[Biscuit.fr]

Just a question:
Why GM still go with 650/650
As almost all dynos show 580/580
?????
If we want to be right, why don't tell the car is 580hp......

[flyinlow]

Originally Posted by Biscuit.fr

Just a question:
Why GM still go with 650/650
As almost all dynos show 580/580
?????
If we want to be right, why don't tell the car is 580hp......

All the manufacturers rate their horsepower and torque at the crankshaft. As long as they are all doing it the same, power loss through the drivetrains is fairly equal across the manufacturers. The numbers people post are what you see when someone puts their car on a wheel dyno.

[DrkPhx]

STD corrected numbers typically read about 2.6-3% higher than SAE.

[cwebster]

Originally Posted by wnta1ss

On a dynojet, 'STD' is used to inflate the numbers, period. Another trick to inflate the numbers that this dyno guy used was turning the smoothing off (Smoothing:0). What that does is, makes more pronounced peaks, which can cause a higher max number to be printed. Not criticizing you personally Cal, just explaining why your numbers seem higher than other ZL1 sheets that members have posted.

I see what you're saying and your logic appears to be sound. So why would some shops use the SAE correction factor with or without smoothing just for a bone-stock baseline? This type of dyno pull can only be used as comparison for some future mod or to compare with other cars with similar power-plants. At any rate, the comparative value is diminished if everyone uses different parameters.

I have been unable to find very many other Camaro6 forum members posting stock dyno numbers. That's why I posted this thread, hoping to see what others are getting. Naturally, when you get a new muscle car you wan't to see how it stacks up against the others. Nothing wrong with that, right? I was particularly interested to see whether there is any discernible difference between the M6 and A10 in terms of power to the rear wheels.

Here's all I was able to find searching the forums so far:

Only found one thread besides mine dealing with stock 6th Gen ZL1 dyno runs: Dyno

Rik
Hi guys I took my ZL1 to the local dyno to see what it was putting out standard from the factory. I was disappointed with the results tbo it put out 480 bhp to the wheels but that is on a mustang dyno and not a dynojet and it was also 110 degrees in the shop that day so it was pulling timing. If anyone knows the mustang dyno it usually gives a 15% lower figure than a dyno jet as it is a load bearing dyno and is more realistic so in theory it would of been 552bhp on a dyno jet. Has anyone else had there car on a dyno yet ?

NicD
Had two stock ones on the dyno so far, the A10 made 530 rwhp and the M6 made 545 rwhp on a standard Dynojet dyno. Now keep in mind we have crap gas out here in AZ with hot dry air so we kind of suck compared to the rest of the US.

Jinkz
My m6 on a dyno jet
https://youtu.be/5qjKSBTNil4

^^ Showed 564 HP 535 TQ with ODO 300 miles
Doesn't show CF or Smoothing but curves look similar to my "un-smoothed" pull.

TheElementalCashew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rik View Post
Is that yours on there dyno ? 521/515 ?
Yes sir.

.
Here's what I've found on YouTube so far:


ZL1 Tommy
Bone stock 2017 ZL1 Dyno at Houston House of Power.

DynoJet 2-wheel: 546 HP 532 TQ
No CF or Smoothing shown but graph looks like my un-smoothed curves
No mileage given but the post was last Nov 15. Must have been one of the first and couldn't have had more than a few hundred miles on it.

Hennessey Performance
2017 ZL1 Camaro 567 Rear Wheel HP Dyno Test

DynoJet 2-wheel: 567 HP 570 TQ
no mileage listed
CF: STD Smoothing: 5

GoFastLife
WOW New 2017 Camaro ZL1 Makes how much power stock EDIT (Dyno Day)

Claims (video overlay): 606 RWHP (No TQ value)
ODO: 200 miles
Unknown in-ground dyno
No stated or visible CF or smoothing
Didn't seem like a WOT pull - really slow

Sharp Shifter
2017 ZL1 Camaro dyno 570 hp 545 tq STOCK

DynoJet elevated 2-wheel: 570 HP 545 TQ
CF: SAE Smoothing: 5
Doesn't say mileage

[Summary]

RWHP & Torque  Dyno Type  CF  Smoothing  Mileage
 
582 HP 574 TQ  DynoJet    STD 0          2200    ** Mine
480 HP ??? TQ  Mustang    ??? ?          ?
545 HP ??? TQ  DynoJet    ??? ?          ?
564 HP 535 TQ  DynoJet    ??? ?          300
521 HP 515 TQ  Dynocom    ??? ?          300
546 HP 532 TQ  DynoJet    ??? ?          ?
567 HP 570 TQ  DynoJet    STD 5          ?
606 HP ??? TQ  ???        ??? ?          200
570 HP 545 TQ  DynoJet    SAE 5          ?

