[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by flooZL1

Your math is a little off. 566 is too high for 15% drivetrain loss. Since 566/0.85 = 666, roughly. We can check this, since 650 * 0.15 = 552.5.

There is always more than one way mathematically to ballpark anything imo. First, the 572 rwhp at STD with a 1.03 correction factor, can be fiqured 572-1.03 % which is now a 566 SAE rwhp #. Just so happens 566 RWHP + a 15 % drivetrain loss which is my way of looking at things simply does = 650. The 566 dyno # represents a drivetrain loss be it what ever you want it to be. 15% is still a viable realistic loss imo for a rear drive front engine vehicle. It also puts the LT4 camaro right at 650 SAE crank horsepower which is the factory rating. 566 + the 15% drivetrain loss is 650.9 horses. I have done my own calculations like this for ball park realistic calculations of RWHP and approx crank HP for years with very close real world accuracy backed up by 1/4 mile trap speeds and ET's

[flooZL1]

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

There is always more than one way mathematically to ballpark anything imo. First, the 572 rwhp at STD with a 1.03 correction factor, can be fiqured 572-1.03 % which is now a 566 SAE rwhp #. Just so happens 566 RWHP + a 15 % drivetrain loss which is my way of looking at things simply does = 650. The 566 dyno # represents a drivetrain loss be it what ever you want it to be. 15% is still a viable realistic loss imo for a rear drive front engine vehicle. It also puts the LT4 camaro right at 650 SAE crank horsepower which is the factory rating. 566 + the 15% drivetrain loss is 650.9 horses. I have done my own calculations like this for ball park realistic calculations of RWHP and approx crank HP for years with very close real world accuracy backed up by 1/4 mile trap speeds and ET's

All I was saying is that 566 isn't a 15% reduction from 650. And since people in this thread are making a fuss over tens of hp as it pertains to SAE vs STD calibration, I figured it was within the scope of the discussion to make the distinction.
There are many factors at play on a track. So I'm sure your methods work fine in your real world applications- it's quicker that way anyways and you don't necessarily need the precision.
But you can't really say 566 + 15% = 650.9. it's off by roughly fifteen horses and simply isn't true.
Also, FWIW, 572 - 1.03% = 555.34, so you're a bit off there as well. That is, assuming I'm understanding your unorthodox nomenclature.

[laynlo15]

Lt4 I understand that but at 15.00 a gallon there is no reason for very little gain if any. I ran on an average of 1100.00 a year in race fuel since I didn't drive my Camaro on the street, now if he wants to add more timing to benefit the use of the 109 thats a plus for sure. He's better off running straight 93 on stock GM timing.

[Ants.ZL1]

Took the car today and added the e85 sensor and tuned it, very happy with the results. Picked up about 50hp and 55 files.

The run in red was from out baseline pull a couple months ago and was the best pull on race gas.
The blue was the base from today, that was after we pulled some fuel at the track and is the tune we ran a 10.99 @127.
The green is the e85 pull.

All in all to pickup that much power and still save on the race fuel is a no brainer.
Ant

[Ants.ZL1]

For all you dyno racers I had him show them in sae, not quite the power lose that you all make it out to be and the power gains are the same imagine that!!!

Ant

[Scottyz]

Impressive. Wish we had E up here.

[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by flooZL1

All I was saying is that 566 isn't a 15% reduction from 650. And since people in this thread are making a fuss over tens of hp as it pertains to SAE vs STD calibration, I figured it was within the scope of the discussion to make the distinction.
There are many factors at play on a track. So I'm sure your methods work fine in your real world applications- it's quicker that way anyways and you don't necessarily need the precision.
But you can't really say 566 + 15% = 650.9. it's off by roughly fifteen horses and simply isn't true.
Also, FWIW, 572 - 1.03% = 555.34, so you're a bit off there as well. That is, assuming I'm understanding your unorthodox nomenclature.

do it with a calculator same way you read it 572 minus 1.03 % = 566.10

[Ants.ZL1]

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

do it with a calculator same way you read it 572 minus 1.03 % = 566.10

Not sure what your talking about car made 585 stock not 572??
572 was the sae corrected result.
Ant

[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by Ants.ZL1

Not sure what your talking about car made 585 stock not 572??
572 was the sae corrected result.
Ant

Look at the post I quoted from.

[CaliforniaKid]

Originally Posted by Ants.ZL1

For all you dyno racers I had him show them in sae, not quite the power lose that you all make it out to be and the power gains are the same imagine that!!!

Ant

Badass results I recently did mine too!

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=581710

[JSH]

These numbers will vary a lot from dyno to dyno

[ZX-10R]

Is the GM fuel system fully E85 compatible? I assume it voids the warranty

[Flowtie1]

Why are people so fixated on the dyno correction. There are so many variables between dynos and altitude density. Just use the same dyno with the same correction factor. Sounds like your car is running great congrats.

[Jason18ZL1LE]

How were these NPP valves closed? When you go WOT even if you are in stealth mode they will open. The car won’t allow WOT to keep the valves closed. It just waits longer to open them.