[TheRealJA105]

And Mustang dynos read lower than dynojets...

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I can only assume so. Meanwhile, over at Motor Trend....

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020...c8-power-dyno/

Explains the acceleration and 1/4 mile times, but I'm having trouble with the SAE certification vs the multiple test pulls and scenarios they tried. One of them is clearly off by a significant percentage.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I can only assume so. Meanwhile, over at Motor Trend....

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020...c8-power-dyno/

Like I said earlier in this thread..... I am wrong way more than I am right haha

[Bhobbs]

Something is up with that dyno.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Something is up with that dyno.

My thoughts exactly. But I know zilch about dynos and don’t want to speculate.

[jvandy50]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I can only assume so. Meanwhile, over at Motor Trend....

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020...c8-power-dyno/

they accidentally put the 5.5 FPC on there?? lol

[BlaqWhole]

MT would be the last ones I would trust for a dyno reading. Those results seem to be either a miscalibration or operator error. Because no way is that engine making 656 HP on pump gas without forced induction. I do not doubt that it is underrated. But if they are getting numbers that high then they're doing something wrong.

[13vertss]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Something is up with that dyno.

I believe its the same dyno that showed a huge power increase the the gt350 a few months back. You should read all the guys who think there engine has been upgraded.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2019...-dyno-results/

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by 13vertss

I believe its the same dyno that showed a huge power increase the the gt350 a few months back. You should read all the guys who think there engine has been upgraded.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2019...-dyno-results/

Motortrend used to be my favorite automotive publication as a kid, over the years I've come to prefer car and driver and road and track a bit more.

Things like that add to Why motortrend slipping away from it's glory days imo. They dyno'd that gt350 in 4th gear. The gt350s 1 to 1 gear is not 4th gear, that tremec's1 to 1 gear is 5th gear.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Motortrend used to be my favorite automotive publication as a kid, over the years I've come to prefer car and driver and road and track a bit more.

Things like that add to Why motortrend slipping away from it's glory days imo. They dyno'd that gt350 in 4th gear. The gt350s 1 to 1 gear is not 4th gear, that tremec's1 to 1 gear is 5th gear.

After reading the MT I came to the conclusion that I'm not sure if I could take them seriously. Not because they had criticisms of the Vette. I was expecting some criticisms. But the way they worded some of their statements. Particularly THIS statement when they said "despite the C8's considerably worse power-to-weight ratio" when comparing it to the ZR1. Excuse me but that is the stupidest comment I read in a long time. "Considerably worse"...that just has a negative vibe to it. An unwarranted and unnecessarily negative vibe. They could have simply said "in comparison to the 755 HP C7 ZR1, the C8's HP to weight ratio is much less". But to say "considerably worse" makes no sense. That was the first off putting thing.

Going through the article they used more negative statements to describe the C8. Again, I don't care that it was a criticism. My concern is the amount of negativity they showed. Here was another statement: "grinding, infuriating understeer, as testing director Kim Reynolds was bemused to discover". They then went on a tirade about understeer despite the fact that the car performed incredibly well on the track. GM made strides with this car. And of course there will be issues and kinks to work out with the first year C8. But they kinda treated the car like garbage. They certainly didn't give the C8 a fair shake or the respect it deserves.

Then they go on to perform this dyno blunder. Only a complete idiot would publish numbers like this. Those numbers are soo obviously way off that it made no sense to even publish it. The first thing they should have done when they got those numbers was realized that either something was wrong with the dyno or they were not doing the test correctly. But what do they do? They have to dyno it in different gears, get ratios from GM which they should have already had...as I read that dyno article I seriously pictured a circus with clowns in full clown gear running around a dyno playing with it.

It just seems to me that MT is fcuking around and not taking any of this seriously. Or they have some agenda or something. Because none of this has an ounce of professionalism and I am beyond disappointed with them. The C8 is going to be a great performance car and a bargain at that.

[whiteboyblues2001]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

After reading the MT I came to the conclusion that I'm not sure if I could take them seriously. Not because they had criticisms of the Vette. I was expecting some criticisms. But the way they worded some of their statements. Particularly THIS statement when they said "despite the C8's considerably worse power-to-weight ratio" when comparing it to the ZR1. Excuse me but that is the stupidest comment I read in a long time. "Considerably worse"...that just has a negative vibe to it. An unwarranted and unnecessarily negative vibe. They could have simply said "in comparison to the 755 HP C7 ZR1, the C8's HP to weight ratio is much less". But to say "considerably worse" makes no sense. That was the first off putting thing.

Going through the article they used more negative statements to describe the C8. Again, I don't care that it was a criticism. My concern is the amount of negativity they showed. Here was another statement: "grinding, infuriating understeer, as testing director Kim Reynolds was bemused to discover". They then went on a tirade about understeer despite the fact that the car performed incredibly well on the track. GM made strides with this car. And of course there will be issues and kinks to work out with the first year C8. But they kinda treated the car like garbage. They certainly didn't give the C8 a fair shake or the respect it deserves.