Throw out the extreme high/low outliers and we're looking at from 521 HP 515 TQ to 582 HP 574 TQ.

Based on what I'm seeing, even given the variations in correction factors and smoothing, It would seem that my car is still on the high side. Also, if the one comparative pair of dyno runs in the Camaro6 post is any indication, the M6 should be getting slightly higher numbers than the A10. The A10 makes up for this with the relative ease at which that engineering marvel of a tranny transitions the torque to the wheels, reducing wheel spin that I've been seeing on the M6.

--Cal

[Can'tHave2MuchHP]

You know I'm not sure if this is 100% accurate but I heard Jeremy Formato from Fasterproms (One of the best late model GM tuners in the country that I know of) say that anytime a dyno pull is done on a day that is hotter than 70 degrees Fahrenheit, tuners should use STD. He also says that SAE is based on a 60 degree day, and STD is based on a 70 degree day. So STD gives more power/tq to compensate for hotter temps?

[NicD]

Originally Posted by Can'tHave2MuchHP

You know I'm not sure if this is 100% accurate but I heard Jeremy Formato from Fasterproms (One of the best late model GM tuners in the country that I know of) say that anytime a dyno pull is done on a day that is hotter than 70 degrees Fahrenheit, tuners should use STD. He also says that SAE is based on a 60 degree day, and STD is based on a 70 degree day. So STD gives more power/tq to compensate for hotter temps?

It's not accurate at all. People use STD correction factors to give the customer a higher power number than SAE. They just correct to different set air conditions that's all.

[Can'tHave2MuchHP]

Originally Posted by NicD

It's not accurate at all. People use STD correction factors to give the customer a higher power number than SAE. They just correct to different set air conditions that's all.

[cwebster]

Originally Posted by VAZL1

Buzz Kill....

HaHaHa! Yeah, it's a little deflating but I'm sure wnta1ss was just trying to keep things in perspective, as he indicated. I'm not sure I could attribute some nefarious motive to the choice of CF, though. It may just be a matter of personal preference. I watched this tuner setup another pull before me with the same CF/Smoothing while he conducted a complete tune on a power mod.

I'd rather know as much as I can about the way these dyno tests are conducted so I can make more accurate judgements on what my car is doing.

Originally Posted by Zeke.Malvo

+1

Another observation over the years is that I've generally have seen higher tq numbers when the dyno operator starts the run at 3000+ rpm than lower in the rpm range such as 2000 rpm. Peak hp seems unaffected tho.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Okay, I haven't heard anyone else say that but I'll take your word on it. This guy did a total of 6 runs, some closer to 2000 and some near 3000. All but the first were in this same range. The first run was thrown out due to wheel spin. Apparently the light rear-end and high initial torque was too much. For the remaining runs they used a high-traction spray on the tires and had one of the heavier guys sit in the trunk opening.

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I think I got a stroke from trying to read and understand all that...

Yup, it's a lot to digest. Certainly more that most (including me) can absorb in one reading.

Originally Posted by DrkPhx

STD corrected numbers typically read about 2.6-3% higher than SAE.

Thanks for that perspective. Even with that adjustment, my numbers are on the high side at 565 HP 557 TQ. I did find other recent ZL1 M6 DynoJet pulls that used SAE and STD CF's. They don't seem to bear this out, though. The SAE CF seems to result in a higher values than the STD. Of course, the operator may have used other settings that weren't published too. It's all relative anyway. I'm just trying to get a ballpark comparison.

STD: 567 HP 570 TQ
SAE: 570 HP 545 TQ


Thanks for all the feedback guys!

--Cal

[cwebster]

Originally Posted by Can'tHave2MuchHP

You know I'm not sure if this is 100% accurate but I heard Jeremy Formato from Fasterproms (One of the best late model GM tuners in the country that I know of) say that anytime a dyno pull is done on a day that is hotter than 70 degrees Fahrenheit, tuners should use STD. He also says that SAE is based on a 60 degree day, and STD is based on a 70 degree day. So STD gives more power/tq to compensate for hotter temps?

That would make sense.

Originally Posted by NicD

It's not accurate at all. People use STD correction factors to give the customer a higher power number than SAE. They just correct to different set air conditions that's all.

That seemed a little unkind...

[TheElementalCashew]

Originally Posted by cwebster

I see what you're saying and your logic appears to be sound. So why would some shops use the SAE correction factor with or without smoothing just for a bone-stock baseline? This type of dyno pull can only be used as comparison for some future mod or to compare with other cars with similar power-plants. At any rate, the comparative value is diminished if everyone uses different parameters.

I have been unable to find very many other Camaro6 forum members posting stock dyno numbers. That's why I posted this thread, hoping to see what others are getting. Naturally, when you get a new muscle car you wan't to see how it stacks up against the others. Nothing wrong with that, right? I was particularly interested to see whether there is any discernible difference between the M6 and A10 in terms of power to the rear wheels.

