[Blackdevil77]

Here's another dyno pull of an ATS-V putting down 440 rwhp. Definitely seems like the car is making more power than advertised. I can't imagine there being that little drivetrain loss.

http://atsvseries.com/forum/forums/t...your-seatbelts

That would explain how a car that weighs nearly 400 pounds more than the C7 Stingray traps nearly the same in the 1/4 mile.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by Blackdevil77

Here's another dyno pull of an ATS-V putting down 440 rwhp. Definitely seems like the car is making more power than advertised. I can't imagine there being that little drivetrain loss.

http://atsvseries.com/forum/forums/t...your-seatbelts

That would explain how a car that weighs nearly 400 pounds more than the C7 Stingray traps nearly the same in the 1/4 mile.

What makes more sense? The Society of Automotive Engineers is wrong or some random dyno shop is wrong?

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

What makes more sense? The Society of Automotive Engineers is wrong or some random dyno shop is wrong?

Aren't mustang dynos wildly inaccurate? Or was it one of the other ones that was worse?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by Blackdevil77

Here's another dyno pull of an ATS-V putting down 440 rwhp. Definitely seems like the car is making more power than advertised. I can't imagine there being that little drivetrain loss.

http://atsvseries.com/forum/forums/t...your-seatbelts

That would explain how a car that weighs nearly 400 pounds more than the C7 Stingray traps nearly the same in the 1/4 mile.

It also did 431/408 on same dyno. Then they got 440/419 after they loaded it down more. He also mentioned using 6th when others use 5th.

What is the closest 1:1 ratio gear in the ats-v a8? I want to see the m6 do a pull also.

That is more in line for sure. The 450 rwtq in the other pull is way high.

Look at that spread already... Even on the same dyno. Just shows how wildly different numbers can be when looking at chassis dynos. Two cars and 3 pulls with a spread of 10 hp and 40 tq.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

It also did 431/408 on same dyno. Then they got 440/419 after they loaded it down more. He also mentioned using 6th when others use 5th.

What is the closest 1:1 ratio gear in the ats-v a8? I want to see the m6 do a pull also.

That is more in line for sure. The 450 rwtq in the other pull is way high.

Look at that spread already... Even on the same dyno. Just shows how wildly different numbers can be when looking at chassis dynos. Two cars and 3 pulls with a spread of 10 hp and 40 tq.

6th should be one to one. 7th and 8th are overdrives.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[Blackdevil77]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

What makes more sense? The Society of Automotive Engineers is wrong or some random dyno shop is wrong?

Obviously is more likely the random dyno shop would be wrong, I'm not saying the SAE numbers are wrong. I'm saying if multiple dyno shops are showing the SAE numbers to be under rated, is it possible that maybe the engine that SAE used to get it's numbers was a bit of a slug, or that multiple dyno's are wrong and optimistic? Also, look at the trap speeds. On that head to head, Motor Trend got a 116 mph trap speed. Doesn't that seem a bit high for a 464 hp car that weighs as much as the ATS-V does? Especially when comparing it to a Corvette with 4 less horsepower that weighs 400 pounds less and traps nearly the same?

Again, I'm not saying the SAE numbers were wrong, I'm asking if it is possible that the engine they tested to get their numbers was a bit of a slug?

Originally Posted by SuperSound

Aren't mustang dynos wildly inaccurate? Or was it one of the other ones that was worse?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

From my understanding, Mustang dyno's are more accurate and give you more of a real world rating with load than dynojets.

[ULTRAZLS1]

^^^Being the current camaro traps 110-111 in the mags an extra 40 hp and 100 lbs less weight a 116 mph trap speed is just right actually for the ats.

Haven't seen a stingray test lately but seen the private owner times with traps as high as 120-121.

Historically load bearing mustang dynos are more stingy/ accurate. But still only as accurate as the calibration/ operator/ variables allow. As we just read something as simple as how tightly the car is strapped down will change a pull by 10hp.

I've watched all my cars dyno over the years. Run to run will vary by ~5hp for no reason. Letting the car cool adds almost 10. Tire pressure will change readings. Being in the proper gear. So many things.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by Blackdevil77

Obviously is more likely the random dyno shop would be wrong, I'm not saying the SAE numbers are wrong. I'm saying if multiple dyno shops are showing the SAE numbers to be under rated, is it possible that maybe the engine that SAE used to get it's numbers was a bit of a slug, or that multiple dyno's are wrong and optimistic? Also, look at the trap speeds. On that head to head, Motor Trend got a 116 mph trap speed. Doesn't that seem a bit high for a 464 hp car that weighs as much as the ATS-V does? Especially when comparing it to a Corvette with 4 less horsepower that weighs 400 pounds less and traps nearly the same?

Again, I'm not saying the SAE numbers were wrong, I'm asking if it is possible that the engine they tested to get their numbers was a bit of a slug?



From my understanding, Mustang dyno's are more accurate and give you more of a real world rating with load than dynojets.

Knew one of those dynos had a reputation. Been awhile since I took a car to one.

As for the C7, think about these couple of points with the ATS-V times.

1. The ATS weighs much more, makes similar HP but lower TQ.
2. The times most mags have for the C7 are M7 times. As far as I have been able to find, the only A8 1/4 mile time by a mag was for a convertible and it ran 12.2 and it weighed 3506lbs according to C&D (3LT with Z51).
3. If the ATS-V sedan can best(or at least match) the time of that C7 vert, we can assume the weight isn't playing as big a factor as one normally thinks. Must be other factors influencing the 1/4 mile times.
4. My guess if one of the mags took an A8 Z51 C7 coupe and ran it, it would be in the 11.9-12.0 range.

It's not a 400lbs difference, it's actually under 300lbs for the only times we have for an A8 C7 (convertible) done by the magazines. If anyone can find any other times for an A8 (not private owner), it would be interesting to compare.

Also keep in mind what Randy said about his time hotlapping it. Something along the lines of, "The Corvette guys need to talk to the Caddy guys about putting the power down". That to me indicates the ATS-V is actually more effective than the C7 and could help explain it's faster than anticipated times.