Dyno Stock 2016 SS

buck_dawg_gold · 02-12-2016, 03:26 PM

is the Dyno in this video right..?

422rwhp would mean close to 500hp?

Am I doing the math and watching this video correctly..? I'm not a huge motor head so I could be wrong in my calcs.

andrec10 · 02-12-2016, 03:46 PM

Either this car has only 8-9% drivetrain loss compared to 15% which is the norm, or its closer to 480-490. Too many dyno's coming out with the same numbers. Is this car underrated...? I sure hope so!

kcpoloman · 02-12-2016, 03:54 PM

It really on the dyno. Ive seen them as high as 420 all the way down to 350. In the end its just a tool to see the gains you make after adding stuff.

HumanWiki · 02-12-2016, 04:02 PM

Don't think the engine is underated at 455. Don't think that's even possible anymore due to modern standards they meet.

Dynos are a tuning tool and while you can guestimate the reverse back to engine power, you have to take in to account dyno tweaks, correction factors, day, time, what gear ratio is in use, etc... I find it unlikely that the LT1 would be close to 500.

KMPrenger · 02-12-2016, 04:02 PM

Dyno results overall have looked really impressive for this car for sure.

But I still won't go so far as to say its under-rated. One thing I've read a few times or more on here is that the engine either:

1) Really only has to make at least the power advertised (which allows for a higher number)
or
2) has to be within 1 or 2% (even if over the rating) of the advertised rating.

I think number 2 is more accurate. Not sure what is happening, but we have seen some low numbers as well.

SpeedIsLife · 02-12-2016, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Dyno results overall have looked really impressive for this car for sure.

But I still won't go so far as to say its under-rated. One thing I've read a few times or more on here is that the engine either:

1) Really only has to make at least the power advertised (which allows for a higher number)
or
2) has to be within 1 or 2% (even if over the rating) of the advertised rating.

I think number 2 is more accurate. Not sure what is happening, but we have seen some low numbers as well.

It's my understanding that #2 is the accurate one.

I think they showed the SAE certificate for the C7 when they certified the LT1 at 455 and they showed that the runs ranged from 455 to 459 HP and they certified it at 455 since that was the lowest repeatable over the numbers.

Tr6 · 02-12-2016, 04:30 PM

Those numbers aren't far too off from what we are seeing. Too many variables for dyno numbers and VERY important ones too. I think I may have the lowest dyno numbers. 364 rwhp and 395 rwtq (and that's WITH ported TB and ported IM but I had bottom tier 91 octane gas from a travel stop. Lesson learned lol).

Set parameters needed to read dyno numbers from my experience with modding and tuning and dynoing... are:

1) fuel. 91? e85? 110? meth? etc.
2) Real weather temperature, hot - cold - humid etc
3) Mustang or Dynojet? Mustangs read a good 10-15 whp/wtq lower than dynojets
4) Estimate a good 10% drivetrain loss or even 15% (Haven't really confirmed this yet for gen camaros).

RonAndersonJr · 12-17-2016, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tr6

Those numbers aren't far too off from what we are seeing. Too many variables for dyno numbers and VERY important ones too. I think I may have the lowest dyno numbers. 364 rwhp and 395 rwtq (and that's WITH ported TB and ported IM but I had bottom tier 91 octane gas from a travel stop. Lesson learned lol).

Set parameters needed to read dyno numbers from my experience with modding and tuning and dynoing... are:

1) fuel. 91? e85? 110? meth? etc.
2) Real weather temperature, hot - cold - humid etc
3) Mustang or Dynojet? Mustangs read a good 10-15 whp/wtq lower than dynojets
4) Estimate a good 10% drivetrain loss or even 15% (Haven't really confirmed this yet for gen camaros).

I just had 367 hp and 390 tq

And I have only put shell 93 in her

MR 45TH · 12-17-2016, 07:10 PM

I've seen multiple dynos have some pretty crazy numbers.