Here's all I was able to find searching the forums so far:

Only found one thread besides mine dealing with stock 6th Gen ZL1 dyno runs: Dyno
^^ Showed 564 HP 535 TQ with ODO 300 miles
Doesn't show CF or Smoothing but curves look similar to my "un-smoothed" pull.

.
Here's what I've found on YouTube so far:


ZL1 Tommy
Bone stock 2017 ZL1 Dyno at Houston House of Power.

DynoJet 2-wheel: 546 HP 532 TQ
No CF or Smoothing shown but graph looks like my un-smoothed curves
No mileage given but the post was last Nov 15. Must have been one of the first and couldn't have had more than a few hundred miles on it.

Hennessey Performance
2017 ZL1 Camaro 567 Rear Wheel HP Dyno Test

DynoJet 2-wheel: 567 HP 570 TQ
no mileage listed
CF: STD Smoothing: 5

GoFastLife
WOW New 2017 Camaro ZL1 Makes how much power stock EDIT (Dyno Day)

Claims (video overlay): 606 RWHP (No TQ value)
ODO: 200 miles
Unknown in-ground dyno
No stated or visible CF or smoothing
Didn't seem like a WOT pull - really slow

Sharp Shifter
2017 ZL1 Camaro dyno 570 hp 545 tq STOCK

DynoJet elevated 2-wheel: 570 HP 545 TQ
CF: SAE Smoothing: 5
Doesn't say mileage

[Summary]

RWHP & Torque  Dyno Type  CF  Smoothing  Mileage
 
582 HP 574 TQ  DynoJet    STD 0          2200    ** Mine
480 HP ??? TQ  Mustang    ??? ?          ?
545 HP ??? TQ  DynoJet    ??? ?          ?
564 HP 535 TQ  DynoJet    ??? ?          300
521 HP 515 TQ  ???        ??? ?          ?
546 HP 532 TQ  DynoJet    ??? ?          ?
567 HP 570 TQ  DynoJet    STD 5          ?
606 HP ??? TQ  ???        ??? ?          200
570 HP 545 TQ  DynoJet    SAE 5          ?

Throw out the extreme high/low outliers and we're looking at from 521 HP 515 TQ to 582 HP 574 TQ.

Based on what I'm seeing, even given the variations in correction factors and smoothing, It would seem that my car is still on the high side. Also, if the one comparative pair of dyno runs in the Camaro6 post is any indication, the M6 should be getting slightly higher numbers than the A10. The A10 makes up for this with the relative ease at which that engineering marvel of a tranny transitions the torque to the wheels, reducing wheel spin that I've been seeing on the M6.

--Cal

Regarding my dyno run, it was run around 300 miles and the operator also had issues getting it to stay hooked to the rollers. I'm also fairly certain, after watching other dyno videos and sheets, that the operator did not run it all the way through the RPM. I have a YouTube video out there somewhere I'll have to look for.

[TheElementalCashew]

Here we go. https://youtu.be/8gf-yk-s0xU

[cwebster]

Originally Posted by TheElementalCashew

Regarding my dyno run, it was run around 300 miles and the operator also had issues getting it to stay hooked to the rollers. I'm also fairly certain, after watching other dyno videos and sheets, that the operator did not run it all the way through the RPM. I have a YouTube video out there somewhere I'll have to look for.

Yeah, it sounded like he was well shy of the 6600 rev limiter. The scoreboard shows that his highest RPM was 5950. They didn't even sound that high to me but that could be just how it's rendered in the video.

It's hard to read those curves too but torque should jump to max almost immediately, somewhere around 3k RPM. I can't tell what type of dyno they're using but it doesn't look like any that I've looked at so far - certainly not a DynoJet.

I've updated my summary with your mileage.

Thanks for the feedback.

--Cal

[TheElementalCashew]

Originally Posted by cwebster

Yeah, it sounded like he was well shy of the 6600 rev limiter. The scoreboard shows that his highest RPM was 5950. They didn't even sound that high to me but that could be just how it's rendered in the video.

It's hard to read those curves too but torque should jump to max almost immediately, somewhere around 3k RPM. I can't tell what type of dyno they're using but it doesn't look like any that I've looked at so far - certainly not a DynoJet.

I've updated my summary with your mileage.

Thanks for the feedback.

--Cal

Yeah, I noticed when it was happening that it seemed to top out really quickly, but didn't think anything about it at the time. Once I hit break-in mileage I'll go back and make sure they do it properly. I'll get another before and after they put in the headers.

[NicD]

Originally Posted by cwebster

That seemed a little unkind...

LOL well it wasn't meant to be unkind or kind at all, just that you don't pick your correction factor based on ambient temperature. Shops use STD correction factors when they want to give the customer a higher number and that's all.