It's no use explaning the SAE rating. Most people don't understand it and think some cars are overrated. They are not, period.

Correct. I'm saying the new base engine helped with the 300 pounds lighter thing.. I wonder what it lost from the 2. 0 to new 2.0.

Percentage guesstimation is further off the higher the hp the car.

At 630 rwhp it still lost 80 hp through the drivetrain. That's like a 350 hp ls1 car dyno at 270 rwhp. Below norm not very exciting is it?

The hellcat drivetrain is beefier than say a 4th gen but I'm guessing still very efficient. Engineering advancements and more push for efficiency in the industry etc. All the newer autos are putting down better numbers these days. Won't get into all the reasons why but they are.

Now consider the limited accuracy of the chassis dyno compared to engine. Tire pressures, calibration, how tight the car is strapped down, proper gear... And more.

An engine dyno is exact. A chassis dyno is a guess. With the new SAE standard the dyno is witnessed by a third party.

I personally don't believe in underrating these days.

Don't appreciate the name calling either.

Hey moron look at the c7 dyno numbers, about 10% loss, drive trains have become more efficient, stop being stupid

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...-dyno-testing/

Chasis dynos can give some screwy results

Well from the Camaro numbers released, the 2.0T is significantly less than the V6. So 2.0T to V6 is noticeable.

Going from a 2.5 to a 1.5T was probably a good bit, but the turbo and intercoolers add some of that back.

Maybe we'll see a breakdown of that sometime.

My point was just that going from a Gen5 1SS (and there is a reason we aren't hearing 2SS weights) to a Gen6 1SS is not much more than downsizing to Alpha. Even the smaller fuel tank is saving nearly 20 pounds of that 229.

Not bashing anyone on that point, it's great work. A LOT of content was added to the Gen6. And to be clear, enabling 20" wheels is a big deal for the architecture. I don't think either the ATS or CTS have 20s in any configuration. I think the CTS-V only has 19s.

And as I've previously discussed, going lighter may have required a bit more premium materials which would have jacked the cost up quite a bit. And that is likely saved for the Gen6 Z/28.

Didn't they remove the V6 and AWD support from the new Malibu to save weight?

Official Performance Specs for 2016 Camaro: SS hits 0-60 in 4.0 sec, 3685 lbs
 

No. The Malibu hasn't come with a v6 option in awhile

As a matter of fact the 2.0 is an option for the Malibu the base is a 2.5

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't even remember AWD ever being an option on the Malibu. And the last generation (2013-2015) didn't have a V6

It's been a while since I read the any info about the Malibu but I thought they said something about eliminating V6 and AWD from the platform. I'm probably wrong though.

Nah, there hasn't been a V6 since 2012 and AWD has never been a feature.

Very cool!