful thing. The 15 looks to be the average still.....until this car came along.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/12/...maro-ss-video/

There's a lot of tech in the current gen of TC autos for efficiency. The ZF units used by BMW, Jaguar, and FCA see similar improvements and reduction in losses. Then there's also the improvements made to the engines to improve efficiency. All show that driveline losses are down across the board.

As for SAE being conservative, there's not really anywhere that spells out the environmental conditions they use when rating the engines. I know I've heard BMW uses heat soaked numbers (which is why they are underrated drastically). I'd bet SAE uses less than ideal conditions giving consumers a "realistic" power number, but not what it produces in ideal conditions.

[F1FTY]

Wasn't there an SAE white paper on the engine showing its actual rating at 458hp?

[cmitchell17]

I remember reading the paper, I forgot the source I got it from, since you have to pay to download it from the sae website. I remember it talked a lot about the swirl, tumble, and mixture motion, I don't remember seeing where output was actually 458 ? That would be interesting to see, but it seems like it would be very hard for manufacturers to underrate their engines anymore if they are doing sae certifications. I guess 3 hp isn't that much, but then again why didn't we get the extra 5hp from the NPP? Also why does the L83 truck motor make so much less? I may no be remembering the can specs might be different?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by cmitchell17

I remember reading the paper, I forgot the source I got it from, since you have to pay to download it from the sae website. I remember it talked a lot about the swirl, tumble, and mixture motion, I don't remember seeing where output was actually 458 ? That would be interesting to see, but it seems like it would be very hard for manufacturers to underrate their engines anymore if they are doing sae certifications. I guess 3 hp isn't that much, but then again why didn't we get the extra 5hp from the NPP? Also why does the L83 truck motor make so much less? I may no be remembering the can specs might be different?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Yea seems familiar to me too. Maybe they made changes somewhere and the recert came out at 455. So it's not underrated since they have a 455 SAE certified power figure.

As for NPP, well the Vettes have been the only cars to ever get a HP increase from NPP. So obviously there is something to that. For the 6th gen at least, you can look at the fact the LT1 in the Camaro has shorty headers while the C7 has manifolds. That could be the reason there's not increase, or could be the Vettes have more restrictive exhausts to begin with.

I'd imagine the truck motors are using completely different tuning, cam, etc...

[Bhobbs]

SAE rating is +/- 1%. The Camaro LT1 was rated at 458 and 455 was within that 1% margin, so that's what GM advertises it at.

[cmitchell17]

Yeah I guess it gives them leeway to round the numbers when sae raiting first came out they were weird odd numbers, so they probably convinced them it was bad for marketing. How does the Vette have longer manifolds, I thought they were already low on room? And I've also looked over the Vette lt1 tunes and compared them to the Camaro and they look identical.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

[JFM-jr]

Enjoy it the 2018 Mustang is coming out with more power and the 10 speed auto it shares with the ZL1. The new Mustang should be pretty bad ass.

[JeffFox]

This thread simply confirms for me that the 2016 Camaro SS I purchased last November was better than the 2016-17 Mustang GTs that I tested. That being said I think the Mustang GT is a great car and I would be glad to own one. The 2018 GT will probably eclipse the gen 6 SS but I see this as a good thing taking nothing away from my 16 SS. I really enjoy the car and am pleased with my choice. At some time in the future electric cars will outperform both the GT and SS in the quarter mile but I will not let this diminish the enjoyment I get from the roar of my SS. Long live the muscle car wars I say!

[SDG23]

They'll have to beef up the Mustang A LOT for the 2018 model year GT to even compete with the Camaro SS. I suspect they'll try to beat our HP numbers but they won't beat our torque numbers with the 5.0. Plus based on the OP's dyno numbers, even if they claim 475 HP with the 2018 GT, it may very well dyno less than our cars do with 455 HP. Even if they get say 475 HP out of it, that means they have to squeeze 40 more HP out of a 5.0 that's already squeezed pretty tight, that's nearly 10% more HP they're going to have to find.

A guy I work with has a '16 GT and said the 2018's will have 500 HP, but no way Ford is going to let the GT get so close their holy grail GT350's 526HP. I suspect the 2018 GT will have slightly higher HP ratings than the 6th Gen Camaro with less torque and worse dyno results.

[KungFuHamster]

Originally Posted by JeffFox

This thread simply confirms for me that the 2016 Camaro SS I purchased last November was better than the 2016-17 Mustang GTs that I tested. That being said I think the Mustang GT is a great car and I would be glad to own one. The 2018 GT will probably eclipse the gen 6 SS but I see this as a good thing taking nothing away from my 16 SS. I really enjoy the car and am pleased with my choice. At some time in the future electric cars will outperform both the GT and SS in the quarter mile but I will not let this diminish the enjoyment I get from the roar of my SS. Long live the muscle car wars I say!

electric cars are already outperforming the GT and SS in the 1/4 mile #tesla