[Fraxum]

Originally Posted by JDP Sales

My 14 1LE made 368 RWHP stock. These 6th Gens are going to be spanking fairly modded 5th gens out of the box. Can't wait to get my hands on one

Jared Royce
888.308.6007

Agreed stock. But a well driven 5th gen with boltons is a drivers race to a stock M6 CA6 SS.

To me the weight difference means more than the power difference. I wonder if the moving parts are any lighter.

[ChocoTaco369]

Holy crap. Those numbers with a heavy duty rated eight-geared slushbox? Then what is a TR6060 going to put down? 440rwhp? That seems wild.

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369

Holy crap. Those numbers with a heavy duty rated eight-geared slushbox? Then what is a TR6060 going to put down? 440rwhp? That seems wild.

No..they put down roughly the same. 6 speeds have been tested as well.


The a8 puts down the same power. Is about the same weight. But runs a couple tenths quicker and a couple more mph.

[ChocoTaco369]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

No..they put down roughly the same. 6 speeds have been tested as well.


The a8 puts down the same power. Is about the same weight. But runs a couple tenths quicker and a couple more mph.

An automatic transmission in its design isn't as efficient as a manual. They never dyno nearly as high as a result. On this dyno in the same conditions, a manual should put down better numbers. They always have, and unless there is some kind of drastic engineering differences to automatics, they will continue to. There are too many more moving parts, and heavier parts collectively, so the result is less power transmitted. Something is up.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369

An automatic transmission in its design isn't as efficient as a manual. They never dyno nearly as high as a result. On this dyno in the same conditions, a manual should put down better numbers. They always have, and unless there is some kind of drastic engineering differences to automatics, they will continue to. There are too many more moving parts, and heavier parts collectively, so the result is less power transmitted. Something is up.

No this is not the old slush box you are used too. Think more of it more like a hybrid between DCT and normal TC auto. But I would still expect a manual to put down a few more HP/TQ on the same dyno. Just not the 5% difference of previous generations.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[SpeedIsLife]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

No this is not the old slush box you are used too. Think more of it more like a hybrid between DCT and normal TC auto. But I would still expect a manual to put down a few more HP/TQ on the same dyno. Just not the 5% difference of previous generations.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

He won't listen, fyi.

He's stuck in the era of 20% automatic drivetrain loss and shifts so slow that a person with a moderate amount of skill could out shift and out time it.

[IOMike]

Doesn't change the fact that a manual will dyno higher.

Also doesn't change the fact that auto's are still faster, even with a few less hp hitting the ground.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by IOMike

Doesn't change the fact that a manual will dyno higher.

Slightly higher, yes.

Originally Posted by IOMike

Also doesn't change the fact that auto's are still faster, even with a few less hp hitting the ground.

Depends on the car, and how it's being used (drag strip or road course). On these SS's, they seem to be putting down similar numbers stock. 0-60, auto 3.9, manual 4.0. 1/4 mile, auto 12.3, manual 12.4...really comes down to the driver, but the auto is more consistent and has a slight advantage. On a road course, I would think it would go the other way. Grassroots Motorsports magazine, or whatever it's called, got slightly better road course times out of the manual then the auto on a medium sized track. Story coming out soon...

[ULTRAZLS1]

Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369

An automatic transmission in its design isn't as efficient as a manual. They never dyno nearly as high as a result. On this dyno in the same conditions, a manual should put down better numbers. They always have, and unless there is some kind of drastic engineering differences to automatics, they will continue to. There are too many more moving parts, and heavier parts collectively, so the result is less power transmitted. Something is up.

I know what you are saying.

It is what it is and facts are facts. Check out the corvette forums as well. It's old news man. The auto dynos about the same. Nothing new here. They also dominate the fast list the same as they will in the camaro. I'm all for a stick but facts are facts.

Same dyno and day I would agree the manual should put down more. Simple fact of less moving parts. But a very small amount these days. ~5 hp.

Even the 0-150 tests of the stingray by the same mags show the auto is still faster. The auto is transmitting plenty to the ground with faster shifts and more aggressive gearing.

[IOMike]

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

There are a multitude of Correction factors across the globe.

A correction factor only exists to give a standard day for your Region, so when you test in the winter or test in the summer you get the same numbers.

Superflow has been the go to Dyno testing equipment for all forms or racing for over 30 years and has established STP as correct for the US North America.

We Measure Actual numbers with a Torque sensing strain gauge then correct for the Day.

Our actual number and corrected number are within 1% on the day I ran the test, I don't consider 1% an inflated number.

If anything SAE is overly conservative showing Low numbers compared to Actual measured HP and TQ.