Evil-Bee-NH · 12-17-2016, 07:35 PM

I've seen a few dynos over 420rwhp on the SS i don't think the numbers are scewed as much by the dyno as the enviroment and other unseen variables i dyno'd my I4 at two different shops to see if i was just dynoing high but the 2nd was within 2 rwhp of the first and even those numbers are still heavily criticized. GM is vastly underrating these cars in all honestly.

Padre · 12-17-2016, 08:28 PM

Looks like those are uncorrected numbers. On the screen if had "with WCF" as 409/406. WCF is weather correction factor, similar to SAE correction.

Padre

laynlo15 · 12-17-2016, 10:31 PM

I had mine done about 2 months ago, 395/390 temp was about 78 degrees. That was my baseline before my SC install which will be Wednesday. Then we did a M6 SS 2 weeks ago and it put down 407/412 on the same dyno, temps were in the 30's outside.

Fraxum · 12-18-2016, 12:09 PM

OP My M6 was 429 rwhp. We both have 455-460 at the crank stock. Dynos only matter to determine power changes. Still a fun thing to do.

Fraxum · 12-18-2016, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laynlo15

I had mine done about 2 months ago, 395/390 temp was about 78 degrees. That was my baseline before my SC install which will be Wednesday. Then we did a M6 SS 2 weeks ago and it put down 407/412 on the same dyno, temps were in the 30's outside.

Waoh! Looking for 10s are you?

02-12-2016, 04:02 PM	#5
KMPrenger Drives: 16 Camaro SS, 15 Colorado Join Date: May 2009 Location: Jefferson City, Missouri Posts: 13,943	Dyno results overall have looked really impressive for this car for sure. But I still won't go so far as to say its under-rated. One thing I've read a few times or more on here is that the engine either: 1) Really only has to make at least the power advertised (which allows for a higher number) or 2) has to be within 1 or 2% (even if over the rating) of the advertised rating. I think number 2 is more accurate. Not sure what is happening, but we have seen some low numbers as well. __________________ 2016 Camaro 1SS - 8-speed - NPP - Black bowties 2010 Camaro 1LT V6 (Sold. I will miss her!)

02-12-2016, 04:30 PM	#7
Tr6 The Dogfather Drives: #1 off the line for a customer. '16 Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: Andover, KS Posts: 2,621	Those numbers aren't far too off from what we are seeing. Too many variables for dyno numbers and VERY important ones too. I think I may have the lowest dyno numbers. 364 rwhp and 395 rwtq (and that's WITH ported TB and ported IM but I had bottom tier 91 octane gas from a travel stop. Lesson learned lol). Set parameters needed to read dyno numbers from my experience with modding and tuning and dynoing... are: 1) fuel. 91? e85? 110? meth? etc. 2) Real weather temperature, hot - cold - humid etc 3) Mustang or Dynojet? Mustangs read a good 10-15 whp/wtq lower than dynojets 4) Estimate a good 10% drivetrain loss or even 15% (Haven't really confirmed this yet for gen camaros). __________________ 2SS, Garnet Red with Adrenalin red, NPP, MRC M6 coupe #33 off the line #1 order for Customer. Build thread HERE! Story of my delivery HERE!

12-17-2016, 07:35 PM	#10
Evil-Bee-NH 603 Camaros Drives: 2017 NGM I4 1LT Coupe Join Date: May 2012 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 6,779 View My Garage	I've seen a few dynos over 420rwhp on the SS i don't think the numbers are scewed as much by the dyno as the enviroment and other unseen variables i dyno'd my I4 at two different shops to see if i was just dynoing high but the 2nd was within 2 rwhp of the first and even those numbers are still heavily criticized. GM is vastly underrating these cars in all honestly. __________________ MY 2017 I4 CAMARO BUILD JOURNAL \| YOUTUBE \| INSTAGRAM \| 316RWHP - 385 RWTQ HPTUNERS DYNO TUNE \| 12.693s @ 105MPH 1/4 Mile