Then they go on to perform this dyno blunder. Only a complete idiot would publish numbers like this. Those numbers are soo obviously way off that it made no sense to even publish it. The first thing they should have done when they got those numbers was realized that either something was wrong with the dyno or they were not doing the test correctly. But what do they do? They have to dyno it in different gears, get ratios from GM which they should have already had...as I read that dyno article I seriously pictured a circus with clowns in full clown gear running around a dyno playing with it.

It just seems to me that MT is fcuking around and not taking any of this seriously. Or they have some agenda or something. Because none of this has an ounce of professionalism and I am beyond disappointed with them. The C8 is going to be a great performance car and a bargain at that.

Saying "considerably worse" implies that the ZR1 has bad power to weight ratio, and the C8 is worse than that. Not the correct wording since the ZR1 has very good power to weight ratio. And who would expect the base (non Z06 or ZR1) is going to have monster power to weight ratio in the first place? Dumb way to phrase that.

As for the understeer: I believe that Chevy put a large amount of understeer into the C8 for saftey reasons. You start to lose it in a mid-engine car, and it's a beast to control. However, I noticed in the Car & Driver article this: "Both had additional wheel camber dialed in as recommended in their owner's manuals for track use." Adjusting the camber would help reduce underteer quite a bit. And Car & Driver didn't complain about too much understeer either (more than likely because they adjusted the camber).

Seems like Chevy wants to have lots of underteer for the street for saftey, but less for the track for better balance. But, I think that other reviewers didn't adjust the camber, and experienced the street version of understeer.

As for the dyno results: Whoever is running that dyno needs to ventilate their shop better, they are inhaling too many exhaust fumes...

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by RobbyBeefcake87

Motortrend used to be my favorite automotive publication as a kid, over the years I've come to prefer car and driver and road and track a bit more.

Things like that add to Why motortrend slipping away from it's glory days imo. They dyno'd that gt350 in 4th gear. The gt350s 1 to 1 gear is not 4th gear, that tremec's1 to 1 gear is 5th gear.

I used to love MT. It was my favorite of all the magazines. I feel in the last 10 years or so they have really gone down hill. Probably my biggest criticism of them is when they do a first drive of a model, its usually all love maybe a few little complaints but they seem to love every new model on first drives/tests. Then when they get to a comparison test they could say it's the worst vehicle they have ever driven and have tons of complaints that IMO should have been mentioned in the first drive/test.

C&D as of late seems to be the most balanced of the big three auto magazines. and R&T is a little better than they used to be but was never a huge fan of R&T

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I used to love MT. It was my favorite of all the magazines. I feel in the last 10 years or so they have really gone down hill. Probably my biggest criticism of them is when they do a first drive of a model, its usually all love maybe a few little complaints but they seem to love every new model on first drives/tests. Then when they get to a comparison test they could say it's the worst vehicle they have ever driven and have tons of complaints that IMO should have been mentioned in the first drive/test.

C&D as of late seems to be the most balanced of the big three auto magazines. and R&T is a little better than they used to be but was never a huge fan of R&T

Yea they'll flip on a car from article to article. Or when a car isn't hot anymore (or perhaps the maker isn't sponsoring like they used to) issues they used to over look suddenly become glaring weaknesses.

They get too subjective at times (cowboy science?) and what about their 12.0 second redeye lol that was such a bad representation of the redeye... but I still love that they use Randy Pobst, and his input and break down of a cars performance, for a lot of their actual track testing and actually get a pro to squeeze out the cars potential and try to keep that variable controlled by having him run most cars (same driver) unlike the lightning lap.

Having said that I still read and enjoy all three major publications and reading all three gives the best picture with varying perspectives.

[RobbyBeefcake87]

Originally Posted by whiteboyblues2001

Saying "considerably worse" implies that the ZR1 has bad power to weight ratio, and the C8 is worse than that. Not the correct wording since the ZR1 has very good power to weight ratio. And who would expect the base (non Z06 or ZR1) is going to have monster power to weight ratio in the first place? Dumb way to phrase that.

As for the understeer: I believe that Chevy put a large amount of understeer into the C8 for saftey reasons. You start to lose it in a mid-engine car, and it's a beast to control. However, I noticed in the Car & Driver article this: "Both had additional wheel camber dialed in as recommended in their owner's manuals for track use." Adjusting the camber would help reduce underteer quite a bit. And Car & Driver didn't complain about too much understeer either (more than likely because they adjusted the camber).

Seems like Chevy wants to have lots of underteer for the street for saftey, but less for the track for better balance. But, I think that other reviewers didn't adjust the camber, and experienced the street version of understeer.

As for the dyno results: Whoever is running that dyno needs to ventilate their shop better, they are inhaling too many exhaust fumes...

I agree, for sure the understeer is to some degree by design for safety on a high performance mass produced mid engine car that many people will be able to afford. Seems like a lot of widows filing lawsuits is being avoided here.

I'm sure the track camber setting does tame the understeer down some as well.