STP is backed up by Track results time and time again, I have collected data from this dyno and backed them up at the track for over 13 years now.

STP numbers are as REAL world as it gets.

Many Dynojets read 10% too high regardless of what correction factor they apply.

This is why you see so many high dyno numbers with Low MPH at the track.

I am also collecting Air flow data that also backs up our Dyno numbers, 1 lb of air per minute produces 10 crank HP.

This car is flowing 46.65 lbs of air per minute, X 10 = 466.5 crank hp.

It is also pulling a vacuum above 4000 rpm so a CAI Cold air kit is going to add some power for sure.

Anything else I can answer for you feel free.

Thank you for asking many people want to know.

Ted.

Nice detailed response but it's unreasonable for you to say it doesn't overinflate numbers because you back them up with track numbers. How can you claim to know what a track time should be based off a given whp number?

STD/STP are always higher because it is based off a colder temp, 60* iirc. Why would you base the HP numbers at 60 degrees when most summer street tires start to lose their grip at that cold temp?

SAE is based off 75 degrees and while it doesn't give users the warm fuzzy feeling of a higher number IT IS the standard of automotive manufactures.

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by IOMike

Nice detailed response but it's unreasonable for you to say it doesn't overinflate numbers because you back them up with track numbers. How can you claim to know what a track time should be based off a given whp number?

STD/STP are always higher because it is based off a colder temp, 60* iirc. Why would you base the HP numbers at 60 degrees when most summer street tires start to lose their grip at that cold temp?

SAE is based off 75 degrees and while it doesn't give users the warm fuzzy feeling of a higher number IT IS the standard of automotive manufactures.

Simple mathematics my friend, Power to Weight.

If we used SAE numbers our cars would be going to fast for the HP recorded.

I think you miss the whole point of a correction factor.

It is simply used to give you a constant from cold weather to hot weather low humidity to high humidity, low baro to high baro ect, it is NOT a REAL Number.

Like I said earlier there are a multitude of correction factors used across the globe.

We measure actual numbers and as I said STP were within 1% of actual because we happen to be very close to a standard day here for this Region.

Again Corrected numbers are NOT REAL, they have been adjusted to revert back to a certain set of parameters.

Also note that if the Baro sensor, Temp Sensor, Humidity senors are not calibrated the Corrected numbers can be either higher or lower than actual even if you test on a standard day.

Ted.

[SS 1LE]

Well, let's be honest...NO chassis dyno numbers are "real". There just are way too many variables. It is great as a tuning tool, but if you want legit power numbers, an engine dyno is the way to go...but that obviously isn't doable in 99% of the cases.

With that being said, nearly every dyno I have ever used uses SAE corrected numbers, with a smoothing of five. That is the best way to compare dyno to dyno IMO.

But, bottom line is the more shops that dyno these cars the better. The more information we have the better!

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by SUMMIT WHITE SS

Well, let's be honest...NO chassis dyno numbers are "real". There just are way too many variables. It is great as a tuning tool, but if you want legit power numbers, an engine dyno is the way to go...but that obviously isn't doable in 99% of the cases.

With that being said, nearly every dyno I have ever used uses SAE corrected numbers, with a smoothing of five. That is the best way to compare dyno to dyno IMO.

But, bottom line is the more shops that dyno these cars the better. The more information we have the better!

I have never been anything but Honest.

We have way too much data to back up what we measure to think otherwise.

The only reason a smoothing algorithm exists is because they use spark as an RPM signal which is extremely noisy signal.

This is the single biggest Error in data acquisition.

The Superflow uses the Laser beam sensor that reads as special reflective tape we install on the crankshaft harmonic damper.

No smoothing needed.

We record data at 100 times a second and get 26-28 pages of data with over 48 sensors being monitored on every pull, all though we don't use all of them all the time.

You should note this Superflow Chassis dyno is a 65K laboratory grade system, where others are in the 20-30k range No comparison.

Ted.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

I have never been anything but Honest.

We have way too much data to back up what we measure to think otherwise.

The only reason a smoothing algorithm exists is because they use spark as an RPM signal which is extremely noisy signal.

This is the single biggest Error in data acquisition.

The Superflow uses the Laser beam sensor that reads as special reflective tape we install on the crankshaft harmonic damper.

No smoothing needed.

We record data at 100 times a second and get 26-28 pages of data with over 48 sensors being monitored on every pull, all though we don't use all of them all the time.

Ted.

Interesting. Did you guys ever dyno a stock 5th gen with the LS3/manual? Curious as to what numbers it put down on your dyno to compare.

I have never used a Superflow unfortunately. Just Dynojets and Mustang dynos...