12-17-2016, 08:28 PM	#11
Padre Only drives on Sundays Drives: '16 2SS A8 NPP MRC NGray Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Dalton, GA Posts: 2,500 View My Garage	Looks like those are uncorrected numbers. On the screen if had "with WCF" as 409/406. WCF is weather correction factor, similar to SAE correction. Padre __________________ OLD HOTNESS: The "Heretic": '11 2SS/RS L99 A6 Black/Inferno. Build Journal, Videos D1SC GT9 JBA-LT = 720/680 \| 10.330 @ 133.61, 1.546 sixty... Camaro King at ECS V, Darlington. NEW HOTNESS: '16 2SS A8 NPP MRC. Bone Stock, 1/8th: 8.051 @ 89.44, 1.919

12-17-2016, 10:31 PM	#12
laynlo15 Drives: 2022 Lt1 A10 Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: clark, mo Posts: 8,860	I had mine done about 2 months ago, 395/390 temp was about 78 degrees. That was my baseline before my SC install which will be Wednesday. Then we did a M6 SS 2 weeks ago and it put down 407/412 on the same dyno, temps were in the 30's outside. __________________ 2022 Lt1 6.2 A10, Maggie 2300, THPSI Port Inj/10 rib, Rotofab, E, Nickey, SCOL, Griptech, RC Bandits, Hoosiers/MT 9.80@142.96 1.44 60ft, 6.34@112 707/669 RWHP/TRQ. 16SS Maggie 2650 9.41@147 1.35 60ft, 5.99@119. 16 C7 A8 10.90@128 Bolt on stuff

02-12-2016, 03:46 PM	#2
andrec10 Drives: 2016 Camaro 2SS 6SP/Suby Legacy 6 Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: Hyde Park, NY Posts: 844	Either this car has only 8-9% drivetrain loss compared to 15% which is the norm, or its closer to 480-490. Too many dyno's coming out with the same numbers. Is this car underrated...? I sure hope so! __________________ TFPK40 Its Here! Finally came home on 3-31-16! Red Hot 2SS,6 Speed, NPP, MRC, Adrenaline Red interior, Silver Rally Stripes, NAV, Sunroof, 56W Split Spoke Wheels, Body color Hood vents, Body color Splash Guards and winter protection package. Ordered 1-28-16: 1100 2-11-2016 :2000 2-15-2016: 3000 TPW of 3/7...That went quick! 2-26-2016: 3400 Status TPW 3/7 3-5-2016 : 3800 3-8-2016 : 4300 3-11-2016 : 4B00 3-15-2016 : 4200 3-22-2016 : 4800 3-29-2016 : 6000!

02-12-2016, 03:54 PM	#3
kcpoloman Drives: 2016 Camaro 2SS Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: KCMO Posts: 226	It really on the dyno. Ive seen them as high as 420 all the way down to 350. In the end its just a tool to see the gains you make after adding stuff.

02-12-2016, 04:02 PM	#4
HumanWiki Drives: Car Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Place Posts: 3,361	Don't think the engine is underated at 455. Don't think that's even possible anymore due to modern standards they meet. Dynos are a tuning tool and while you can guestimate the reverse back to engine power, you have to take in to account dyno tweaks, correction factors, day, time, what gear ratio is in use, etc... I find it unlikely that the LT1 would be close to 500.

12-17-2016, 07:10 PM	#9
MR 45TH Drives: 2018 ZL1 Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Huntingtown, MD Posts: 1,138	I've seen multiple dynos have some pretty crazy numbers.

12-18-2016, 12:09 PM	#13
Fraxum Drives: a M6 LT1 ordered From Becky!!! Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: NJ Posts: 7,520	OP My M6 was 429 rwhp. We both have 455-460 at the crank stock. Dynos only matter to determine power changes. Still a fun thing to do. __________________ "Democracy Dies in Darkness" My LT1 Keeper ..... ..... My Car Blog CarPlayList, a free App to build USB and Android Music drives.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password