[SpeedIsLife]

SAE requires the engine to be within (I think) 3% of the 'stated rating' on a properly and confirmed correct engine dyno. They cannot have wildly fluctuating power levels in these cars due to need for consistent baselines for repairs and such..

Small fluctuations are normal.. 455 HP, 453 HP, 458 HP, 456 HP...but not 455 HP, 485HP, 425HP, 475HP...

[JANNETTYRACING]

Guy Guys, Please, your getting caught up in an argument about a Correction factor and not an actual number.

It is 100% true engines make more power when it is cold and less power when it is hot.

A correction factor is only for reference.

A correction factor is Merely what One guy thinks is a standard day, He then uses Math to get back to what he considers a standard day for his part of the world.

and like I said there is a lot of guys out there, I think there are almost 20 different correction factors on the books depending on what part of the world your from.

For Us in the Northeast STP is as close to a standard day as it gets.

My car made 466 Crank HP the day on the dyno, True!!!

I have the Data to prove it.

Lets all play together nicely.

Ted.

[rtcat600man]

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

Guy Guys, Please, your getting caught up in an argument about a Correction factor and not an actual number.

It is 100% true engines make more power when it is cold and less power when it is hot.

A correction factor is only for reference.

A correction factor is Merely what One guy thinks is a standard day, He then uses Math to get back to what he considers a standard day for his part of the world.

and like I said there is a lot of guys out there, I think there are almost 20 different correction factors on the books depending on what part of the world your from.

For Us in the Northeast STP is as close to a standard day as it gets.

My car made 466 Crank HP the day on the dyno, True!!!

I have the Data to prove it.

Lets all play together nicely.

Ted.

SO TRUE. THANK - YOU

Sort of like using DA for 1/4 mile times. Strictly to help level the playing field when it comes to bench racing.

Every DYNO is different, every engine is different, and every day is different. It is only a number. All too funny how so many get hung up on a number only!

[IOMike]

Originally Posted by doc7000

I do not totally buy into the under rating idea, it is really tempting especially since cars in the 1960s were at times notoriously under rated.

The SAE testing method involves testing with a third party witness of the test, so I do think that it isn't likely to be under rated.

As far as drive line losses go there are some vehicles with really low drive line losses, so it is possible that the Camaro SS is only seeing 10-15% drive line loss (maybe closer to 12 or 13%).

However dynos are only good for one thing really, one is to test the modifications that you make (this is why tuners make a baseline run). The reason being is that depending on the dyno used and the conditions that the car is run in numbers will vary widely. This is why you are suppose to use correction factors, you really can't compare cars tested on different dynos let alone results that have not been corrected. So assuming that the 2016 Camaro SS has a 13% drive line loss, it is possible that on that day their Camaro really was producing 475BHP (some 20 over the SAE rated numbers). However once the numbers are corrected then they would come down to 455BHP ...

Also food for thought, I believe it was motor trend who tested a GT350 and GT350R Mustang and they got a result that was about 3BHP higher for the GT350R. Production variations withstanding the GT350R has carbon fiber wheels which weigh less then the wheels on the standard GT350 which can account for the difference. Meaning that the GT350R has less drive line loss then the standard car.

60's cars were underrated but used a rating system that showed much much higher numbers than today's, so they were actually mostly "over rated". The way they rated hp changed sometime around 1973 and then again about 8 or 10 years ago. The numbers got lower and lower again, when the same engine was used.

GM uses SAE. Had they used STD or STP, that 455 or 458 would have been more like 470.

[HDRDTD]

Originally Posted by rtcat600man

SO TRUE. THANK - YOU

Sort of like using DA for 1/4 mile times. Strictly to help level the playing field when it comes to bench racing.

Every DYNO is different, every engine is different, and every day is different. It is only a number. All too funny how so many get hung up on a number only!

As long as the number for MY car come out high enough to make me happy, I don't care HOW they did it. LOL

And yes the dyno numbers for my car came out just fine and were the same from two different dyno's on completely different day.

As they say, you're getting way to hung up on specific numbers various people are measuring and comparing those numbers to the published manufacturing specs. I'd only be concerned if the measured number would fall short of the advertised numbers.

And yes, I'd agree myself that the driveline losses could very well be one of the big area's they're concentrating on improving for many reasons.

Just sit back and be very happy with the performance of the new SS's, and hold on to your shorts, I can only dream of the numbers a new ZL1 (or whatever they call it) will put down.

The current Gen6 SS is already darn close to Gen5 ZL1 performance numbers in some area's.

[IOMike]

Stock vs stock, the SS is 95% equal to the Zl1. With better tires, like the zl1 has I'd say it's 98% there, just like Mark R alluded too.

[Revo1]

Wow. Very impressive numbers...

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by Revo1

Wow. Very impressive numbers...

Yes and the manual cars are putting down similar numbers as well.

Proper dyno test procedures are critical to obtaining accurate repeatable numbers.

These cars are under rated at 455/455 they are actually 465/465

The most impressive gains so far have been the ARH long tube headers and exhaust see this thread. http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=436608

[SpeedIsLife]

Again, under rating cannot happen under SAE testing.

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by SpeedIsLife

Again, under rating cannot happen under SAE testing.

+1

The engines make +-1% of their rated power.

[Slem]

Well that's impressive numbers and great to hear

[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

Just off the dyno with 250 miles on the Odometer decided we could not wait any longer.

414 RWHP 430 RWTQ.

Astounding torque at 2600 rpm.

Did they do any tuning after the baseline pull?, I live in Connecticut, how well did they treat you? how much did it cost you to make 1 pull, 2 pulls, etc. I have a C7 and no one that I know has done any LT1 tuning yet.

[lt4camaro]

that's 476 crank hp figuring a 15 % drive train loss. The Camaro because of the tri y exhaust manifolds put out 10 to 15 more horse than the average LT1 C7

[SpeedIsLife]

Modern transmission losses, especially automatics, lose much less than before. You need to be looking at closer to 10% losses vs 15%+...parasitic loss isn't static and you can't just do hard figures like that.

The fact is the LT1 is certified, in the Camaro, at 455HP. That means it can range from 450ish to 460...not 470+.